Canon's new mirrorless system - announcement on September 4

[Rado]

Yes this is a 6D level body with a non-crippled sensor (hopefully, heh). I don't think it's that weird. I might buy the body but I don't plan to buy any RF lenses yet and enjoy my EF lenses instead. As tempting as that 28-70/f2 sounds, it's also around 3K. And ironically with the drop in filters adapter the EF lenses might be actually more useful than RF lenses for many cases.

[Kirk_C]

And ironically with the drop in filters adapter the EF lenses might be actually more useful than RF lenses for many cases.

This is the one option that might compel me to purchase this camera. The 17 TS-E with a CPL behind it offers many opportunities.

[Bernard ODonovan]

All the 35mm mirrorless cameras (not just Canon) are shown with the sensor exposed when there's no lens mounted. Can anybody explain why? I think it's insane - can't they close the shutter when there's no lens to prevent dust from getting on the sensor? I thought Sony is just being dumb when I saw this behavior on my A7 but maybe there's a better reason?

Canon have responded, skip to 10.30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5eyvSXXQ2s

 

[hubell]

We cannot rule out the possibility that the brains of Canon designers/users vs Nikon designers/users are wired a bit differently.

The logic of this launch is escaping me a bit also, but many Canon users seem happy so it seems that the release is overall a good match for their needs/expectations for a system.

There are some near things for sure such as the multiple adapters (especially the drop in filters idea), the 28-70 f2, the AF specs,...

Cheers,
Bernard

There is an interesting graphic at https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ showing the comparative size of the Nikon Z7 with the new 24-70 f/4 lens, the Canon EOS R with the new 28-70 f/2 lens, and the Sony A7RIII with the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The Nikon Z7kit weighs 2.59 pounds, the Canon kit weighs 4.95 pounds and the Sony kit weighs 3.33 pounds. Now, assuming that the new Nikon 24-70 f/4 offers demonstrably superior optical performance to the Canon and the Sony zooms, which camera do you want to take on a hike? Which do you want to want to carry around in a city for travel photography? Oh, I forgot to mention that the Nikon lens is less than 1/2 the price of the Sony lens and less than 1/3 the price of the Canon lens. The Sony lens gives one extra stop of light. A big deal? the Canon gives you two extra stops, but the there is no IBIS. Whatever you gain with two stops you more than lose by the lack of IBIS.
Nikon's claims about the optical performance of its new, slower lenses may turn out to be marketing speak, but if true, I really think Nikon may be on to something where Sony has missed the ball. I knew Canon would. To me, Canon is like Chevrolet in the 1960's, churning out the  same tired stuff. Little if any innovation.

[phila]

It was pointed out in an editorial post at DPR that the R is the introductory body to use the RF mount in much the same way as the EOS 650 was the introductory body for the EF mount. I think this is a valid observation. Just as Canon didn't start off with the EOS 1, it hasn't started off with the "R1".

[Dan Wells]

Completely valid - Canon may have some great bodies higher up the price/performance curve, and some great lenses further down the curve, awaiting release.  If so, could some development have gotten out of sync, perhaps the "wrong" body being ready first? What if they were planning to release a $4000 body (a little bigger, super fast speeds, 4K 60P, EOS-1 build) with those initial lenses, and the body they wanted is still 3-6 months out - but the high-end consumer body (developed by a different team) was ready? What if there are a couple of lenses that would have made sense with this body that aren't ready yet? I can see Canon saying "the 16-35 f4 isn't ready, the 50 f1.8 isn't ready, why don't we launch the body we have with just the 24-105 f4 and the 35mm" - then the exotic lens team piped up and said "we've got two more lenses we did for the EOS-1R, which isn't ready yet"...


Here's a link to a Camerasize comparison of the EOS R with the 24-105 to the Z7 with the 24-70 - it's a lot closer than the mirrorlessrumors comparison, although the Nikon is still quite a bit smaller.

[phila]

I doubt it. The EOS 650 launched with the EF300f2.8L and EF 50f1.0L! I'd be rather astonished if Canon had their production schedule anything other than completely sorted.

[BernardLanguillier]

I doubt it. The EOS 650 launched with the EF300f2.8L and EF 50f1.0L! I'd be rather astonished if Canon had their production schedule anything other than completely sorted.

On the other hand, could Canon really not have announced anything now?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

Here's a very early EOS lens chart - it is not the very first, because there were 13 initial lenses and this shows 14 (the probable difference is the 55-200 L, which was released somewhat later). The 50 1.0 was not an original lens, although the 300 f2.8 was. There were a few exotics in here (the 300 f2.8, perhaps the soft-focus lens), but it was dominated by variable-aperture zooms...

Dan

[D White]

We need 35 more pages to match the Z thread.

Either there is less to complain about or less to rave about.......or Canon users are more polite?

[jeremyrh]

We need 35 more pages to match the Z thread.

Either there is less to complain about or less to rave about.......or Canon users are more polite?

Disappointing lack of essays from shadowblade :-)

[davidgp]

There is an interesting graphic at https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ showing the comparative size of the Nikon Z7 with the new 24-70 f/4 lens, the Canon EOS R with the new 28-70 f/2 lens, and the Sony A7RIII with the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The Nikon Z7kit weighs 2.59 pounds, the Canon kit weighs 4.95 pounds and the Sony kit weighs 3.33 pounds. Now, assuming that the new Nikon 24-70 f/4 offers demonstrably superior optical performance to the Canon and the Sony zooms, which camera do you want to take on a hike? Which do you want to want to carry around in a city for travel photography? Oh, I forgot to mention that the Nikon lens is less than 1/2 the price of the Sony lens and less than 1/3 the price of the Canon lens. The Sony lens gives one extra stop of light. A big deal? the Canon gives you two extra stops, but the there is no IBIS. Whatever you gain with two stops you more than lose by the lack of IBIS.
Nikon's claims about the optical performance of its new, slower lenses may turn out to be marketing speak, but if true, I really think Nikon may be on to something where Sony has missed the ball. I knew Canon would. To me, Canon is like Chevrolet in the 1960's, churning out the  same tired stuff. Little if any innovation.

Nice comparation... but wouldn’t it be better... if you are comparing prices and weights doing it apple to apples... I don’t know... maybe using the price and weight of the Canon RF 24-105f4... and the Sony 24-70f4 Z or the 24-105G... at least they are all F4...




http://dgpfotografia.com

[BernardLanguillier]

We need 35 more pages to match the Z thread.

Either there is less to complain about or less to rave about.......or Canon users are more polite?

Sony users appear to feel less threatened by the Canon R? 

Besides, Canon didn't share much until the last minute.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

I would buy the Canon before the Nikon. Actually I think both cameras are a bit behind the current Sony generation and Sony is more likely to release a new camera before either Canon or Nikon. I see no reason at all to change fron Sony. I think I was expecting a big more all round.

Bernard I think you may be projecting a bit when you speak of “feeling threatened”. All three platforms are just fine for taking great photos. I really don’t thing the emotionally laden word threatened comes into it at all. If something comes along that allows you to be a much better photographer then just buy it. No need to get emotional.

[phila]

Here's a very early EOS lens chart - it is not the very first, because there were 13 initial lenses and this shows 14 (the probable difference is the 55-200 L, which was released somewhat later). The 50 1.0 was not an original lens, although the 300 f2.8 was. There were a few exotics in here (the 300 f2.8, perhaps the soft-focus lens), but it was dominated by variable-aperture zooms...

Dan

Indeed the 50f1.0L came in '89. My memory sucks! 

[BernardLanguillier]

I would buy the Canon before the Nikon.

I am sure it is an excellent choice for your needs.

Bernard I think you may be projecting a bit when you speak of “feeling threatened”. All three platforms are just fine for taking great photos. I really don’t thing the emotionally laden word threatened comes into it at all. If something comes along that allows you to be a much better photographer then just buy it. No need to get emotional.

I totally agree with you. But how do you explain the irresistible urge demonstrated by some Sony users to convince the world about the total lack of value of the Z cameras?

Cheers,
Bernard

[davidgp]

Sony users appear to feel less threatened by the Canon R? 

Besides, Canon didn't share much until the last minute.

Yes... but if I understood Kevin correctly... they are allowing people in Hawaii to take the camera home... looks like Canon wants them now not to stop talking about the camera until it is released...

I think this camera it is more a threat to Sony users than Nikon... don’t read I’m saying that because I think it is better... I say that b cause there were much more Canon users switching to Sony than Nikon user switching to Sony... no those Canon users have an option to stay and go mirrorless...



http://dgpfotografia.com

[BernardLanguillier]

I think this camera it is more a threat to Sony users than Nikon... don’t read I’m saying that because I think it is better... I say that b cause there were much more Canon users switching to Sony than Nikon user switching to Sony... no those Canon users have an option to stay and go mirrorless...

I agree 100%, but I wasn't talking about the reality, but about how some Sony users appear to perceive the reality.

Frankly, I have nothing negative to say about the Canon R. It is what it is and I am sure it will deliver value to some photographers.

I may even buy one with the 35mm lens when available to see how well it works.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

I am sure it is an excellent choice for your needs.

I totally agree with you. But how do you explain the irresistible urge demonstrated by some Sony users to convince the world about the total lack of value of the Z cameras?

Cheers,
Bernard

I think if you spend money and time on a thing you become invested in it. Most of my friends shoot Nikon, non are shooting Sony. We don’t really talk cameras much. I meet Ince month with three other photographers to discuss trends and so on. The one guy is shooting with an 850, no idea what the others are shooting on, never occurred to me to ask. I think they would be surprised if I did.

I spend a bit more time than most looking at gear because it’s my living. I like new shiny stuff more than I should as well I suppose.

[Rado]

There is an interesting graphic at https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/ showing the comparative size of the Nikon Z7 with the new 24-70 f/4 lens, the Canon EOS R with the new 28-70 f/2 lens, and the Sony A7RIII with the Sony 24-70 f/2.8 lens. The Nikon Z7kit weighs 2.59 pounds, the Canon kit weighs 4.95 pounds and the Sony kit weighs 3.33 pounds. Now, assuming that the new Nikon 24-70 f/4 offers demonstrably superior optical performance to the Canon and the Sony zooms, which camera do you want to take on a hike?

Man that 28-70/f2 sure got on your nerves :-). If I was going hiking I'd take the 24-105/f4 of course, which Canon is also releasing for RF.