EOS-R - It's out. Thoughts?

Agustin.Reyes wrote in post #18713014
I have one question, is someone could answer it I would appreciate it very much


The EOS R corrects distortion (and more) with the RF lenses in real time, as you shoot. My question is, if I use an EF lens -like the 16-35 f/2.8 III- with the EF-RF adapter, will the EOS R correct it in the final image within the camera?

Most of what Canon has been advertising with R lenses is that with the new format, the lenses can have better optics. From what I've seen, because of the smaller flange distance, the lenses can have elements that are further back (which leads to better light transmission and less aberration). So the camera isn't "correcting" optics....a 16-35mm EF lens shouldn't be any different on adapted Canon R vs Canon 5D4.

Doomed.

mdvaden wrote in post #18713057
Good number of UN-EDITED photos shown in this video ...

Holy cow -- he says most of the shots were done with a 24-105.

If that's the case... the kit lens might be enough to convince me to get an EOS R.

(I'll still wait for more reviews and lens comparisons, of course )

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18713167
Doomed.

Nah, Canon can sell turds sprinkled with glitter, and the faithful still buy up big. Because Canon. Look at the EOS M.

speedync wrote in post #18713185
Nah, Canon can sell turds sprinkled with glitter, and the faithful still buy up big. Because Canon. Look at the EOS M.

M50 has been the best selling mirrorless camera in Japan for weeks and now it is #1 selling interchangeable camera beating out all dslr competition in Japan. Obviously, Canon knows what they’re doing, customers are not stupid. There is a very good reason why customers trust Canon. Such trust is not earned by spec sheets but by decades of releasing and supporting excellent products. All three mounts, EF, EF-M and RF have bright future ahead. While enthusiasts have choice, the standard beginner recommendation is still Canon.

artsf wrote in post #18713188
Obviously, Canon knows what they’re doing, customers are not stupid.

I’d dispute that. I think it’s the exact opposite. Otherwise, how do they sell cameras like the 100D, & its successor, the 200D? A more antiquated camera is near impossible to find. And Canon pitches those as “competition” to mirrorless cameras? Really? In what universe?
Please don’t try & equate sales numbers with a good camera. Like, for example, it’s taken Canon SIX, yes SIX years to come out with a native 50mm equivalent fov prime lens. I gave up waiting 3 or more years ago. Contrast that with what Fujifilm have managed from scratch, with their APS-C lineup. We won’t even look at what’s available for m4/3.

speedync wrote in post #18713191
I’d dispute that. I think it’s the exact opposite. Otherwise, how do they sell cameras like the 100D, & its successor, the 200D? A more antiquated camera is near impossible to find. And Canon pitches those as “competition” to mirrorless cameras? Really? In what universe?
Please don’t try & equate sales numbers with a good camera. Like, for example, it’s taken Canon SIX, yes SIX years to come out with a native 50mm equivalent fov prime lens. I gave up waiting 3 or more years ago. Contrast that with what Fujifilm have managed from scratch, with their APS-C lineup. We won’t even look at what’s available for m4/3.

I had a 100D. So I'm stupid for buying it am I?

Choderboy wrote in post #18713200
I had a 100D. So I'm stupid for buying it am I?

Well, all I’ll say, is that there are FAR better options available, if you’re not married to Canon

davesrose wrote in post #18713104
Actually. from what I've read the largest crop the EF-S lenses might do is Super-35mm (just slightly longer from APS-C Canon crop). That would mean the crop would be getting closer to 20MP.

That would be good. My only question would be whether the camera will force an APS-C crop when used with an EF-S lens. Maybe you'll get the full frame image with third-party crop lenses. I've tested Sigma's 18-35 on a 5D3 and the image circle, whilst not covering the full frame, certainly looked bigger to me than APS-C.

speedync wrote in post #18713185
Look at the EOS M.

I used one today in quite low light - honestly I'm thinking of binning it. The only thing it has going for it is the weight.

speedync wrote in post #18713202
Well, all I’ll say, is that there are FAR better options available, if you’re not married to Canon

It was a rhetorical question.

Choderboy wrote in post #18713200
I had a 100D. So I'm stupid for buying it am I?

Yes

I live my $400 pocketable travel friendly 200D that has the DR and ISO capabilities of a $1000 camera.

It is smaller and lighter than some of the Sony mirrorless offerings even. Great little body, especially at the price point which nothing else compares. The AF # of points is the only glaring deficiency in the camera (meaning # of AF points). Oh and it is too small for me to use for extended times, thus why the EOS-R size is probably about right for me.

200D,fine little camera,very capable.

Agreed, and anybody that disses it (ie. says it is a bad camera) is either on an agenda, is ignorant of the camera and its capabilities, or probably should indulge in some other hobby. It may not be the right camera for some, but it is a great camera especially at that price point, I know of no other competition.

It will be interesting when Canon announced their APS-C R mirrorless, that will effectively mark the end of the EOS-M, I would think. I cannot see how the continuation of the M mount with the RF line makes any kind of business sense at all, especially given the decline of camera sales. Maintaining and expanding 4 different lens mounts seems a bit silly.