Canon EOS R has Crucified my thoughts about changing to Sony

elitejp wrote in post #18709577
Nothing wrong with buying a new camera but i personally dont see how canons new mirrorless is any improvement for you in what you shoot, portraits and landscapes.

Since owning a 60D years ago, the flip screen alone is worth the purchase of the EOS R full frame, and would have spared me laying in water to compose the shot shown. The fact that technology and sales will transition regardless, means it's worth getting at least one body anyway. The low light focusing of the EOS R is supposed to be even better than the bodies I use, so no loss and some gain there.

mystik610 wrote in post #18709718
Branding preferences aside, the only draw that the EOS R has is presumed better compatibility with adapted EF lenses. Given the size of Canon's existing user base, this is pretty significant though.

"the only draw" they say ... ?

Could the auto focus plus low light focusing be a draw? Could the improved body size and grip for some folks needs be a draw? Could the way the screen moves be a draw? Could the over 5000 focus points be a draw? Could it's build quality be a draw? Could the new shooting mode be a draw? Could the lens quality and not just compatibility be a draw?

Just as other brands have several features that can be a draw, it's certain the EOS R has several draws. If the EOS R body is too big, then smaller mirrorless would be a draw for other people.

mdvaden wrote in post #18709747
"the only draw" they say ... ?

Could the auto focus plus low light focusing be a draw? Could the improved body size and grip for some folks needs be a draw? Could the way the screen moves be a draw? Could the over 5000 focus points be a draw? Could it's build quality be a draw? Could the new shooting mode be a draw? Could the lens quality and not just compatibility be a draw?

Just as other brands have several features that can be a draw, it's certain the EOS R has several draws. If the EOS R body is too big, then smaller mirrorless would be a draw for other people.

Well yeah a lot of those things are subjective outside of the flippy screen.....but yes good reason to look at both systems comprehensively as there are pros and cons to both.

AF sensitivity and AF points is a lot of spec manipulation though.

mdvaden wrote in post #18709741
Since owning a 60D years ago, the flip screen alone is worth the purchase of the EOS R full frame, and would have spared me laying in water to compose the shot shown. The fact that technology and sales will transition regardless, means it's worth getting at least one body anyway. The low light focusing of the EOS R is supposed to be even better than the bodies I use, so no loss and some gain there.

Hosted photo: posted by mdvaden in
./showthread.php?p=187​09741&i=i149875099
forum: Changing Camera Brands

So why is your FF camera currently a 5D and not a 6D since flip screen is so important to you?

the whole thread seems a bit contrived wouldnt you say?

It wasnt too far back you were saying that you wouldnt touch an A7rii, that switching to sony was bait, and then Canon produces an A7rii spec'd camera with sometimes more and sometimes less features, it's suddenly the gold standard.

Enjoy your camera, you really didnt need to make a bragging thread.

"What people will notice is that mirrored and mirrorless feel different in operation IMO."

OK, as one who shots both... i've got to ask why? On both you look through a view finder. One is a reflected image off a mirror. One is off of an evf. You frame the image the same way. You select your setting the same way. When you trigger the shutter you get a momentary black out on both. On both a sensor captures the image.... so no, in my book, no "real" differences in how you shoot.

The mirrorless does give you real time views on what your exposure will be. So there is a slight difference there. But both tell you if you are over or under exposing. It's kind of like saying driving an automatic car versus a manual shift are are different experiences. Yes, to some extent. But largely not. And in reality the mirrorless is acting more like the auto clutch on my Passat diesel. Sort of.

In the end - either type of car can get you where you want to go just about as fast or as slow as you want. A mirrorless camera isn't going to change your style of shooting. It may do it more quite at times... and like drivers assist.... it may keep you from making exposure mistakes. But largely the photographing experience is the same. Perhaps that is why so many who try mirrorless aren't impressed. They have this false expectation its going to change things dramatically. It's not. The changes are subtle and nuanced at best.

The camera is the least influential part of if you are a great photographer or not.

You could have also used an angle view finder. Very cheap. And worth saving getting on the ground.

And even with a Sony with an angled viewfinder, with a shot like this I use my small 3rd party monitor that attaches to my flash mount and uses my 4K output on the body. Even the phone ap makes getting low and in the water unnecessary.

Nce image concept btw. Im sure they loved it.

Charlie wrote in post #18709771
So why is your FF camera currently a 5D and not a 6D since flip screen is so important to you?

the whole thread seems a bit contrived wouldnt you say?

It wasnt too far back you were saying that you wouldnt touch an A7rii, that switching to sony was bait,

It wasnt too far back you were saying that you wouldnt touch an A7rii, that switching to sony was bait, and then Canon produces an A7rii spec'd camera with sometimes more and sometimes less features, it's suddenly the gold standard.

Because I added 5D Mk II right after (alongside) my 60D, later adding 5D Mk III and 5DSl. As for A7R III .. if my friends have them, I see no need not to use them. I had both FF and crop with flip screen at the same time, so that can eliminate some of the apparent confusion your post introduced to the thread.

Also, RE your reply ... any reader can see I haven't called the EOS R a "gold standard". So anything contrived really seems to reside in your own post.

Croasdail wrote in post #18710009
You could have also used an angle view finder. Very cheap. And worth saving getting on the ground.

I may not need on in the near future. But in case it's an accessory I may want, do you know of a page you could link showing one attached to a camera?

Croasdail wrote in post #18710005
"What people will notice is that mirrored and mirrorless feel different in operation IMO."

OK, as one who shots both... i've got to ask why? On both you look through a view finder. One is a reflected image off a mirror. One is off of an evf. You frame the image the same way. You select your setting the same way. When you trigger the shutter you get a momentary black out on both. On both a sensor captures the image.... so no, in my book, no "real" differences in how you shoot.

The mirrorless does give you real time views on what your exposure will be. So there is a slight difference there. But both tell you if you are over or under exposing. It's kind of like saying driving an automatic car versus a manual shift are are different experiences. Yes, to some extent. But largely not. And in reality the mirrorless is acting more like the auto clutch on my Passat diesel. Sort of.

In the end - either type of car can get you where you want to go just about as fast or as slow as you want. A mirrorless camera isn't going to change your style of shooting. It may do it more quite at times... and like drivers assist.... it may keep you from making exposure mistakes. But largely the photographing experience is the same. Perhaps that is why so many who try mirrorless aren't impressed. They have this false expectation its going to change things dramatically. It's not. The changes are subtle and nuanced at best.

The camera is the least influential part of if you are a great photographer or not.

I brought my Fuji X-t2, 5dmk4 and Sony A7iii to Mission Raceway park during a 1/4 mile drag night. I found my X-t2 hunted quite a bit with the 56 f/1.2 10pm in the evening with track lights only. Pulled out my 5dmk4 with slower 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 and it landed every single shot regardless of using focus assist from external flash.

I still find I get less hunting with my mirrored 5dmk4. When I press the shutter with the mirrored body it NEVER slows down in AF speed. I cannot say the same for a Fuji X-t2, XT10 and XE2 with new 4.0 firmware I've owned.

I have yet to fully assess Sony's AF. I know with my A7iii with 3rd party Sigma 24mm ART can hunt at times while my 5dmk4 with 24Lmk2 is completely a different feel when AF is concerned. As I said i'm just starting to ramp up in Sony lenses so I can only comment that with my current A7iii (and heard from fellow Sony users) that the shutter button and how it captures an image feels different that a mirrored body that just never ever slows down in AF.

This is an observation as I use my 5dmk4 and mirrorless system side by side. This is my take on the differences between the two but everyone has their experiences and personal comments too.

If buying canon i think a used 5d4 would be a better choice than the r. Once the r is out in real world it will be easy to make an informed opinion. The r just seems to be more of the same from canon. Nothing really new, just something packaged a bit differently.

Mdvaden im sure you will do good with any camera in your hand if that shot is anyway representive of your work.

elitejp wrote in post #18710208
If buying canon i think a used 5d4 would be a better choice than the r. Once the r is out in real world it will be easy to make an informed opinion. The r just seems to be more of the same from canon. Nothing really new, just something packaged a bit differently.

Mdvaden im sure you will do good with any camera in your hand if that shot is anyway representive of your work.

I already passed on the 5D Mk iv while using the 5DS. Good body, and maybe I will get one someday. EOS R "nothing new"? So the 1st body to take 4 of Canon's first RF mount lenses and adapt to all others is "nothing new"? There's also 12 pins communicating with lenses that have an extra ring.

Odds are images won't be leaps and bounds beyond what I've been able to capture. I see it as one solid step forward as technology changes.

The new lenses really intrigue me, although with the cost of any L lenses past and future, transition among those will be very slow. When I get the EOS R or model following, I'm not sure which RF lens I'd like to buy first. I'm curious if Canon holding off a new EF 135mm this year is related to a possible RF 135mm in the near future.

At the end of the day, tech wise they're all going to be very close very soon. Going to be hard to make a wrong choice per se. If you have Canon lenses I think the smart move would be just to get the EOS R as the adapted lenses apparently work perfectly (no more of that sketchy Metabones nonsense). Plus they've said that the R isn't going to be their top end model (iirc they said it was between the 6D and 5DIV) so if there's features you want (2nd card slot, faster frame rate, etc) I'm sure they'll have that coming soon too.

If this was 4 years ago when I was still shooting Canon and had all my glass I'd for sure go for an EOS R. Plus the price is super nice too considering all you get.

tdlavigne wrote in post #18710251
At the end of the day, tech wise they're all going to be very close very soon. Going to be hard to make a wrong choice per se. If you have Canon lenses I think the smart move would be just to get the EOS R as the adapted lenses apparently work perfectly (no more of that sketchy Metabones nonsense). Plus they've said that the R isn't going to be their top end model (iirc they said it was between the 6D and 5DIV) so if there's features you want (2nd card slot, faster frame rate, etc) I'm sure they'll have that coming soon too.

If this was 4 years ago when I was still shooting Canon and had all my glass I'd for sure go for an EOS R. Plus the price is super nice too considering all you get.

I'm not an engineer, but as a business person and observer, if I had to guess why Canon seemed delayed, it would in part because they were working on the new mount, lens lineup and also some new technology, all at the same time. If they have to preserve other lines of gear, that still makes sense too. I think the EOS R shows facets of innovation too. Achieving the world's fastest autofocus is one more thing that tells me more about attention to detail in the new and forthcoming equipment.

Sometimes I've wondered how much the people who manage Canon's camera research are affected by upper brass in the company.

mdvaden wrote in post #18710268
I'm not an engineer, but as a business person and observer, if I had to guess why Canon seemed delayed, it would in part because they were working on the new mount, lens lineup and also some new technology, all at the same time. If they have to preserve other lines of gear, that still makes sense too. I think the EOS R shows facets of innovation too. Achieving the world's fastest autofocus is one more thing that tells me more about attention to detail in the new and forthcoming equipment.

Sometimes I've wondered how much the people who manage Canon's camera research are affected by upper brass in the company.

Canon is a publicly traded company, so their priority is always maximizing shareholder value…and for better or worse, shareholders tend to prioritize short-term value/growth over long-term strategies.

So yeah there always needs to be a business case to spending money on R&D. There also needs to be a business case in bringing a new product to market amongst your existing product lines. In this context, I can understand why Canon, who holds such a dominant position in DSLR sales, lacked the motivation to start R&D in the tech that drives mirrorless cameras until competitive threats became real. The issue is that now there is a clear technological gap between Sony/Fuji/Olympus and Canon. Sure there are some bright sides to the EOS-R, but there’s a pretty clean-cut 2 generation gap between Canon Sony and Fuji’s best efforts, and its not like Sony and Fuji are letting their foot off the gas in terms of their own R&D.

From a product standpoint I can also understand why Canon positioned the EOS R the way they did, and why decisions like the lack of a second card slot were likely intentional. They need to be careful about positioning their mirrorless cameras as products that buy in addition to DSLR’s, not as a replacement to DSLR’s. Cannibalized sales will add nothing to the top-line, but they’ve double downed on their fixed and variable costs brining a second product line to market. I think this will be the case for at least the next couple of years, though the lenes signal what the long-term vision is.

mystik610 wrote in post #18710517
SNIP ... Sure there are some bright sides to the EOS-R, but there’s a pretty clean-cut 2 generation gap between Canon Sony and Fuji’s best efforts, and its not like Sony and Fuji are letting their foot off the gas in terms of their own R&D.

... SNIP

In a way, Fuji, and Sony, have a 2 generation gap that can go two ways. Sony showed 2 generations of what it developed and what's best. And there are two generations of what they didn't choose to do, or didn't accomplish. That can offer other brands like Canon or Nikon some insight on a different path for design, and they can take a few less bumps and bruises or maybe acquire some new bumps and bruises. All the companies make such good gear, I can't really seeing one put the other out of commission.