Ralph Conway wrote:
EVF? AF up to -6 EV? Thousands of accurate AF points spread over the (near to) entire format, accessable in the break of a second?
I'd like to see that in action. When I tried a sony a while back I was horrified at how bad it was to actually focus on something specific like someone's eye lashes vs. their iris. Manual focus was also not a easy as an SLR. But maybe canon's improved upon that?
EVF isn't an advantage to me. Not having to switch to a live view mode might be a plus but I don't shoot in live view mode typically. I like the added stability of having the camera against my face and it seems like it'd be awkward to adjust focus points with the touch screen when you're looking through the viewfinder.
And since I shoot portraits, I don't know how much of an advantage I'd get from the faster focus. But having a body that's not weather-proofed, having only a single card slot and not having a dedicated aperture wheel would be a disadvantage for me. Maybe when they put the whole thing in an upgraded pro body I'll take another look.
P.S.
Everyone I know with Sony has issues where the sensor overheats when doing video and the whole camera shuts down. The issue seems endemic to mirrorless cameras where the sensor never rests although obviously video's going to produce more heat anyway...I wonder if canon solved that issue?
EVF and getting rid of micro adjustments is enough of a reason.
jzucker wrote:
I considered it but ended up with the MK IV instead. I guess I don't really see the advantage in a full frame mirrorless camera. By the time you get big glass on it, the size difference is negligible. What is the advantage at that point?
jzucker wrote:
I'd like to see that in action. When I tried a sony a while back I was horrified at how bad it was to actually focus on something specific like someone's eye lashes vs. their iris. Manual focus was also not a easy as an SLR. But maybe canon's improved upon that?
Several of us who have the R (or have tried it) have reported back here about the experience. You probably have missed those reports...
Manual focus with the R is much easier than with an SLR, especially if the lens provides distance information feedback to the camera (as Canon and some third-party lenses do). These lenses get a focusing aid that is kind of hard to explain but easy to use, with a box and pointers/arrows that come together when the area inside the box is in focus.
Even if you have a lens that doesn't communicate with the camera, manual focus with the R is far easier than on an SLR like the 5D4. For one, the EVF is always sufficiently bright and clear, whereas an SLR viewfinder gets dim when the light is low, making it harder to see what's properly focused. The R also has focus peaking, which none of the Canon SLRs have. (I don't know if you're familiar with the feature, but it's a manual focusing aid that highlights in-focus edges with a bright color.) It also has 5X and 10X magnification, which you can activate in a number of ways, depending on how you configure the camera.
EVF isn't an advantage to me.
I thought the same thing until I got the R. Now I'm disappointed when I peer through the 5D4's viewfinder.
I like the added stability of having the camera against my face and it seems like it'd be awkward to adjust focus points with the touch screen when you're looking through the viewfinder.
This actually works really well, though of course it takes a little time to get used to it. But I've had the R for a few weeks now, and it's second nature. The touch screen (or rather, the part of it that's closest to your thumb) just becomes another control surface.
And since I shoot portraits, I don't know how much of an advantage I'd get from the faster focus.
It does focus very fast, but it's not like the 5D4 is slow. No big difference there. But the R's advantage for portraits almost can't be overstated. You can set a focus point almost anywhere in the frame -- with the exception of a thin strip on the far left and far right of the frame (or top and bottom in portrait orientation). And in my experience, none of those 5600+ focus points is better or worse than any other. With all SLRs I've ever used to this point, there are some focus points that are better than others -- so if you're composing with one of the 'outer' points, focus is less accurate, slower, or both. Not so with the R.
But having a body that's not weather-proofed, having only a single card slot and not having a dedicated aperture wheel would be a disadvantage for me.
It has an aperture wheel -- it just isn't where you necessarily expect it coming from a DSLR. In Av mode, it's obviously going to be the wheel near the shutter release, just as on a DSLR. When you're in manual mode, the aperture is controlled with the wheel at the back-top of the camera.
Everyone I know with Sony has issues where the sensor overheats when doing video and the whole camera shuts down. The issue seems endemic to mirrorless cameras where the sensor never rests although obviously video's going to produce more heat anyway...I wonder if canon solved that issue?
I'm not a Sony shooter, but it seems unlikely they'd get to their what... third(?) generation bodies and still have that problem. Nonetheless, I have used my EOS R a bunch, including for video (really just to test it... I'm mainly a stills guy), and it hasn't overheated once.
Perhaps "compelling" would have been a better word than "impressive". I do agree that the 28-70 f2 is impressive. It is impressively large and heavy. It is simply not compelling to me. I have never thought to myself "gee, I'd really like a 3 pound hand-held portrait lens. That thing weighs 1430g! The very impressive 24-70 f2/8 weighs 805g. A 5D Mark IV + 24-70 f2.8 only weighs 1605g.
The whole argument behind "full frame" 24x36 sensors is that we can have higher ISO and less noise. So we should be able to shoot with slower lenses and leverage the higher ISO sensor abilities. Sure you can achieve super shallow DOF on that lens, but I have never found myself wanting shallow DOF at 28mm.
The 50mm f1.2 is also impressive. But again, not that compelling to me. This seems like history repeating itself. It is 1989 all over again. Canon created the even more impressive EF 50mm f1.0 to launch along side the first EOS camera back in '89. It was so amazing that Canon stopped building it 18 years ago. I think the 50 f1.0 was created just to entice people to buy into the EOS cameras since it was not backwards compatible with the old mount. We have a currently available EF 50 f1.2 so the RF version isn't unique. But that very unique 28-70 f2 is the lens bait designed to get you to buy the R body just so you can use the lens.
Hey, if the RF lineup works for you then go for it. I am just not seeing how it helps me right now.
moondigger wrote:
Uh... what? Every native RF lens released so far is at least somewhat impressive. One (the RF 50/1.2L) is reported to be one of the finest 50 mm lenses ever made, and one (the 28-70/2L) is literally unique -- no other lens manufacturer in the world sells one.
As for the adapter - it isn't 'clumsy' at all, though it does add some length to the EF lenses you use it with. I suppose if you think the only (or at least an important) attribute of a mirrorless system is to be more compact, then I guess the R and most of the current RF lenses aren't for you. But I find other attributes more compelling than the physical size of it. ...Show more →
At the time of posting this more than double of other categories say that the camera doesn't live up to expectations. I thought that too and completely agree in some ways but..
I have used EVERYTHING currently and most past systems (I have tons of gear)... And all I can say is that I'm pleasantly shocked at how much I like the EOS R. Even though I thought I'd dislike it I bought it to satisfy my curiosity and I'm glad I did. It could have used an updated sensor, Canon likes to phone things in tho so I kinda knew it going into it
My only complaints thus far are:
When you snap a photo there is a slight hiccup like all other cameras but Canon tries to somehow HIDE the hiccup and it makes it feel laggy vs other cameras (maybe I've gotten to used to the A9). The 50RF could have been smaller/lighter or designed smarter so the back element focuses not the front because there's a lot of thrust to the lens when focusing and that could lead to less sharp shots in situations where you're forced to shoot at 60th/125th (My Leica SL and 50SL lens is too heavy and this isn't far behind in total system weight). Eye AF isn't as well polished as Sony and the fact that they don't stick function buttons on the lens shocks me. It's such a great feature it should be on all modern lenses. That little thumb slider button is silly and I think a knob all way selector would have been better.
But with that said, I'm having as much joy shooting this system as I've had with way more expensive systems. BUT when the honeymoon period wears off I think the IQ of the 50/1.2 will convince me to keep the system and hopefully by that point there will be a few more lenses and a new pro body
Might go out and get the 35 tomorrow (my dealer will have one). Though I'm going to be running some comparisons between a lot of other AF 50mm lenses that are hailed as EXCELLENT in the next day or so and if it underwhelms in testing I might sell it off before the end of the week :::FACEPALM:::
But to be fair, from what I've seen so far of the lens it's going to do well and I have to keep in mind it's a half stop faster than the rest of the lenses I'll be testing.
