Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32

Thread: Anyone using an R8?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,447

    Question Anyone using an R8?

    Thinking of updating the 7D mark II to a something mirrorless, but not quite sure what. Between the R6mkII, R7, and R8, the R6mkII is the ideal... but pricey. And yes, I'll see whatever it is Sony is unveiling today before making a decision, but lets ignore that for now and talk about the Canon options.

    The R8 having the same sensor and AF as the R6mkII, for nearly half off seems like a deal... but I'm worried it strips off too much. Worse viewfinder. Worse battery. Electronic shutter only, which can lead to jello effect, and more worry of dust and debris when changing lenses in the field. No rear control wheel making it awkward to change settings.

    I never use dual-cards, so things like that don't factor into my choice.

    I'm sure I can take nice pictures with an R8, but I'm not sure it will be enjoyable if using the camera is a constant fight. Has anybody used one for an extended period? Are the negatives real, or negligible? Anything you wished you'd considered before buying it?

    The R7... still crop. Will still be noisy. Lighter, and better AF, sure, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify a switch for an occasional shooter. It does open up the option of using the RF 100-500, which is I think the only big plus I have in the R7 column. Anything I'm ignoring?
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,615
    Assuming that you already have a substantial investment in Canon glass, I would say go for the R6 MkII (if you can find one) as opposed to one of the new Sony compact bodies.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,447
    Yeah, saw the price on the Sonys... no longer on my radar.

    So, no comment on the R8, but essentially what I'm taking from your comment is "go big or go home", and pony up for the R6mkII. R8's not worth the savings. Not what I wanted to hear, but what I expected.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    5,594
    Neuro/John picked up a R8. The images from his recent Europe trip were taken with it. I've seen him make positive comments about it. I haven't used one, so I cannot speak from experience, but it seems to be well regarded.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,447
    Ah, perfect. Neuro having both an R8 and R3 is in a good place to judge what the R8 gives up, and the impact of Canon's choices. I'll await his comment.
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,615
    Camera bodies depreciate in value quickly so, I think if you go for the R8 now but really want several of the features on the R6 mkII it will certainly cost you more money if you decide to upgrade later as opposed to just getting the R6 mkII now.

    I suspect Neuro went with the R8 since he already had the R3. Since the R6 mkII is sort of like a "lower level" R3 it wouldn't make sense for him.

    His images with the R8 looked great, no issue with image quality, just a matter of what features you want.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,447
    I understand, buying cheap then upgrading would cost more. That's why I'm trying to get a feeling of whether I'd actually miss anything from the R6m2.

    The AF is supposedly the same between R6m2 and R8. The sensor/noise the same. The pre-burst option if we're looking for new features, the same, in fact, the R8 may have a faster burst speed.

    I never use two cards at once, so one card slot is not a concern.
    I don't really do video, so the loss of an option there isn't a concern.
    The 30min/2hr recording time isn't a concern. Who shoots a feature length movie in one shot?
    I've never bought a grip, so the lack of a grip option isn't a concern.

    My hands aren't huge, so the smaller body is not a major concern.
    I tend to do action or wildlife over low-light landscape and portrait work. I'll already need a decent shutter speed, so lack of IBIS isn't a major concern.

    The smaller battery is a minor concern.
    The smaller view finder will be annoying, but, I expect, livable. It's the same size on the R7 too... minor concern I'd say.
    The electronic first curtain burst speed of just 6 is a minor concern. It seems a bit low.

    The loss of a wheel and other button layout choices is a concern, which someone familiar with a more capable camera can comment on.
    The lack of shutter leading to rolling shutter jello effect is a concern. The reviews that show this... is that in normal shooting or panning the camera like a madman to exaggerate the effect?
    The lack of shutter protecting the sensor is a concern.

    So, there aren't really any R6m2 features I'm looking to gain (that I'm aware of) other than a shutter, a control wheel. A nicer viewfinder, burst, and battery life are secondary desires I'd like but could live without. The question is whether these deficiencies are biggies or not. If not, I'd rather save money for glass. I have a hard time thinking those features are worth an extra ~CAD$1300, but that's what it would take to get them.

    Maybe I order a used 5DIV instead. Still get full frame, familiar controls, and a shutter. Or is mirrorless just that much better?
    Last edited by DavidEccleston; 08-30-2023 at 12:39 AM. Reason: Used 1DX2 is as much as a R6m2, so bad alternate option!
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  8. #8
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,845
    I am surprisingly pleased with the R8, though I know that's partly due to my intended use for it. I was looking for a small camera for family travel, and the R8 fits the need. On previous trips, I would take an EOS M kit (I had M then M2 then M6 then M6II) with the M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2 as the main walk around camera carried in a small messenger bag. I would also take the 1D X or R3 and several L lenses (minimally 24-70/105, 14/16-35 and TS-E 17) that I would use only on solo outings at blue hour/night when my wife and kids were resting. For our trip to Italy, I decided I wanted just one camera and thus I wanted it to be FF...and the R8 is the smallest body compatible with my lenses.

    Addressing some of your points, from two posts and partly out order.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    Electronic shutter only, which can lead to jello effect...
    Clarification (and as you note below), the R8 has a mechanical shutter to end the exposure, i.e. your choices are EFCS or full electronic shutter. No rolling shutter / jello effect with EFCS.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The R7... still crop. Will still be noisy. Lighter, and better AF, sure, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify a switch for an occasional shooter. It does open up the option of using the RF 100-500, which is I think the only big plus I have in the R7 column. Anything I'm ignoring?
    The RF 100-500L is an excellent lens, but for example for those who already have the EF 100-400 II, the RF version doesn't really add too much (the physical aperture is the same, 400/5.6 vs. 500/7.1. However, if you don't have a good long lens, the RF 100-400 (non-L) is surprisingly good period (just shy of the 100-500L, IMO, and punches much heavier than its price class). I had the EF 70-300L (used to have the 100-400 MkI, sold it after getting the 600/4 II), and when I got the R3 I swapped that for the 100-500. I added the RF 100-400 later.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The AF is supposedly the same between R6m2 and R8. The sensor/noise the same. The pre-burst option if we're looking for new features, the same, in fact, the R8 may have a faster burst speed.
    AF and sensor are the same. The identical sensor and smaller size were the main reasons I opted for the R8 instead of the R6II. They have the same burst rate, but the R6II has a deeper buffer.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    I've never bought a grip, so the lack of a grip option isn't a concern.
    My hands aren't huge, so the smaller body is not a major concern.
    The body is small, bigger than the M6II but still small. The difference is that the M lenses are also small and light, whereas the RF lenses are often not. Canon sells a little extension grip, instead I bought the RRS L-plate that duplicates that extension by adding ~1/4" of height to the camera. That makes it holdable with a lens like the RF 24-105/4L, although for me it was not what I'd call comfortable (note that one of the main reasons I prefer integrated grip bodies is for handholding comfort with heavy lenses). Technically, there is no RRS plate for the R8, but just as the Canon extension for the RP fits the R8, the RRS plate/bracket for the RP do as well (though I had to buy used from KEH since they are discontinued).

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    I tend to do action or wildlife over low-light landscape and portrait work. I'll already need a decent shutter speed, so lack of IBIS isn't a major concern. The electronic first curtain burst speed of just 6 is a minor concern. It seems a bit low.
    That use mitigates part of the benefit of a FF body in general (better high ISO and shallower DoF achievable). There are times when a 30 fps burst is great, and there are times when it's a lot of frame to sort through. With the R3, I often use the slower fps options, but with birds I do use the full 30 fps.

    With the R8, I've never shot 40 fps...in fact, I just leave it in EFCS mode at 6 fps. The main reason for that is with every Canon MILC except the R3, when you switch from mechanical shutter (full or EFCS) to full electronic shutter, the RAW bit depth drops from 14 to 12. Doesn't matter at higher ISOs where the DR is lower anyway, but I'd rather not give up any data at low ISOs. The R3 does 14-bit RAWs with electronic shutter, and on that body I've never used the mechanical shutter. But again that's a use case thing – if I'm going to shoot something moving fast, I'll be using the R3.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The smaller battery is a minor concern.
    If you switch to mirrorless, you will very soon realize that they drain batteries faster. Combined with the smaller LP-E17, it does mean you'll want to carry extra batteries. Personally, I don't mind...in fact, since the M6 and M6II also use the LP-E17 I already had three and the R8 made it four. I did have to swap for a new battery on a couple of days during the trip, but I never went through two batteries. However, if you're shooting for long periods and looking through the viewfinder a lot (as I tend to with the R3 when birding), I imagine 2 battery changes might be needed in a day of shooting, or three if it's cold.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The smaller view finder will be annoying, but, I expect, livable. It's the same size on the R7 too... minor concern I'd say.
    The R3 has Canon's best FF EVF, the R8 arguably their worst. When I switch back and forth from one to the other (e.g. if testing something), it's noticeable. But for me, at least, once I'm using a camera it just becomes normal and it's a non-issue. The R8 viewfinder was perfectly usable for me in a variety of conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The loss of a wheel and other button layout choices is a concern, which someone familiar with a more capable camera can comment on.
    I was worried about that, as well. One common response is that if you're using an RF lens, there's a control ring on the lens you that provides the third wheel. However, some time back I discovered Fv mode and that has become my mode of choice. With that, only two wheels are needed so using Fv on the R8 is a breeze. I have a button assigned to reset the active setting to Auto, and in any case I typically leave ISO on Auto.

    The big thing I miss on the R8 won't be a loss for you, it's the Smart Controller. So far, that's only on the 1D X III and R3, but if there's a better way to select AF points I can't imagine what it would be. AF point selection is a bigger deal on a MILC, because instead of a relatively finite number of AF points, you can select anywhere in the FoV. The solution I use on the R8 is what I used on the EOS R, using the upper right quadrant of the touchscreen as a selection pad for the AF point. The automatic eye selection functionality works very well for birds/wildlife, so you may not need to manually select an AF point that often.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The lack of shutter leading to rolling shutter jello effect is a concern. The reviews that show this... is that in normal shooting or panning the camera like a madman to exaggerate the effect?
    Depending on what you shoot, it may or may not be an issue. Keep in mind that even a mechanical shutter can have rolling shutter effects if the subject is moving fast enough in the right orientation. It's down to readout speed, and the slower that is the more rolling shutter effect (and the slower a subject has to move to get it). Effectively, the readout speed of a mechanical shutter is ~4 milliseconds (not really readout in that case, but that's the line-by-line equivalent speed of the closing curtain). The R3 uses a stacked sensor and has a readout speed of ~5.5 ms (Sony's and Nikon's flagships are 4 ms). For comparison, the R8 (and R6II) have a readout speed of 14.5 ms. The R7 is 29 ms and more likely to show rolling shutter.

    But whether or not you actually see the rolling shutter effect is dependent on what you shoot. The 'jello' shows up mostly with regular shapes moving across the sensor. Panning past a lamp post or a golf club mid-swing will look bent, a ball flying across the field will look oval instead of round. With irregular shapes like animals moving, it's pretty hard or even impossible to see the effect, unless they're moving really fast like the wings of a hummingbird (I've seen shots with those 'floating' separate from the body due to the rolling shutter on the R7).

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The lack of shutter protecting the sensor is a concern.
    Yes, my R8 needs a good cleaning. That may partly be due to the fact that I changed lenses a bunch of times while hiking through volcanic dust kicked up by other hikers on Mt. Etna. OF course, if you rarely stop down you likely won't notice a little dust.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    So, there aren't really any R6m2 features I'm looking to gain (that I'm aware of) other than a shutter, a control wheel. A nicer viewfinder, burst, and battery life are secondary desires I'd like but could live without. The question is whether these deficiencies are biggies or not. If not, I'd rather save money for glass. I have a hard time thinking those features are worth an extra ~CAD$1300, but that's what it would take to get them.

    Maybe I order a used 5DIV instead. Still get full frame, familiar controls, and a shutter. Or is mirrorless just that much better?
    Mirrorless offers lots of nice features, like blazing fast frame rates and a WYSIWYG viewfinder (I really like the 'permanent' DoF preview in the EVF). Overall, I highly recommend the R8 and unless you need IS and plan to use a bunch of non-IS lenses, the R8 gets you most of the R6II for far less money. But...and it's a big but...a much weaker recommendation for a primary use of action and wildlife shooting coming from a 7DII unless you upgrade your lenses, and that applies to the R6II as well. You'd be going from a 20 MP APS-C to a 24 MP FF, and that means your 300mm lens won't reach nearly as far (an APS-C crop from a 24 MP sensor is 9.4 MP). The 100-500 would make up for that, though (but it's not cheap, either). In other words, the combination of the R8 + 100-500L should give you a big performance boost over the 7DII + 70-300L. Of course, you'd need to replace your UWA lenses (or use them in crop mode with 9.4 MP).

    Hope that helps, happy to answer any specific questions or address anything I missed.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,447
    Thanks neuro.

    I was under the impression the EFCS reduced, but didn't eliminate, the jello effect. Still, if the readout speed is just 4x the time it take for the shutters to cross the frame, it's likely fine.

    I'm aware of the lowered reach I'd get going full frame. I'm often already annoyed at the 70-300L's reach. But the image quality I used to see from the 1Ds2 was just so much nicer than anything the 7D2 spits out. The improved per-pixel quality will mean more crop ability to get some of that reach back. A 100-500 would more than get it back, and the ability to use an extender would pretty much cancel out the lack of crop too... so I'd have options and combinations... and I'd still have the 7D2 + 70-300L if I felt the need.

    A forgotten concern when making my list was the lack of / reduced weather sealing on the R8. I'd prefer not to have to get paranoid about rain.

    I doubt you have any EF-S lenses kicking around to judge the quality on the 9.4MP crop mode images, which really would only affect the 10-18mm. On the 7D2, I like to keep a fair number of pixels just because the individual pixels aren't the highest quality, and downsampling makes up for it. If the R8 gives 9.4MP of high quality pixels, then the lost pixels in the rare ultra-wide shot might not matter... Even if I decide the 10-18 isn't fit for use on the R8, the 24-70 will have become wider. Not as wide, granted, but probably a more useful range in most cases. We'll see if I feel a need to get a replacement ultra wide.

    Typically I use the 7D2 w/ centre point AF, M mode w/ auto-ISO. The two wheels are shutter and aperture, and the thumb lever that normally defaults to AF mode selection I have configured for exposure compensation, for quick use when auto ISO goes dumb. If I have to use the M-Fn to switch the wheel between shutter and aperture, it's not the end of the world. The shutter and EC are the two I likely change the most often. I could likely live with one dial and the M-Fn to choose what I'm setting... or get the adapter with the control ring.

    I'll have to search for some sample EF-S images, and see what the new Fv mode is. But you're making the R8 seem like a reasonable option (that gets me 1/3 of the way to 100-500mm in savings already!)
    On Flickr - Namethatnobodyelsetook on Flickr
    R8 | R7 | 7DII | 10-18mm STM | 24-70mm f/4L | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 | 50mm f/1.8 | 85mm f/1.8 | 70-300mm f/4-5.6L | RF 100-500mm f/4-5-7.1L

  10. #10
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,845
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    I was under the impression the EFCS reduced, but didn't eliminate, the jello effect. Still, if the readout speed is just 4x the time it take for the shutters to cross the frame, it's likely fine.
    Nope, as far as rolling shutter goes EFCS is the same as mechanical shutter. With mechanical shutter, the shutter opens (first curtain) to begin the exposure and closes (second curtain) to end it. With EFCS, the sensor begins the exposure (that happens all at once), and the mechanical shutter ends it. In both cases, the sensor is read out with the shutter closed, after the exposure has ended. Readout speed doesn’t matter.

    As I said, technically mechanical shutter can also suffer from a rolling effect with a subject moving fast enough, and thus EFCS can also. So from that standpoint, EFCS does reduce but not eliminate the jello effect...it reduces to the same magnitude/problem as with a mechanical shutter.

    As a side note, EFCS also eliminates the shutter shock sometimes observed with mechanical shutter so in some ways it's the best of both worlds. Shutter shock comes from the vibration of the first curtain opening. Of course, the second curtain closing also causes vibration but in that case the exposure was already ended by that curtain so there's no more light hitting the sensor as the vibration occurs. However, I recently learned that the R7 has a problem with shutter shock even with EFCS...the vibration is strong enough to affect the next shot in a burst.

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    I doubt you have any EF-S lenses kicking around to judge the quality on the 9.4MP crop mode images, which really would only affect the 10-18mm.
    Nope, sorry. I've only owned two EF-S lenses (the 17-55/2.8 that was the first lens I bought with my T1i/500D, and the 10-22), and I sold both when I sold my 7D, after getting the 1D X.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •