RF, EOS R and new Tele Lenses

[Kayaker72]

Given the new camera costs more than the A7III I think people want A7III level hardware and features and feel Canon is unwilling to do that.

Dave

First, I am not one to slight Sony. Especially for enthusiasts, but even pros (in some cases), they are putting out good cameras. For example, I was at a wedding Saturday. The wedding pros used-Still photography: Canon 5DIV, Sigma 24-35 f/2, and EF 70-200 f/2.8. Video: Sony A7 series (not sure which).

On costs, sure, the "R" body is more expensive. All from B&H: A7III is $1998, $1996.95, "R" $2,299. But, the "game" that seems to be played is that Sony/Nikon have less expensive bodies, but more expensive lenses. For example, Sony's G-Master lenses: 16-35 f/2.8, $2,198; 24-70 f/2.8, $2,198; 70-200 f/2.8, $2,598, etc. Canon's equivalent lenses ("L", same focal length/max aperture) are all much less than that. While we do not have a direct comparison of the RF lens, the 24-105 f/4 L is $1,100.

So on cost, buying a whole system, Canon is lower the times that I have checked.

On features, it really gets down to what you want. Here is a very even (IMO) comparison to the Sony:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/...mirrorles.html

Really, there is even more depth if we really wanted to look at it.

In terms of what is lacking on the R, The one I hear the most complaints about is IBIS (in body image stabilization). Canon may still someday release a body with IBIS, they have a few patents floating around. But, from what I understand, IBIS has two major problems:

• It is best where smaller movements are needed, i.e. where you need IS the least (shorter focal lengths). In lens stabilization is best at longer focal lengths. I get that any IS is better (in some situations) than no IS.
• As the sensor is moving, it is more difficult to connect a heat sink. This is why Sony bodies (at least in part) have had some issues with overheating. The speculation is that Canon does not want to risk overheating their sensors by putting an inferior heat sink onto their sensors.

Then, on a personal note, I thought I might miss IS going to the 24-70 II. In a few situations sure, but most of the time, I really don't.

Finally, I wouldn't view the "R" in a vacuum. This is an indication of where Canon is going, and I like a lot of what I see. The fps, AF speed need to come up. But a on lens control ring, additional communication between lens and camera body, control sensors, there is some good things there. And, I am still trying to decide what I make of the name. the "R"....not an R1, R5, but just an R. This is an initial offering. I'll be more interested once Canon starts differentiating their bodies in a series such as R1, R5, etc.

[Dave Throgmartin]

First, I am not one to slight Sony. Especially for enthusiasts, but even pros (in some cases), they are putting out good cameras. For example, I was at a wedding Saturday. The wedding pros used-Still photography: Canon 5DIV, Sigma 24-35 f/2, and EF 70-200 f/2.8. Video: Sony A7 series (not sure which).

On costs, sure, the "R" body is more expensive. All from B&H: A7III is $1998, $1996.95, "R" $2,299. But, the "game" that seems to be played is that Sony/Nikon have less expensive bodies, but more expensive lenses. For example, Sony's G-Master lenses: 16-35 f/2.8, $2,198; 24-70 f/2.8, $2,198; 70-200 f/2.8, $2,598, etc. Canon's equivalent lenses ("L", same focal length/max aperture) are all much less than that. While we do not have a direct comparison of the RF lens, the 24-105 f/4 L is $1,100.

So on cost, buying a whole system, Canon is lower the times that I have checked.

On features, it really gets down to what you want. Here is a very even (IMO) comparison to the Sony:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/...mirrorles.html

Really, there is even more depth if we really wanted to look at it.

In terms of what is lacking on the R, The one I hear the most complaints about is IBIS (in body image stabilization). Canon may still someday release a body with IBIS, they have a few patents floating around. But, from what I understand, IBIS has two major problems:

• It is best where smaller movements are needed, i.e. where you need IS the least (shorter focal lengths). In lens stabilization is best at longer focal lengths. I get that any IS is better (in some situations) than no IS.
• As the sensor is moving, it is more difficult to connect a heat sink. This is why Sony bodies (at least in part) have had some issues with overheating. The speculation is that Canon does not want to risk overheating their sensors by putting an inferior heat sink onto their sensors.

Then, on a personal note, I thought I might miss IS going to the 24-70 II. In a few situations sure, but most of the time, I really don't.

Finally, I wouldn't view the "R" in a vacuum. This is an indication of where Canon is going, and I like a lot of what I see. The fps, AF speed need to come up. But a on lens control ring, additional communication between lens and camera body, control sensors, there is some good things there. And, I am still trying to decide what I make of the name. the "R"....not an R1, R5, but just an R. This is an initial offering. I'll be more interested once Canon starts differentiating their bodies in a series such as R1, R5, etc.

Traditionally, Canon has done really well with the camera user experience maybe more so than the spec sheet comparisons. They make stuff that works.

I haven't used any of the Sony A7 series. My main camera is 2012 technology. For me this is a situation where I truly don't know what I'm missing. I print 11x14 typically and view images on the screen. Even the 24-105 f/4 L which is typically picked on makes awesome 11x14s w/the 6D and makes very good images on the monitor.

Dave