Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Can we all just have a big f***ing laugh about this...

Recommended Posts

eos r pricing.jpg

Posted before but it needs some kind of sticky!!

If you want a native 50mm - $2299 + TAX or £2350 in UK

WHAT?

The 28-70mm F2 which is useless in video mode... $3K!!

That is $5.3k gone on lenses, before you've even factored in the body.

Are the EOS R fans out there seriously considering investing $7.6K straight off the bat just to get shooting?

I am wondering why so few are talking about this... Surely, you want the native lenses. You don't want to be stuck with adapters. That's something Sony users do, not Canon users! You want the silent autofocus. Dual Pixel AF gets very noisy shooting video with EF lenses.

Whether you love the EOS R or not, don't care about video and only plan to shoot stills...these prices are eye-watering.

So what are people gonna do... stop at a 24-105? I don't think so.

EF lenses are apparently a must-have prerequisite for owning an EOS R! So is the adapter... but the adapter you want - variable ND drop in - is not even available yet.

Why does it take until February to get such a simple thing out of the factory?

And what if you are a Sony, Panasonic, Fuji or Nikon user considering a switch to the EOS R and you have no EF lenses? You will have a 44mm flange on your mirrorless camera and a wobbly adapter, plus a lot of money missing (gone on old Canon DSLR lenses with noisy AF motors).

The lack of affordable prime lenses is a massive mistake.

Meanwhile, this all gives Sony an advantage... i.e. people actually own native E mount lenses and so they can actually shoot with native glass on their cameras, whilst nearly everybody is shooting EF lenses on the R system!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Yeah these prices are absolutely ridiculous. I was adamantly against a new mount and felt it would have been in Canon’s and current EF lens owners best interest for Canon to make their FF mirrorless an EF Mount.

But when the news of these new lenses leaked, I was tempted by the siren calls of a Canon f/2 zoom. Then when the sizes and weight of the lenses leaked, I became hesitant again but I figured they’d be released at competitive prices... $1500 for the 50mm, less than $2000 for the f/2 zoom, etc... but this is just outright offensive. The 35mm 1.8 seems okay and if it is anything like the EF 35mm f/2, it should be great. And the 24-105mm seems priced right but the draw of RF is the 28-70mm and 50mm 1.2, not a replica of the 24-105mm.

With that being said, I assume there is some kind of AF motor inside the RF lenses that will accommodate Canon’s eventual upgrade of DPAF to QPAF, so it is a necessary evil.

The real gem in this line up, for me, is the ND adapter. As a hobbyist, I’ll sometimes choose lenses based on filter thread diameter since I only have the one higher quality B+W vario ND in 58mm. I swear by my cheapo Bower Faders, but if I decide to get an EOS-R, or a future variant, the ND adapter will be a welcomed feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Are the EOS R fans out there seriously considering investing $7.6K straight off the bat just to get shooting?

- Yes but, I can still use my 4 old 5DM2 batteries with the R body, so I'll rest just a little bit easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would almost think Canon was saying .... "OK FINE here is a full frame mirrorless system now shut up and go away."  Then price it so it never really catches on, but at

least they could say they released it.

Crazy I know ........ but those are crazy prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit more optimistic about it.

This is not a camera for video pros but will sell well to wealthier  Vloggers.

Those lenses are nice but maybe not really for THIS camera (except the 35 macro) but what comes later.

Imagine the original A7 with the latest, greatest FE lenses (they make a lot more sense on the third gen cameras).

This will be a lot better with current EF lenses than Sony's first gen cameras with Sony /Minolta A mount lenses.      Sony just has the advantage that third parties also can make adapters for other mount lenses.

I see this CAMERA aimed at keeping remaining Canon 5D/6D/5Dii users with Canon and also at getting APSC users to FF (I expect that to be a huge part of their marketing push).

Down the track, as a SYSTEM, those lenses make a lot more sense to me.

While I think the better adapters would be better to have now, I don't see that as such a big deal with THIS camera and the plain one should do very well.

Still probably not for me, and despite its many limitations even for stills, it is growing on me and while I will not buy one I would keep it if I was given one I think.

I guess I would have to get a 10-18 STM APSC lens for use in 4K video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is that most people have ef lenses. I doubt anyone will buy the 50 1.2 and 28-70 for this camera (perhaps for the more high end models to come in the future). But those are ridiculous prices. But I don't see it as prohibitive given the following setup:-

Ef full frame lenses to shoot stills (which I and many people already own) - no cost.
Body - 2229
Nd adapter - 399
Video lens: efs 17-55 mm 2.8 IS - ideal for vlogging and film making on a cropped sensor. IS makes the camera useable handheld. So you get 4k apsc equivelent footage stabilised with clog and internal nd filters - $500 usd (used)

For those of us familiar with canon it is not unlike the c100 in 4k in that respect but with autofocus. 

The only major downside I see is the rolling shutter (not present in c100) and the fact that ef lenses with dpaf are naturally noisy. Plus, you have the option of 1080p full frame, and external 10 bit 4:2:2 in either mode.

The total cost of this setup is $3128 usd. The c100 mak ii is currently 3499 on B&H. 

For those of us who know, trust and love the canon ergonomics, color and IQ - I think it is a value proposition if you know what you are buying. 

It is also a fairly powerful tool at that price point. SO I have to disagree with your post/sentiments.        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

Point is that most people have ef lenses.

Well, good for them.

Aiming a new system at your old customers doesn't exactly win you any Sony customers though, does it?

Quote

I doubt anyone will buy the 50 1.2 and 28-70 for this camera (perhaps for the more high end models to come in the future). But those are ridiculous prices. But I don't see it as prohibitive given the following setup:-

Ef full frame lenses to shoot stills (which I and many people already own) - no cost.
Body - 2229
Nd adapter - 399
Video lens: efs 17-55 mm 2.8 IS - ideal for vlogging and film making on a cropped sensor. IS makes the camera useable handheld. So you get 4k apsc equivelent footage stabilised with clog and internal nd filters - $500 usd (used)

Wow that's a lot of money for an APS-C camera.

Quote

For those of us familiar with canon it is not unlike the c100 in 4k in that respect but with autofocus. 

The only major downside I see is the rolling shutter (not present in c100) and the fact that ef lenses with dpaf are naturally noisy. Plus, you have the option of 1080p full frame, and external 10 bit 4:2:2 in either mode.

The total cost of this setup is $3128 usd. The c100 mak ii is currently 3499 on B&H.

Erm. To me it just shows what a bad deal you are getting with Canon for that money vs the others.

At least the C100 is aimed at actual videographers and has the proper audio / XLRs.

Quote

For those of us who know, trust and love the canon ergonomics, color and IQ - I think it is a value proposition if you know what you are buying. 

It is also a fairly powerful tool at that price point. SO I have to disagree with your post/sentiments.        

Terrible rolling shutter skew and a lens motor on your audio track. You're ok with that? Really?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Well, good for them.

Aiming a new system at your old customers doesn't exactly win you any Sony customers though, does it?

Seeing as Sony users represent a minority of the market I would suggest they don't need to. I read somewhere Canon users are most likely to jump to Sony so I think this camera is more an answer to that, which makes sense given Canon's market dominance.

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Wow that's a lot of money for an APS-C camera.

Like I said it is comparable to a c100 which is APS-C, but also I get a 30 megapixel full frame stills camera to boot.

4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Erm. To me it just shows what a bad deal you are getting with Canon for that money vs the others.

At least the C100 is aimed at actual videographers and has the proper audio / XLRs.

You are correct about the XLRs but the Eos R has many advantages - including fullframe 1080p 4:2:2 10 bit, 4k APS-C 4:2:2 10 bit. Better autofocus, and full frame stills capabilities.

5 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Terrible rolling shutter skew and a lens motor on your audio track. You're ok with that? Really?!

No I am not - the rolling shutter is giving me second thoughts. But I stand by the numbers I gave above. I still think for Canon shooters it is a value proposition. I have tried shooting other brands, but there is nothing that compares to the Canon image and ease of use. The internal Nds alone mean more to me than the 8 bit or FF non-cropped.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

Like I said it is comparable to a c100 which is APS-C, but also I get a 30 megapixel full frame stills camera to boot.

C100 is Super 35. That is a 1.5x crop.

Canon APS-C is 1.6x crop.

Small difference but they are not the same.

4K on the EOS R is 1.8x crop. That is starting to become a big difference. It is nowhere near the C100's FOV.

Quote

You are correct about the XLRs but the Eos R has many advantages - including fullframe 1080p 4:2:2 10 bit, 4k APS-C 4:2:2 10 bit. Better autofocus, and full frame stills capabilities.

Sure, but we are talking about compared to what? A really old, obsolete camcorder.

Calling it 4K APS-C 10bit is a bit generous, when it is actually 1.8x and you need a wobbly HDMI cable and even wobblier recorder brick on the end of an arm and cage, to get at the 10bit

Quote

No I am not - the rolling shutter is giving me second thoughts. But I stand by the numbers I gave above. I still think for Canon shooters it is a value proposition. I have tried shooting other brands, but there is nothing that compares to the Canon image and ease of use. The internal Nds alone mean more to me than the 8 bit or FF non-cropped.  

The Nikon Z7 compares very favorably to Canon's image (LOG, colour, etc.). Better in fact, because it's full frame 4K.

And I don't see any issue with the ergonomics on it either. Very easy to use.

I agree NDs are important. More people should copy that EOS R ND adapter. I am sure there will be third party ones with E and Z mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your points, Andrew, but I disagree with your figures. You can get a very good setup for $3128 usd. I think it compares favourably to the competition for the reasons already listed and especially in the context of the canon ecosystem. If I have to go into Sony for instance I am spending in excess of that amount because I need to purchase lenses, which is cost prohibitive. And frankly I don't like the Sony image. 

For canon people it is an affordable option considering the full frame stills capabilities. The camera is not without issues, but for some of us the most important things are image and usability. Notwithstanding the massive crop and its other ailments, I still think canon has the best image and the best usability which has only extended with the new ND filters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s funny that this is the only site that seems to exaggerate the crop.   The same thing happened with the 5D4 where multiple sites decide it’s a 1.64x crop but here it’s a 1.74x.

In multiple reports, the 4K crop in the EOS-R is 1.67x but by the time you finish a thread here, the crop is at m4/3 level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

small crop or large crop at the end of the day its the typical overpriced Canon full frame dslr with a massive crop in 4K. I find it interesting that Canon is the only company company with these massive crop factors relative to the full sensor size, and the Canon apologist are TOTALLY okay with,  but if Sony, Nikon, or Fuji did that there would be total outrage. Imagine the outrage if the A7sii had 1.8X crop in 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true and I am sure there are plenty of Canon fanboys that would do as you say, but I can honestly confirm that I am not one of them. I was going to buy a Nikon D7500 with a much larger crop than the EOS-R. Mostly because although I’d prefer FF 4K, to me, crops aren’t the end of the world. I shot aps-c and Micro 4/3 for the majority of my hobby, so a 1.67x crop won’t kill me. Maybe I’m just trying to make lemonade but I now have more lens options one of which being the 17-55mm f/2.8, or the Sigma 17-50mm or 18-35mm. The Sigma Art 30mm 1.4 is dirt cheap and should be a nice addition to the EOS-R if I ever get one.

Part of me is hoping that the ef-s crop mode works in 4K, on top of the 1.67x crop... that will give me plenty of options for c-mount lenses.

But to be honest, I will not be an early adopter and although I think the camera has a lot of strong points, I think it is overpriced by $300-$500. If this camera came in between $1600-$1700, I’d be more interested. As is, I’m going to hold off and see what price it is come Spring... or what Panasonic introduces. Or if used P4Ks show up on the market for a grand or less. There are not a shortage of options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, tyger11 said:

Canon EF‑S 10‑22mm F/3.5‑4.5 USM has a better aperture range than the 10-18, though it's still not great.

Yeah the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is not much to write home to mother about aperture wise for video. At 11mm it is already  f5.0, and f5.6 at 15mm.

                                                                                    f/4.5, f/5.0, f/5.6

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens    10mm,11mm,15mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was upset, along with many, but deep down knew this would happen. I am beginning to realize though, that Andrew is probably the most upset by this lol. Maybe it's time to change the site name? I'll throw in a few bucks for a new domain name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get what the fuz is about. Canon have always been expensive with their top lenses. Its not like the MF Nikon 0.95 is going to be for free.

Btw, how much is Sony's 50mm f1.2? Oh that's right.

When my favorite Sony, the original A7 was released it was the same story. To few and overpriced lenses. So I wouldn't worry about it. Prices always come down eventually. Its just a problem if you have to have the latest stuff (which no one does).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yurolov said:

Seeing as Sony users represent a minority of the market I would suggest they don't need to. I read somewhere Canon users are most likely to jump to Sony so I think this camera is more an answer to that, which makes sense given Canon's market dominance.

...

mmm...not really...
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/sony-best-selling-full-frame-company-2018/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×