Canon EOS R has Crucified my thoughts about changing to Sony

mystik610 wrote in post #18710517
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.

Particularly true of Wall Street investors and companies, not so true of Kikkei investors and companies. It has been said for decades that Japanese companies were much more long term oriented than US (I will admit to not having kept up to date with more recent times, and what motivates the Japanese today.)

mystik610 wrote in post #18710517
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.

Very good observation about adding costs without necessarily improving the bottom line, if cannibalization occurs. We already have seen the affect on bottom line with the lowered margins of successful 6D vs. the 5DIII, and so much of the POTN readers being disappointed by the 6DII, and failing to understand Canon's need not to cannibalize 5Dn sales again by too good of a cheaper product.

I can see myself going to mirrorless in the future. However since I shoot mostly sports, right now the FPS in the EOS R just isn't enough for me to give it a try.

I like the new Sony stuff, but I have too much invested in Canon glass to switch. I am interested to see where Canon goes from here, because I do want to upgrade my 7D in the near future and I'm intrigued by some of the mirrorless technology that is out there.

Fell like I just said all of that and said nothing at the same time.

Alan... agree... particularly with "adapted" lenses and such.

But my comment was more aimed at how you shoot. Even within Canon's own traditional sir line you will find the cameras focus very differently, or can track a subject, or can't. Has nothing to do with being mirrorless or not. I think that is what I keep tripping up on. People think mirrorless can't focus as well as slr, because they compare a Sony A6500 to a Canon 1Dx II or 5D. And in actuality in some cases the A6500 focuses better... in some cases not so much. And testing has shown over and over again that a peer to peer examples (A9 to a 1DX) both using native glass are very close and shouldn't make a difference.

My point is that mirrorless in of itself shouldn't change how you shoot. it may have nuances. Such as not using eShutter under night overhead event lighting. You need to use a standard shutter. Or panning fast with early Sony's can give you some wonkie effects with eShutter. But in both cases, normal shutter gives you normal shots.

A panasonic is going to be different from a Nikon, and it will be different that a Canon (zoom and focus ring direction), and those will be different than a Sony. But its largely not because they are mirrorless or not.

And that is what I like about the EOS R... it will handle like a Canon. It will have an EVF so I get the benefit of that to some extent. Looking forward to playing with it.

Wilt wrote in post #18710583
Very good observation about adding costs without necessarily improving the bottom line, if cannibalization occurs. We already have seen the affect on bottom line with the lowered margins of successful 6D vs. the 5DIII, and so much of the POTN readers being disappointed by the 6DII, and failing to understand Canon's need not to cannibalize 5Dn sales again by too good of a cheaper product.

You've stated this before about 6D vs 5D3, but it seemed there have been plenty of photographers buying the 5D3. The ISO difference is relatively minor, and the 5D3 was targeted as a higher tier for its prosumer body, additional video features, more advanced AF system, shutter speed, etc. What made the 6D2's release controversial is that some of the sensor performance was actually slightly worst then the 6D.

CCapps wrote in post #18710599
I can see myself going to mirrorless in the future. However since I shoot mostly sports, right now the FPS in the EOS R just isn't enough for me to give it a try.

I like the new Sony stuff, but I have too much invested in Canon glass to switch. I am interested to see where Canon goes from here, because I do want to upgrade my 7D in the near future and I'm intrigued by some of the mirrorless technology that is out there.

Fell like I just said all of that and said nothing at the same time.

Canon and Nikon have such excellent DSLRs for shooting sports right now, people migrating to mirrorless could leave you with some darn good deals on used high end cameras if you choose not to switch over.

davesrose wrote in post #18710791
You've stated this before about 6D vs 5D3, but it seemed there have been plenty of photographers buying the 5D3. The ISO difference is relatively minor, and the 5D3 was targeted as a higher tier for its prosumer body, additional video features, more advanced AF system, shutter speed, etc. What made the 6D2's release controversial is that some of the sensor performance was actually slightly worst then the 6D.

What I observed with the 6D vs. 5DIII debate of the past was that most photographers were so driven by the 'IQ above all' maxim, that the distinctions which Canon made for 'pro' bodies (i.e. joystick, PC connector) did not matter for so many. That the 6D controls were like the 'entry level Canon dSLR' (Tn, nnD), or the fact that the X-sync was slower, and top shutter speed slower mattered not. The big beef, from my own observation of the reactions, was that the 6DII did not outperform the 5DIV at a lower price point.

If that were the case (that the marginally better stills high ISO) was the only factor, then why were there plenty of photographers and videographers buying the 5D3? The 5D3 was considered better for video because of clean HDMI and headphone output. I personally preferred the size, interface, and AF system of the 5D3 (which are also factors for sharpness and overall IQ).

With the 6D2, people were expecting all parameters of sensor performance to be better then the 6D (not compare it to the 5D4). That its DR was slightly less then the original 6D was the most discontent I saw.

davesrose wrote in post #18710821
If that were the case (that the marginally better stills high ISO) was the only factor, then why were there plenty of photographers and videographers buying the 5D3? The 5D3 was considered better for video because of clean HDMI and headphone output. I personally preferred the size, interface, and AF system of the 5D3 (which are also factors for sharpness and overall IQ).

Well, some photographers apparently wanted/needed

• joystick
  
• 1/8000 shutter speed
  
• not as limited X-sync speed
  
• faster continuous shooting
  
• PC connector for studio flash
  
• 61 AF points, 41 cross-type
  
• dual memory card slots
  
• headphone jack for video
  

And so Canon was successful in keeping the 5D3 as a higher tier then the 6D (which being cheaper, was expected to have more unit sales). Your list is not complete on all differences (I already mentioned clean HDMI and AF system: which includes tracking). Folks like Teamspeed have shown how marginally different high ISOs were with the 5D3 in processing.

davesrose wrote in post #18710842
And so Canon was successful in keeping the 5D3 as a higher tier then the 6D (which being cheaper, was expected to have more unit sales). Your list is not complete on all differences (I already mentioned clean HDMI and AF system: which includes tracking). Folks like Teamspeed have shown how marginally different high ISOs were with the 5D3 in processing.

I somehow lost track of what point you were connecting between that body and the EOS R ...

Was it in the similarities for marketing and option decisions?

Yes, but it still does not disprove the fact that IQ was the driver for so many folks, that they selected a 'lower end, entry level FF' camera over the higher end 'pro' camera

I was quoting Wilt’s continued assertion that the 5D3 had low sales, even though IQ wasn’t that different and it was a higher tier in the Canon ecosystem. I didn’t see a “canibalization” of 5D3 sales. As for how this pertains to the R, I suppose it might be interesting to see if there are posters contemplating a 6D2 vs R

mdvaden wrote in post #18710537
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.

That's the beauty of competition even though fanboys get riled up about who copied who. There's sort of a shared learning that indirectly happens through competition, and consumers get the benefit of better products.

This is why Sony is probably the best thing to happen to the ILC world in recent years. Duopolies like the old Canikon status quo lock the two companies into game theory time scenarios that discourage innovation. Had Sony not disrupted the market, we'd all be anxiously be awaiting minor updates to the 5DIV as the next best thing.

That said, I don't think Canikon willfully brought products two generations behind to market as they are really spinning the specs in misleading ways to look competitive. It seems that:

1. they are 2 generations behind in terms of R&D and the technological baseline is not there.

2.they're developing products too slowly and targeting old cameras as a benchmark because Sony product life cycles are extremely short.

Wilt wrote in post #18710846
Yes, but it still does not disprove the fact that IQ was the driver for so many folks, that they selected a 'lower end, entry level FF' camera over the higher end 'pro' camera

The majority of pro's are still using the 5DIII though. I rarely see the 6D being used professionally, and when it is, its backing up a 5D or 1D.

Canon gimped the 6D in the all the right areas to make a clear distinction between the consumer camera and the prosumer camera, as there are specific things that pros need that are absent from the 6D.

I see similar type positioning with the EOS R. That isn't to say you couldn't use an EOS R professionally.....but they made clear distinctions between the EOS R and the 5DIV.

Today we are just getting incredibly spoiled.

The 6dmk2 is still in my books prosumer and the lack of dual cards is deliberate to keep it that way. The EOS R is deliberately putting a single card slot to categorize it as prosumer. Now if Canon put a dual card slot form the get go this would be bold to consider it more suitable for professional use. I think they will get more confidence in the mrk2, 3 version. But for now the EOS R is not intended to stand side by side with the modern Sony models.

We are soooooo brand loyal so Nikon/Canon is relying on the fresh hype that professionals will buy that camera as a 3rd body for fun hobby experimentation and a "family" camera for soccer mom/dads and enthusiast not so concerned with dual cards and ibis technology. Just my assumption

I've been battling with my mind regarding camera gear. I'll sit tight and wait to see how the EOS R improves over time. I love my Canon gear but more and more I think about it......no temptation whatsoever in the EOS R for the price point and performance delivery with intended compromise.