Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Canon EOS R first impressions - INSANE split personality camera

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Good article that is relevant to us, unlike all the "tech reviewers & photographers". The only thing I dont know if I agree on, is saying it's really close to a c200 crop wise. C200 is 1.5x & eos r is nearly 1.8x?

For photos; it also has some nasty banding/coloring that can start to become visible at 3 stops & up. If you shoot a landscape in sunrise or sunset towards the light source (sun), I have found you generally need 2-4 stops of shadow recovery. It should be fine photo wise for most people though, you can always bracket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crop 1.8x is maths, and reality has yet to be measured - I'll compare it to the C500 with the same lens, and to 1.5x APS-C cameras and other stuff we know the exact crop of and show visually how it compares.

I said in the article that it may even be doing a 4096 pixel wide sensor readout to maintain the 1.74x crop of the 5D Mark IV in Ultra HD. Takes that, and downsamples to 3840 pixels wide, rather than crops more into the image. We don't know for sure, but when you're in 1.6x crop mode, it certainly doesn't FEEL like 1.8x crop when you hit record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think some copies of the camera are worse than others. I tested raws from a few different places and the camera dpreview had didn't seem to be too bad. There are some big threads on their forums where people are posting before & after of just a 2 stop push and there seems to be quite a bit of color banding. I don't think it's anything people will see on their output to IG or whatever they post it to, but I wouldn't make a large print. Look at the example on the bottom of page 8 only a few stops recovery, crazy.. hopefully they can fix it in an update, but idk. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4329433?page=8

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The crop 1.8x is maths, and reality has yet to be measured - I'll compare it to the C500 with the same lens, and to 1.5x APS-C cameras and other stuff we know the exact crop of and show visually how it compares.

I said in the article that it may even be doing a 4096 pixel wide sensor readout to maintain the 1.74x crop of the 5D Mark IV in Ultra HD. Takes that, and downsamples to 3840 pixels wide, rather than crops more into the image. Because when you're in 1.6x crop mode, it certainly doesn't seem like 1.8x crop when you hit record.

That will be interesting to see, thanks for checking. Also, have you tested the crop mode 1080p? It looks to be very nice 1080, supposedly supersampled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon Super 35mm is definitely bigger than their APS-C, I noticed 10-18mm is more wider on c100mkii than m50 on video mode. (more like 8 or 9mm instead of 10mm at wide end)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Canon Super 35mm is definitely bigger than their APS-C, I noticed 10-18mm is more wider on c100mkii than m50 on video mode. (more like 8 or 9mm instead of 10mm at wide end)

The official measurements are X1.5 and X1.6. It is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no faith that the higher-end model will give us what we want. Look at the 1dx mkii. They intentionally left out clog. 

This camera would be amazing if it had no crop and good rolling shutter. But the problem for canon is that if they give us this camera sans crop and bad RS their sales for the c200 and c300 will suffer. I know pros who are looking at this camera as a lockdown camera and are delaying a purchase of a second c200 to see if this camera can work for them at a cheaper price point, subject to the color matching their c200. Canon are aware of this, and if they give us everything we want then they will have issues with the c200. 

I think these compromises are just something that we will have to live with - either you can deal with that or not, plenty of other options out there to choose from.  If I am in the business of making images though I want something that produces nice images. Considering you can get 10 bit clog external - it might be enough to justify a purchase in spite of its flaws. 

Plus for a lot of us canon guys it is a far nicer entry point pricewise. Just get a second hand 18-35 and you are golden.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good review. I can actually feel you trying to give Canon some love.

I was genuinely stunned when the EOS R was released and, in every functional way, it is still the same old Canons I had before. There's nothing improved upon. When I buy a camera, it has to replace a previous model and the EOS R in no way, shape, or form replaces anything that came before it and that is not promising for the future.

If I want it to replace an 80D, it has to shoot better 1080p. Nope.
Replace the 5D4, it has to shoot better 4K or better stills. Nope.
As an events/wedding stills camera it's not any better than the 5D2 (the SAME burst rate w/ AF) unless I want to be tweaking CR3 dynamic range in post all day (which I don't).

DPAF and Andrew's EOSHD CLOG extended my loyalty to Canon (I've got half-a-dozen EOS bodies, just as many L-lenses, and double that EF and EF-S lenses) but Fuji has the X-T3 and that body and system (refined eye-AF, film simulations, F-LOG, and low rolling shutter) has the potential to wipe away what little advantage Canon had over this market segment.

Even if Canon releases a higher-end Pro-R that gets the feature set we assumed (hoped/prayed) was coming for years, now, it's still going to be north of $3000 USD. I sincerely doubt that feature set on such a hypothetical camera is going to be better than what is on the Fuji X-T3, which is available now and is half that price. Heck, I outfitted my X-T3 completely for documentary shooting (three primes, booster grip) for the same price as the EOS R body alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Cinema EOS line comes at the expense of the EOS line, it should be straight up cancelled. Pro video has high margins but it's a niche compared to mirrorless and DSLR. For every C200, Canon probably sells 10x more 5D Mark IVs.

If having crippled video on their hybrid cameras is going to continue for another 5 years, and half their market vanishes, then the extra profit from the Cinema EOS is nowhere near going to be a stand-in for all those lost sales.

Canon should accept the fact that they may lose some pros from the C100 and C200 line, who will buy a full frame camera. They are losing these pros no matter what, because some of them are buying Sony, Fuji and Panasonic mirrorless cameras.

I'd say no more than a small proportion of pros are leaving behind cameras like the C200 for mirrorless cameras, because they're happy with the form factor of the C200, the interface and the audio side, as well as built in ND. All the same reasons they left stills cameras behind in the first place - as well as appearing with pro gear on a paid job, rather than turning up with a 'toy' in the eyes of a client - stupid though it is to the professional and us - it's still sadly the case that some clients don't trust 'small unprofessional consumer cameras', or would question the capabilities of the shooter based on their misinformed gear views.

If anything, Canon can sell a second body to these users and make even more money - but not if it has rolling shutter like the leaning tower of Pisa.

I just think a big company has huge inertia. The decisions taken around the sensor technology go back a long time. Maybe even there is extra colour processing which slows down the output. Maybe even Sony holds a vital patent for cooler running, faster running BSI full frame sensors. So the EOS R video limitations might not even be at all related to Cinema EOS and market segmentation.

My best guess is...

Yes Canon wants to keep pros on the high-profit margin Cinema EOS cameras, they want a range of separate video tools for them, they want pros to buy BOTH video cameras and stills cameras. They even want some people to buy an XC10 or an XF705, you name it, Canon want to sell it you.

Yes Canon is aware of the backlash about uncompetitive video specs on DSLR and mirrorless cameras, but due to the inertia of changing the direction of such a big ship, they have to live with decisions made a long time ago about technology, sensor specs, readout speeds, heat dissipation, etc. And on top of that they are more conservative on reliability than Sony, so will underclock things even further to prevent any heat issues in 4K over long continuous recording stints. So add all that together and you are not going to get full frame 4K from them yet.

What confuses me is that Canon makes a GREAT deal of their profit from glass. Some have even described Canon as a lens company first that also sells cameras. The bad news for Canon is that I (as a representative customer) was ready for a 28-70mm F2.0, I had it on my radar even since the first Sigma rumours. It would have been an instant buy for one of my other full frame 4K cameras. The EOS R 1.8x crop made it NOT an instant buy, so right there with me and a LOT of other regular full frame 4K shooters they just blew a TON of profit. It's a £3000 lens!

I want Canon to put the 1D X Mark II sensor in a mirrorless camera, with full frame 4K and Canon LOG otherwise their C200 users will buy a Sony and their EOS R users will not buy as many lenses. That sensor in the 1D X II is the only full frame one they have which is fast enough to do full frame 4K. 4K/60p on that camera in 1.4x crop... Even if that is the absolute speed limit of the sensor, Canon have room to halve the frame rate to 30p and under, but extend the sampling to full width. It's simple maths. The total data per second coming off the chip remains under the speed limit at the lower frame rate but comes from a larger area.

Final thing to consider, is that Canon want to stagger the release of new technology as far into the future as possible, so that we keep on upgrading and Canon keep having a reason to sell you the next model. If the EOS R had this amazing 4K image in full frame without rolling shutter issues, there's two BIG reasons LESS to buy the more expensive EOS R2 or whatever it will be, whenever it will be!! They are leading the market, so why give you everything NOW for CHEAP just because Sony is? Sony is chasing and they NEED to gain market share. Canon arguably does not. I am not saying I agree with this business strategy or that it's right in the long-run (clue - it will probably hurt them) - but it could be yet another reason why the EOS R is the way it is.

Also the 3 top EOS R reviews on YouTube don't mention the rolling shutter problem on the camera in 4K, which I think is letting down a combined total of nearly a million viewers. These 3 guys (Peter, Caleb and Jordan) are all wonderful people and I have nothing personal against them, but I think it's a major failing not to mention it.

Share this post


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

I have no faith that the higher-end model will give us what we want.

Not holding my breath either, but since Nikon is now pushing FF mirrorless quite aggressively, plus Panasonic entering the game, one can always hope 😄

Share this post


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

If the Cinema EOS line comes at the expense of the EOS line, it should be straight up cancelled. Pro video has high margins but it's a niche compared to mirrorless and DSLR. For every C200, Canon probably sells 10x more 5D Mark IVs.

If having crippled video on their hybrid cameras is going to continue for another 5 years, and half their market vanishes, then the extra profit from the Cinema EOS is nowhere near going to be a stand-in for all those lost sales.

Canon should accept the fact that they may lose some pros from the C100 and C200 line, who will buy a full frame camera. They are losing these pros no matter what, because some of them are buying Sony, Fuji and Panasonic mirrorless cameras.

I'd say no more than a small proportion of pros are leaving behind cameras like the C200 for mirrorless cameras, because they're happy with the form factor of the C200, the interface and the audio side, as well as built in ND.

That might be the case. But I think their strategy is to balance between the various segments of their market. That is, they are giving you enough features to buy an Eos r, for example, but not enough to have it replace a more specialized model, a c200, for example. It is a delicate game they are playing.

So for instance you have the 1dx mkii which can do 4k full frame yet there is a clear conscious decision to omit clog, completely unrelated to any hardware constraints. In the Eos R we do get clog 10 bit but we get a massive crop and terrible RS. They intentionally won't let you have both. 

However, I think enough video people will still buy the camera for a variety of reasons (glass, color, reliability, ergonomics) and I don't think it will hurt the c200 sales too greatly - they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Now if they did the 1dx mk ii in mirrorless form (and fuill frame) and gave us clog and 10 bit - I think for many people they would prefer this to the c200, and it will hurt sales of the c200 and their profit margin, which is why I have no hope for the foreseeable future until they at least upgrade their c200.  

 

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

×