Jump to content
Leonard Whistler

Canon EOS-R full-frame mirrorless.

Recommended Posts

I've said this many times and hate to be a bad guy But.....I've had 592 Students come here from around the world for a portrait studio Class. so......That means i get to Process Images shot in a controlled environment from Just about every Camera and lens maker out there. Im sorry ....... the Canon 24-105 is the biggest Piece of crap made............Compared to others and if you disagree?. shoot all the others then ..............Give advice. sorry. I care about others money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely a mixed bag: incredible dual pixel AF system covering almost the entire frame but one SD card slot. New RF mount with extended body-to-lens-to-body communication but 5 fps burst shooting. Canon put a newer, more space-efficient codec in for 4K video, but still shoots only 30p and crops the video by 1.74x.  EF adapters are said to make EF lenses run as effectively on EOS R body as native RF lenses, but Canon won't be making an RF>EF adapter for DSLRs. Ever.  

In short, it has the 5D MkIV's sensor in a camera that seems to perform in every other way like a 6D MkII.  This is clearly not the "pro" mirrorless camera Canon was promising.  That announcement may stilll be coming.  The only good news about this model is that it won't cost an arm and a leg like a high-end Sony or Nikon.  It's priced right around what a 6D MkII would cost.  I can't see any professional event photographer using this as a backup camera to a 1DX MkII or a 5D MkIV.  The different placement of buttons and dials would play hell with their muscle memory.  I don't see soccer mom or baseball dad buying it: too expensive for the Rebel crowd.  It fits in Canon's lineup between the 6D MkII and 5D MKIV, and seems to be targeted towards enthusiasts and gear heads.  I won't be getting one anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Laurin Rinder said:

the Canon 24-105

This is a new RF24-105L lens using an entirely new mount made for the new mirrorless camera.  Remains to be seen at this point whether the new lens will be better or worse than Canon's three current EF 24-105 lenses.  

The shorter flange distance on the R body should at least resolve some of the chromatic aberration found in the older EF lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't say RF 24-105. Im sorry it is not technically  possible to make any lens with that reach . Optics are my thing. No One has done it yet. 70-200 is about it. 70-300 can't be done. these long Ranges are a scam. They Know it also. And.....No lens maker yet has a Lens that can resolve anything More than 18 MP's Known fact , the rest is a scam.If anyone can't honestly see distortion then they should not be advising others to spend Money. and we all know Primes are best in every Category. Expensive? yes. Thats not the point. look at the major pro Cameras and I don't mean Nikon,canon,Oly,Blah,Blah,Etc,ETC. .pro, you see Very small range zooms and mostly primes. theres a reason.Hassy,leica,Phaseone.Ever see a zoom on a Field camera?....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Laurin Rinder said:

He didn't say RF 24-105. Im sorry it is not technically  possible to make any lens with that reach . Optics are my thing. No One has done it yet. 70-200 is about it. 70-300 can't be done. these long Ranges are a scam. They Know it also. And.....No lens maker yet has a Lens that can resolve anything More than 18 MP's Known fact , the rest is a scam.If anyone can't honestly see distortion then they should not be advising others to spend Money. and we all know Primes are best in every Category. Expensive? yes. Thats not the point. look at the major pro Cameras and I don't mean Nikon,canon,Oly,Blah,Blah,Etc,ETC. .pro, you see Very small range zooms and mostly primes. theres a reason.Hassy,leica,Phaseone.Ever see a zoom on a Field camera?....LOL

Good stuff to know. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Laurin Rinder said:

He didn't say RF 24-105. Im sorry it is not technically  possible to make any lens with that reach . Optics are my thing. No One has done it yet. 70-200 is about it. 70-300 can't be done. these long Ranges are a scam. They Know it also. And.....No lens maker yet has a Lens that can resolve anything More than 18 MP's Known fact , the rest is a scam.If anyone can't honestly see distortion then they should not be advising others to spend Money. and we all know Primes are best in every Category. Expensive? yes. Thats not the point. look at the major pro Cameras and I don't mean Nikon,canon,Oly,Blah,Blah,Etc,ETC. .pro, you see Very small range zooms and mostly primes. theres a reason.Hassy,leica,Phaseone.Ever see a zoom on a Field camera?....LOL

 

"Not technically possible"? "Scam"? Why such broad statements and exaggerations? Don't you think it is better to wait and see?

But since "optics are your thing😜:

 

1. one thing you should have noticed, after reading the article is the fact that, for this mirrorless, the lens comes much closer to sensor than for traditional DSLRs. The shorter flange distance allows the creation of lenses with bigger rear element and smaller front element. This combination will reduce distortion and other optical artifacts.

 "Larger rear elements mean front elements can be smaller, meaning less strong refracting and bending of light rays within the lens, enhancing optical performance"

Therefore, we shouldn't be surprised to see a 24-105 R lens as good as as 24-70 L lens. Possibly even better.

 

2. The "known fact" is that, according to the prestigious Dxomark lab testing:

  • the best prime lens is able to achieve 36Mpx resolution
  • the best 24-70 lens is able to achieve 32Mpx resolution
  • the best 24-105 lens is able to achieve 25Mpx resolution

Capture.thumb.JPG.503a281a2078b1c5e4ac698b3148c0e9.JPG

As you can see, 25Mpx achieved by for one of those 24-105 "scams" is clearly more than the 18Mpx 😲 you stated as the best ever achieved! Known fact! 😉

 

3. This forum is about Shutterstock. I'm sure you noticed that Shutterstock stopped being religious about optical sharpness, some time ago.

Therefore, advising people, on this forum, to only go for primes and calling decent (i.e. sufficient) quality zooms "scams" is clearly misleading!

24-105 or 70-300 are very good for stock. Even kit lenses are good these days, not to mention smartphones. You often enjoy showing us your uploaded iPhone photos. 

On 5/5/2018 at 10:46 AM, Laurin Rinder said:

My last 250 Images are cellphone. basically. No need for Much More anymore for penny stock, soon to be 1/2 a penny.

image.gifAdvising people to go for primes, when smartphone quality is good enough for you (as per your statement) is rather confusing. Don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mandritoiu said:

the best 24-105 lens is able to achieve 25Mpx resolution

I have that Sigma Art lens.  Love it, but the barrel distortion at 24mm is HUGE!  Still, it's much sharper than the EF24-105 MkI I had originally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

I have that Sigma Art lens.  Love it, but the barrel distortion at 24mm is HUGE!  Still, it's much sharper than the EF24-105 MkI I had originally.  

Yeah, lab tests show a little more distortion than on your old lens.

image.png.f32946df1f2417407908e8fa50ffb220.png

But, I was not debating distortion here.

I am showing the fact that your lens can resolve much more than 18Mpx, in spite of what @Laurin Rinder stated as being the best ever achieved.

I am sure we can agree that your lens is far from being a "scam". 😉 Can't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon are infuriating.  Yet again the VIDEO is crippled.

4k 30 FPS (only) and the 4k is a 1.9x crop.

For a supposed high end full frame camera in this day and age it really is pathetic.

Canon seem to deliberately cripple video in all their models (hoping you'll buy a C series of a RED ???).  Nikon have managed 1:1 4k, as have Sony.  They've bungled this.

If Canon didnt have the best glass by a mile i'd have ditched them a while ago.  I was looking at upgrading to an R series but the crippled video for me means theres very little point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

For a supposed high end full frame camera in this day and age it really is pathetic.

It's not high-end and is priced as such.  It's a middle-of-the-road enthusiast camera.  Canon's high end cameras are marketed to professional photographers shooting sports (1DX MkII) and weddings/events (5D MkIV).  Generally-speaking, the people who shoot these cameras aren't shooting them with video in mind.  The 5D MkIV is an excellent camera, and this new R model uses the same sensor while hobbling other features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phil Lowe said:

It's not high-end and is priced as such.  It's a middle-of-the-road enthusiast camera.  Canon's high end cameras are marketed to professional photographers shooting sports (1DX MkII) and weddings/events (5D MkIV).  Generally-speaking, the people who shoot these cameras aren't shooting them with video in mind.  The 5D MkIV is an excellent camera, and this new R model uses the same sensor while hobbling other features.

Prosumer certainly and a cut down feature set.

Again Canon fail hugely on video (as does the MkIV) compared to the competition and thats the main issue.  Sony can do it, Nikon can do it. Canon are now also quite a long way behind with sensors.  Their dual pixel AF is good and they have the best glass by a long way but camera hardware and features they're a long way behind.

A lot of video is now shot on DSLR these days.  It looks like they constantly try to protect their C series by crippling the DSLR functions but its biting them now as the competition doesnt care about that separation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

Canon fail hugely on video (as does the MkIV) compared to the competition

I respectfully disagree with this.  I shoot 4K with the MkIV and I think the image quality is absolutely beautiful.  Are the files big?  Yep.  That's why I only shoot on 128GB CF cards.  Do I have to deal with the crop?  Yep.  It's why I shoot wide angle with my 16-35 f/4.  The dual pixel AF alone buries the competition.  It's ability to track subjects is second to none.  Nikon doesn't even come close.  Having noted that, when I want to shoot something that isn't a DSLR, I use my Canon XF300 and shoot full HD because it's a dedicated video camera, and a damn fine one at that.  

This was shot with the XF300:

And this is a sampler shot with the 5D4:

For me, it all comes down to the image quality, and the 5D MkIV delivers the goods in both 1080p and 4K.  IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not the image *quality* putting me off, its the huge crop.

The R provides a 1.9 crop for video which is huge.

For me where i go 8 or 10mm lenses to get as physically close as possible as the best lighting is going to go maybe 3-4ft before becoming useless, adding a 1.9 crop and massively increasing the subject distance for the same framing is a complete non starter.

Canon dont seem to be capable of doing full (or even most) of the sensor remapping to provide 4k in 1:1 or near.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 11:03 PM, Laurin Rinder said:

I've said this many times and hate to be a bad guy But.....I've had 592 Students come here from around the world for a portrait studio Class. so......That means i get to Process Images shot in a controlled environment from Just about every Camera and lens maker out there. Im sorry ....... the Canon 24-105 is the biggest Piece of crap made............Compared to others and if you disagree?. shoot all the others then ..............Give advice. sorry. I care about others money.

So you have all used the 24-105 R lens already. Are you a lens  camera test group? You did notice the subject right?

And nope the 24-105 isn't the best L lens made, maybe the worst. Beats the 28-135 all to heck.

My favorite lens for work is the 28-300 L from Canon, but I don't shoot portraits, indoors, if I did I wouldn't pick a 24-105 I'd use a prime. Whole mixed up bag of criticizing a lens for all when it's not the best for what you do.

On 9/7/2018 at 1:45 PM, mandritoiu said:

Yeah, lab tests show a little more distortion than on your old lens.

I am showing the fact that your lens can resolve much more than 18Mpx, in spite of what @Laurin Rinder stated as being the best ever achieved.

I am sure we can agree that your lens is far from being a "scam". 😉 Can't we?

On 9/8/2018 at 2:10 AM, Phil Lowe said:

Absolutely.  :)

LOL lab testing lenses is interesting, nice science and reading, but I like to see what the photos look like as my test?

I'd like to actually use the mirrorless R, looks nice. Not exactly sure why I want a mirrorless camera, someone explain? Fast focus and so many focus points, wow. Advantages for shooting what subjects? Looks like video is not the best use? And yes I can agree that Canon seems to lack a little in sensors.

 

 

Share this post


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

So you have all used the 24-105 R lens already. Are you a lens  camera test group? You did notice the subject right?

And nope the 24-105 isn't the best L lens made, maybe the worst. Beats the 28-135 all to heck.

My favorite lens for work is the 28-300 L from Canon, but I don't shoot portraits, indoors, if I did I wouldn't pick a 24-105 I'd use a prime. Whole mixed up bag of criticizing a lens for all when it's not the best for what you do.

LOL lab testing lenses is interesting, nice science and reading, but I like to see what the photos look like as my test?

I'd like to actually use the mirrorless R, looks nice. Not exactaly sure why I want a mirrorless camera, someone explain? Advantages for shooting what subjects?

 

 

How dare you to criticize! 😲

Otherwise, I can think of timelapses and extreme macro photography (when hundreds and thousands of shots are needed), without killing your DSLR shutter mechanism. 

But mainly, as highlighted by @Leonard Whistler above, less weight to carry around (assuming similar IQ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dont get the less weight thing.

 

By the time you add lenses, flash, grips and everything else mirrorless isnt really much smaller OR lighter.

I do see how a new mount can offer wider apertures with easy and for timelapse not killing the shutter with thousands of actuations is useful....But i dont see any other benefits currently.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

I still dont get the less weight thing.

 

By the time you add lenses, flash, grips and everything else mirrorless isnt really much smaller OR lighter.

I do see how a new mount can offer wider apertures with easy and for timelapse not killing the shutter with thousands of actuations is useful....But i dont see any other benefits currently.

 

Richard, I felt the same as you for a long time. Then I went and touched one....it felt good in my hands and it is lighter. Granted, I didn't flop a grip on mine but I have my canons sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Richard Whitcombe said:

I still dont get the less weight thing.

 

By the time you add lenses, flash, grips and everything else mirrorless isnt really much smaller OR lighter.

I do see how a new mount can offer wider apertures with easy and for timelapse not killing the shutter with thousands of actuations is useful....But i dont see any other benefits currently.

 

Richard - you might want to give mirrorless a try - you will be impressed, I think.  I use both mirrorless (Olympus EM-1) and ff DSLR (Nikon D750) and there IS a big overall difference in size and weight.  In some situations, the MFT system is less than optimal and the DSLR shines - but in others (e.g., good light) there is little to choose between the two.  Rent or borrow something from Panasonic, Sony, Olympus, Fujii ... you may be surprised!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have tried and used them hence my comments.

A lot of my photography involves hiking and trekking with the gear in the rucksuck which is why i was tempted.  But found no noticeable difference what-so-ever in bulk, size or weight when carrying it around all day.

I do some sport and fast action photography and the ones i tried did lack the AF capability for fast moving subjects.

But the main reason i cant switch is glass - i havent seen any good lenses comparable in quality to the Canon L series, especially in the tele-zoom range.  Sigma and Tamron still cant get consistent models up at that level even on their high end.  Sony lacks anything as good as say the 100-400L II for AF speed, accuracy and outright image quality.

 

 

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

×