RF, EOS R and new Tele Lenses

[DavidEccleston]

I'm watching one of Rudy Winston's intro videos. Lots of little changes.

A new customizable control ring on each lens, which can be set to any exposure control (ie: shutter, aperture, iso, or exposure compensation, and can be set to require a half-press to be active to avoid inadvertent changes. The same ring is on the mid-level EF adapter so it's available for older lenses too, which is a nice touch.

The multi-function bar, slider thingy... This seems less precise than a typical pro-level feature, but it's a neat new way to interact with the camera.

And, hidden 6:56 minutes into the video, visible for a few seconds, is the fact that the camera supports focus peaking, which has long been a want of many, and a reason to install alternate firmware.

Some of the hate may be coming from the majority of reporting being a copy of the press release, which isn't terribly exciting, and Canon doing a poor job of selling people on their new system. There wasn't (this morning, I'm not sure about now, I haven't been at home) any early previews from people who've had some hands-on time, or anything to provide a sense of what the release means. Are the new controls amazing, or more gimmicky? Are the reliable and precise enough to rely on? What's the fast new lens like? The press release talks about a 24-105mm F/4 lens. Meh. The internet is bored of 24-105mm F/4 lenses. What's this new F/2 super-sharp lens? I want more info and pricing on THAT. What other magic can this new camera do?

[HDNitehawk]

What's this new F/2 super-sharp lens? I want more info and pricing on THAT. What other magic can this new camera do?

The 28x70 is $2999 US at B&H.

and

IMO that lens will initially be the best magic the R can do.

[Kayaker72]

The general online sentiment appears to be pitchforks from what I've read!

Dave

Always is.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Always is.

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

[HDNitehawk]

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

Canon's mirrorless release was being bashed before the release was even confirmed. Some of those I have always thought were Sony Shill's, some just wanted to complain.

It didn't matter what Canon released you were going to see the complaints.

My opinion of the release is it is very solid. Where they did excel is in their mount and demonstrating their ability to capitalize on it in the future.
They demonstrated the path to migrate from EF to the RF.

Whether or not the R has some knob or gizmo the A7III has is inconsequential in the long term. Those kind of things change and evolve often.

I still believe the philosophy to by a body for my glass rather than buy glass for the body is the right one.

[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.

[PatrickH]

Weight seems to be a secondary goal for Canon with the R.
Exploiting the new mount seems to be the priority they are pointing toward.
With the release of the 28-70 and its massive weight that indicates to me they are trying to move the Pro's and Advanced Amateur to mirrorless with a new level of IQ and performance.

Right, I suppose you are correct here. Rereading, the press release seems much more performance oriented. Compactness is secondary, and frankly appears to be a pretty thin argument considering how huge a couple of the new lenses are. The comparison isn't EF-M to RF, it's EF to RF.

[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

[Manofmayo66]

Dave:
I use 2 cameras with 2012ish technology, the 6D and the Sony A7ii. As a tech geek, the A7ii is perfect, having a good blend of features (and IBIS) and image quality. The typical gripes (battery and menus) don't bother me as I rarely shoot more than 200 pictures a week.

I have a number of EOS EF mount lenses which I adapt to my Sony. People tend to frown upon the whole lens adapting thing, but I think its awesome as it allows me to use both systems interchangeably; 2 weeks ago I picked up a used Canon 300 f4 IS and have taken great photos from my A7ii with it.

With the new Canon R, I was hoping for a merging of the best features from the 6D and the A7ii. I want to see more before I invest my hard earned $.

[NFLD Stephen]

Have to say that the new lens mount is an interesting proposition. I've been eyeing an upgrade from the 24-105 to the 24-70 2.8, but with the introduction of the new R mount, I'm second-guessing whether this is the right path for me. I currently use the 5dmk3 and am quite happy with it for now, but certainly will upgrade sooner or later. Key point for me is that I'm not sure whether I'd go with another dslr or go with mirrorless. I do like the general path canon's mirrorless seems to be on, I doubt I'd purchase this R body, but when I'm ready the next mirrorless body will certainly be a consideration. If I was sure I was going to stay dslr for my next camera then the EF 24-70 f2.8 would obviously make sense, but if I decided to go mirrorless then the new R mount would become an option. I know I can adapt the EF to the R body if I was to go that route, but honestly I'd wonder if there was something better available in the R mount (especially in a year or two when I'd be considering the upgrade). Canon has already said that the new R 28-70 F2 is a better performer than the EF 24-70 f2.8. And if the R-mount lenses are going to be consistently better and the mirrorless bodies rival the dslr's (which they certainly will soon if not already), then I'd wonder about the overall future of the EF mount at all. Will resale values dip if the best new lenses are consistently in R mount? If it goes this route, how long would the transition to the R-mount take to have all the common focal lengths available? Obviously my existing lenses and camera continue to work just fine for me so there is no urgency to any decision, but these are some of the thoughts I had when the R camera and mount were announced.

Sorry for the rambling, just trying to make sense of my own thoughts