EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

RDKirk wrote in post #18712393
Better than rewinding the film and changing cartridges every 36 shot.

Or changing roll film every 12 or 24 shots.

Hint from the past: When the battery meter first hits the last segment, take the next predictable lull in activity to change it.

What you just shared is a good dose of wisdom. Had you read what others shared about shorter battery life leading to not capturing a moment? They could just as easily lose a special moment with double battery life if they wait for batteries to go dead.

In a previous post, I mentioned reading about a grip for the EOS R. In this video, the man appears to have one attached.

Don't forget the original no-flipping mirror, the Canon Pellix in 1965

mdvaden wrote in post #18712410
What you just shared is a good dose of wisdom. Had you read what others shared about shorter battery life leading to not capturing a moment? They could just as easily lose a special moment with double battery life if they wait for batteries to go dead.

In a previous post, I mentioned reading about a grip for the EOS R. In this video, the man appears to have one attached.

I still have a few cameras that have low battery. The most annoying thing is running multiple time lapse only to find one dead Midway through. there are workarounds, but annoying to deal with.

You can't always prepare for that. Just an annoyance you get use to because features of mirrorless far outweigh the pitfalls.

I'm really interested in how Canon/ Nikon tackles the issue, Canon will bound to have another camera in 6 months.

mdvaden wrote in post #18712266
Here's a question for you and everybody else. And it's not a question for debate, I'm just curious what other think.

What's a good price tag for an EOS R MK ii ?

Tough to say but... the camera I would compare it to most, pound for pound, feature for feature is the Fuji XT-3--especially for video. There's a lot of similarities there.
If it had been $1700-1800 I would very much have said, "Ok, that's not bad. Sure it's not a Sony A7R3, but it sure is a lot cheaper and you don't get everything for $1700...you make a few compromises. Ok. No biggie."

Instead my question is: "Why is it priced like cameras that have all the features it lacks?"

Wilt wrote in post #18711997
A rather recent Canon patent revolves around pairing in-lens IS (three axes correction) with in-camera corrections for yaw/tilt/rotation.

I thought Olympus has already such technology and claims like up to 5,5 stops?

Ah-keong wrote in post #18712488
I thought Olympus has already such technology and claims like up to 5,5 stops?

Per Olympus, “The in-body stabilization itself gives 5.5 stops, and the Sync IS gives 6.5 stops with OIS lenses. 6.5 stops is actually a theoretical limitation at the moment due to rotation of the earth interfering with gyro sensors.”

https://petapixel.com …bilization-6-5-stops-max/

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18712483
Tough to say but... the camera I would compare it to most, pound for pound, feature for feature is the Fuji XT-3--especially for video. There's a lot of similarities there.
If it had been $1700-1800 I would very much have said, "Ok, that's not bad. Sure it's not a Sony A7R3, but it sure is a lot cheaper and you don't get everything for $1700...you make a few compromises. Ok. No biggie."

Instead my question is: "Why is it priced like cameras that have all the features it lacks?"

That’s my biggest issue with the EOS R - priced like a premium camera without the features. I’m sure IQ is great and the ergos are too, but compared to everything else it’s competing with it’s just too much. If the trend continues that means the pro bodies (once released) will probably be more than competitors as well, with free customary Canon crippling of function.

Ah-keong wrote in post #18712488
I thought Olympus has already such technology and claims like up to 5,5 stops?

Yeah and Sony also have both lens and in body stabilisation combined.

Lyndön wrote in post #18712510
That’s my biggest issue with the EOS R - priced like a premium camera without the features. I’m sure IQ is great and the ergos are too, but compared to everything else it’s competing with it’s just too much. If the trend continues that means the pro bodies (once released) will probably be more than competitors as well, with free customary Canon crippling of function.

It isn't priced like a premium, it is priced at the level of a 6d, the entry low cost FF that Canon offered just 6 years ago.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18712551
It isn't priced like a premium, it is priced at the level of a 6d, the entry low cost FF that Canon offered just 6 years ago.

In the UK it's at a premium price, currently a couple of hundred quid less than a 5dsr.

In DK both the Nikon and Canon mirror less are around 300€ more expensive than their "equivalent"(III generation) sony competitors. Second generation of the Sonys are silly cheap by now.

fordmondeo wrote in post #18712559
In the UK it's at a premium price, currently a couple of hundred quid less than a 5dsr.

1) We are talking about Tennessee USA, not UK
2) The EOS-R is listed at 15% higher than the 6D2 when it was announced.
3) The 5DS, although considered somewhat a premium FF, isn't priced anything close to when it was announced, it is well over $1000 less at this point.

The EOS-R ISN'T priced at a premium price, it is priced near the lowest of the FF offerings by Canon when they are first introduced, and now at a price of the 5DS these days, 3 years later after their introduction. That doesn't mean the EOS-R is priced at a premium.

The price points will be $2300 (EOS-R), somewhere around $3600 (whatever the next level is), and around $5200 (top tier), if they do indeed come out with 2 new models higher than the EOS-R. This aligns somewhat with the price tiers of the 5D4 and 1DX, both of which are higher than the 6D2, and thus the EOS-R.

RDKirk wrote in post #18712385
There has never been any doubt that eliminating the flapping mirror would be a technological advancement. Canon realized that 'way back in 1972 with the pellicle mirror in a special edition of the F-1, and then again in EOS Rt in 1990.

Don't forget the late 1990's EOS 1N RS.

Although I don't see it as much as a "technological advancement", more as a way to solve the problem of getting higher frame rates in the analog (film) era. The cost was that you lost about 1/3 or 1/2 a stop of light (I don't remember the exact number now).

Mike

soeren wrote in post #18712562
In DK both the Nikon and Canon mirror less are around 300€ more expensive than their "equivalent"(III generation) sony competitors. Second generation of the Sonys are silly cheap by now.

Canon has always had a price point higher than Sony, even the 6D2 was over priced when it came out. That is Canon in general, and nothing to do with the EOS-R.

All people are complaining about really is that Canon didn't offer a mirrorless in their budget range. If one complains about the price of the EOS-R, and compares it to the Sony A73 or the 5DS prices, chances are they are unlikely to buy any of them, and expected Canon to come out with some sort of mirrorless FF that was at some $1000 - $1500 price point. That, quite frankly, is totally unreasonable given past events and prices across the board.

Give it 6 months, the EOS-R will price lower, and in 8-10 months, for those in the US anyways, will be able to pick up limited stock in the Canon refurbished store. So patience = savings for those on a budget.

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18712483
Tough to say but... the camera I would compare it to most, pound for pound, feature for feature is the Fuji XT-3--especially for video. There's a lot of similarities there.
If it had been $1700-1800 I would very much have said, "Ok, that's not bad. Sure it's not a Sony A7R3, but it sure is a lot cheaper and you don't get everything for $1700...you make a few compromises. Ok. No biggie."

Instead my question is: "Why is it priced like cameras that have all the features it lacks?"

It's been obvious, to me at least, since the EOS 6Dii was released, that Canon doesn't consider a $2000 body "professional". You have to go at least into the $3000 range (5Div) to get those features.

Whether that's appropriate for the marketplace or not, it's how Canon does it. They're gambling that pros or others who need those features will pay the premium to stay within their ecosystem instead of jump to other manufacturers.

Mike