EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18770203
Kind of amazing that a "little" 50mm is moving so much glass that it uses the same new AF motor found in the heavyweight 400mm f/2.8L III !!

Wait till you see what that little 50 does at F/1.2....Holy crapola it is impressive and it hits right now. No questions asked. From that article , I can see why it costs so much more.....All those electronics....has me concerned with bad weather and rain. my 300F/2.8 was soaked this week after shooting in the rain all day....Cant imagine these lens with all the electronics are going to be good with rainy weather

mdvaden wrote in post #18770137
The conclusion of the LensRetals page may partly uncover one reason why Canon took a while to release it's first FF mirrorless since the body and lenses are basically coupled together.

https://www.lensrental​s.com …nd9bX2CW3Gfn2SU​uDgrMKIrMs

RE dissassembly of the RF 50mm 1.2

...

I wonder how well and how soon other manufacturers such Sigma will implement the RF mount.

Coderunner wrote in post #18770654
I wonder how well and how soon other manufacturers such Sigma will implement the RF mount.

Until the RF mount was widely used I assume there would be little point in a third party manufacturer just building a current lens with an R mount. Though I guess if they could made a lens for EOS R and Nikon Z (taking advantage of the optical design benefits of the shorter registration distance) then that might make financial sense.

sploo wrote in post #18770731
Until the RF mount was widely used I assume there would be little point in a third party manufacturer just building a current lens with an R mount. Though I guess if they could made a lens for EOS R and Nikon Z (taking advantage of the optical design benefits of the shorter registration distance) then that might make financial sense.

Oh i think this is exactly WHY canon has gone to an R mount. Optics and 3rd party lens will NEVER be able to be made for these bodies and they will never work remotely close to the original R lens. Did you see Rogers post from lens rentals and all the electronics in that 50R. He stopped about 3/4 of the way. Just too much in there ..... I can only imagine what the electronic programming must be like to get it all to work right with the camera body and its electronics

Me things Sigma and Tamron are gonna be in trouble

umphotography wrote in post #18770739
Oh i think this is exactly WHY canon has gone to an R mount. Optics and 3rd party lens will NEVER be able to be made for these bodies and they will never work remotely close to the original R lens. Did you see Rogers post from lens rentals and all the electronics in that 50R. He stopped about 3/4 of the way. Just too much in there ..... I can only imagine what the electronic programming must be like to get it all to work right with the camera body and its electronics

Me things Sigma and Tamron are gonna be in trouble

Well... there are third party mirrorless lenses for other brands aren't there? (same design considerations).

Reverse engineering a more complex electronic communication would indeed be more difficult - heck Canon may even have encrypted the comms in the R system (for R bodies with R lenses).

The barrier is likely to be more above investment vs return; right now it probably wouldn't make sense for Sigma or Tamron to market a lens specifically designed for the R (or Nikon Z) mount as the numbers wouldn't add up. Canon obviously have to do it as they need to support their new body.

After thinking about it for the past few weeks, I finally made the purchase. This will be my 2nd body (I have a 1DXII) for sports and weddings. (I only do about 3 or 4 weddings a year). However, I hope to make this my main body for my portrait sessions.

Here are some of the factors that helped me make up my mind.

I was not concerned with lack of video features. In the past 3 years, I have probably taken a total of 5 minutes of video. However, in case I want to take a quick video shot of my grandkids, the 1080p with DPAF will be more than adequate for me.

While the frame rate is rather low, everything I have seen, including a video from Peter Read Miller, a famous SI photographer, says the AF-Servo is great, so I should still be able to use this body as my 2nd sports shooter. Mainly for wider shots, when I have a long telephoto on my 1DXII.

All reports I have read or seen, show that performance with adapted EF lenses is excellent. So I will be able to use all of my existing glass without any worries whatsoever until I am able to start acquiring RF glass.

I am very excited about being able to use eye af (even though it currently does not work with AF-Servo) with my portrait sessions. Also, the fact that I don't have to worry about AFMA with any of my lenses is a huge benefit.

I will post some shots as soon as I am able to.

tim1970 wrote in post #18770774
After thinking about it for the past few weeks, I finally made the purchase. This will be my 2nd body (I have a 1DXII) for sports and weddings. (I only do about 3 or 4 weddings a year). However, I hope to make this my main body for my portrait sessions.

Here are some of the factors that helped me make up my mind.

I was not concerned with lack of video features. In the past 3 years, I have probably taken a total of 5 minutes of video. However, in case I want to take a quick video shot of my grandkids, the 1080p with DPAF will be more than adequate for me.

While the frame rate is rather low, everything I have seen, including a video from Peter Read Miller, a famous SI photographer, says the AF-Servo is great, so I should still be able to use this body as my 2nd sports shooter. Mainly for wider shots, when I have a long telephoto on my 1DXII.

All reports I have read or seen, show that performance with adapted EF lenses is excellent. So I will be able to use all of my existing glass without any worries whatsoever until I am able to start acquiring RF glass.

I am very excited about being able to use eye af (even though it currently does not work with AF-Servo) with my portrait sessions. Also, the fact that I don't have to worry about AFMA with any of my lenses is a huge benefit.

I will post some shots as soon as I am able to.

I will be very curious as to how it works out for you i have had one in the cart twice now and I am thinking same thoughts as to what you said. probably a perfect portrait camera and I dont do video

Did you decide on any RF lens. I now the 24-105 is tops on my list

Right now I haven't bought any RF lenses. I have been looking really hard at the 24-105 also, but I am not sure if I can justify having it AND the 24-70 f/2.8II. I am afraid the f/4 wouldn't be fast enough for weddings and other low light events I do. The 50mm 1.2 is also very intriguing. I might be in the minority with this statement, but I have always felt that 35mm was too wide for me on full frame. 50mm seems to suit my style of shooting better. I might just go with the EF 50 1.8 STM right now, especially since it is so close in price to the RF 50 1.2

tim1970 wrote in post #18770886
Right now I haven't bought any RF lenses. I have been looking really hard at the 24-105 also, but I am not sure if I can justify having it AND the 24-70 f/2.8II. I am afraid the f/4 wouldn't be fast enough for weddings and other low light events I do. The 50mm 1.2 is also very intriguing. I might be in the minority with this statement, but I have always felt that 35mm was too wide for me on full frame. 50mm seems to suit my style of shooting better. I might just go with the EF 50 1.8 STM right now, especially since it is so close in price to the RF 50 1.2

If the RF 50 is too high, why not the Tamron 45mm? I've got the Tamron 35mm and 85mm and they are very nice lenses, along with VC ... check the close focus distance, if its like the 35mm, both lenses could improvise for macro-like photos, say for rings, bouquets, etc..

About $400 I see right now looking at price. Could be a good match for the EOS R, and its on Tamron's compatable list.

umphotography wrote in post #18770739
Oh i think this is exactly WHY canon has gone to an R mount. Optics and 3rd party lens will NEVER be able to be made for these bodies and they will never work remotely close to the original R lens. Did you see Rogers post from lens rentals and all the electronics in that 50R. He stopped about 3/4 of the way. Just too much in there ..... I can only imagine what the electronic programming must be like to get it all to work right with the camera body and its electronics

Me things Sigma and Tamron are gonna be in trouble

I'm not 100% convinced - given that the EOS R needs to backwards support all the existing EF & EFS lenses at least in the current iteration, the third party lens makers currently have lenses that function using already-known protocols. Wouldn't surprise me if the large third parties had R lenses being taken apart the day they were available.

joeseph wrote in post #18771126
I'm not 100% convinced - given that the EOS R needs to backwards support all the existing EF & EFS lenses at least in the current iteration, the third party lens makers currently have lenses that function using already-known protocols. Wouldn't surprise me if the large third parties had R lenses being taken apart the day they were available.

One possibility is R optics in 3rd-party lenses that have EF electronics, as far as the R body sees. In other words, the lens fits like an R lens, and takes advantage of the closer sensor optically, but appears as an EF lens on an adapter to the camera. Provided, of course, that Canon hasn't locked out this possibility somehow.

Of course there will be 3rd party lenses for the RF mount eventually. 1) That is what 3rd party manufacturers do and 2) It behooves Canon to allow other party lenses, the more versatile a camera body, the more sales Canon will have. As a term I have seen in the past, that is business 101.

I agree. If canon somehow prevents 3rd party lenses that would be a huge reason for many to go to another brand of camera.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18771226
I agree. If canon somehow prevents 3rd party lenses that would be a huge reason for many to go to another brand of camera.

If Canon masters a camera overcoming quirks, with great lenses, backwards compatible perfectly , plus extra control rings, I would see no reason to go to another brand for most general shooting. Likewise for Nikon. That fact that some Tamron lenses are now having firmware problems with the new EOS R, is a on reason for why maybe not to go with 3rd party. What matters may not be whether 3rd party lenses in the future adapt or not, but whether the new RF lenses and EF adapting are exceptional. Because that would be a"huge reason" for others to look at the Canon brand. Just looking at the EOS R, there are so many backwards compatible lenses, and such good quality in the new RF lenses, there is no lack of glass. Plus it will adapt the many Sigma Art, Tamron, Zeiss and Rokinon as it is. Rokinon will still cut cost corners with manual focus lens, and it will likely still adapt to an EOS R after the next 20 RF lenses are released.

3rd party companies released many decent lenses the past few years, and that may have offered Canon a lot more leeway.

Thousands of shooters want inexpensive gear.