A m43 shooter handles a Canon EOS R

Today I had the opportunity to handle the new EOS R at Nelson Photo in San Diego, California. My first reaction was "this thing is incredibly heavy" when paired with the 24-105/f4 kit lens attached, which makes it a really poor choice for general travel photography (what I do most of the time).

Although I thought the size was okay, the general ergonomics left some to be desired (the Nikon Z7 felt better in my hands), to the point of saying "how could Canon do this?!"

Some positives: I liked the customizable lens ring and the strap lugs... ;-) , but not much more than that.

Although I'm sure the EOS R takes technically very good pictures, I left the store loving my m43 cameras and lenses more than ever before, with the certainty of having chosen a fantastic system that I'll keep enjoying and recommending for years to come.

Cheers,

Ricky

I'm gonna go on a little bit of a rant here. I agree with you. I think the "full frame" manufacturers are missing the point and promise of mirrorless. They've delivered on smaller/lighter bodies but lenses are getting bigger and heavier than they were on traditional SLRs. Canon's new 50mm f1.2 is significantly bigger than the EOS 50mm f1.2 L, the (admittedly) unique 28-70 f2 is a monster. Where are the 28mm f2 or 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8/100mm f2 lenses? Sony's G zoom lenses are bigger than Canon's L zooms.

Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm have delivered on the promise of mirrorless but Canon and Nikon are not only late to the party but they're missing the point.

Rant concluded.

I think you are doing Nikon a bit of a disservice. The z6 seems well priced, and combined with the 50mm f1.8 makes a very compelling case.

The main reason I wouldn't move to that combo is that is offers very little for a system swap cost incurred.

However I hope it prompts Olympus to release their 3.0 firmware with a lot of new features and constrains their new body cost to some degree.

Canon on the other hand, while having some pretty good tech released a puzzling lens set to start with some real monsters in there.

Maybe their goal is to lure many Eos users as they can...

jackkurtz said:

I'm gonna go on a little bit of a rant here. I agree with you. I think the "full frame" manufacturers are missing the point and promise of mirrorless. They've delivered on smaller/lighter bodies but lenses are getting bigger and heavier than they were on traditional SLRs. Canon's new 50mm f1.2 is significantly bigger than the EOS 50mm f1.2 L, the (admittedly) unique 28-70 f2 is a monster. Where are the 28mm f2 or 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8/100mm f2 lenses? Sony's G zoom lenses are bigger than Canon's L zooms.

Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm have delivered on the promise of mirrorless but Canon and Nikon are not only late to the party but they're missing the point.

Rant concluded.

Click to expand...

I'm also very surprised by the lack of a small 28mm prime in both systems. I expected more detailed (and appealing) lens roadmaps but, as they say, you have to start somewhere...

It's also possible that third-party lens companies will step in and fill the blanks once they figure out the lens pinouts.

Ricky

The question is if one wants a larger format with larger lenses.

Sure there are nice FF-Systems.

But I for my part have no interest to carry around larger lenses. M43 just does what I want.

I think most people who will buy mirrorless FF have already FF. This will be the main customers for it.

Thanks for the comments. They're interesting to hear from a mft perspective. I don't find Canons offerings that puzzling though. It looks like they're trying to build a viable mirrorless alternative for professionals. While having a smaller more compact system IS a draw for MFT users, it's not really what everyone is looking for. I mean everyone would like smaller, lighter gear but mirrorless has other advantages too. I think Canon is just positioning itself to create a complete system with no compromises.

Let's be honest, the Nikon Z and Canon R are aimed at pros and maybe a few wealthy enthusiasts.

The majority of M43 shooters are enthusiasts and hobbyists, so I can't see many of us switching. I certainly wouldn't pay $3,000 for a body, or more than $1,000 for a lens if I wasn't intending to make money from it.

Reading through lots of threads on this and other forums, I have concluded that most do not understand the concept of using the right camera for a given situation.

With film I had my team of 3 formats. 135,120 and 5x4. Each took care of certain areas of my photographic interests. For theatre and the stuff I did for a news magazine, I used the highly mobile 135 format, for architecture or still life 5x4 was the choice and for things in-between where I wanted better image quality than 135 I used 120. Most film photographers understood this concept very well.

It is not much different with digital. My interests have changed but it goes a bit like this. For hiking and travel, I like a nice lightweight setup. I can live with the image quality compromises of a camera with a smaller sensor (M43 IQ is near the old 120 format. BTW if you work carefully). A 3 body 3 lens setup can be carted around all day without causing excessive fatigue this is good for hiking. M43 is the new 135 format in short.

I see FF as a format that can take care of more static things. The high-resolution FF bodies need a tripod to get the most out of them as well as to avoid camera shake problems. This is the go to format when image quality is more important than weight considerations. I see this as the best format for my architecture photography.

Of course, the right camera for the job concept is far more blurred with digital. Sports photographers use FF DSLR’s for legacy lens reasons mostly. M43 should be the default format for sport, but it is not for several reasons.
Yes, the new FF cameras and lenses are heavier than your M43. It is quite normal, they are there to do different things than your M43.

My camera dealer tells me that a lot of amateurs who have gone for the Sony FF system based on the FF mirrorless hype, soon tire of it when they realise that it is not the best fit for their photography. He tells me they mostly go back to M43 or Fuji.

Yes, my 5x4 was incredibly heavy, but it was the only choice in some situations.

--
http://nigelvoak.blogspot.it/
https://momenti-indecisivi.blogspot.it/

EDIT

Member said:

My camera dealer tells me that a lot of amateurs who have gone for the Sony FF system based on the FF mirrorless hype, soon tire of it when they realise that it is not the best fit for their photography. He tells me they mostly go back to M43 or Fuji.

Click to expand...

Could you expand on this statement please? The Sony cameras are comparable in size & weight to the bigger m43 versions.

Boss of Sony said:

Let's be honest, the Nikon Z and Canon R are aimed at pros and maybe a few wealthy enthusiasts.

The majority of M43 shooters are enthusiasts and hobbyists, so I can't see many of us switching. I certainly wouldn't pay $3,000 for a body, or more than $1,000 for a lens if I wasn't intending to make money from it.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure, that's why they have 1 memory card slot, good luck with that.

Lars101x said:

Boss of Sony said:

Let's be honest, the Nikon Z and Canon R are aimed at pros and maybe a few wealthy enthusiasts.

The majority of M43 shooters are enthusiasts and hobbyists, so I can't see many of us switching. I certainly wouldn't pay $3,000 for a body, or more than $1,000 for a lens if I wasn't intending to make money from it.

Click to expand...

Yeah sure, that's why they have 1 memory card slot, good luck with that.

Click to expand...

i'm surprised if you cant even take a picture with only a single card slot, it's a complete disaster......

Keit ll said:

EDIT

Keit ll said:

My camera dealer tells me that a lot of amateurs who have gone for the Sony FF system based on the FF mirrorless hype, soon tire of it when they realise that it is not the best fit for their photography. He tells me they mostly go back to M43 or Fuji.

Click to expand...

Could you expand on this statement please? The Sony cameras are comparable in size & weight to the bigger m43 versions.

Click to expand...

I take it you don't use lenses.

Of course, an alternative is that the M4/3 cams have features they prefer, or smaller cameras, but I'm going to guess it's mostly about the lenses.

Martin.au said:

Keit ll said:

EDIT

Martin.au said:

My camera dealer tells me that a lot of amateurs who have gone for the Sony FF system based on the FF mirrorless hype, soon tire of it when they realise that it is not the best fit for their photography. He tells me they mostly go back to M43 or Fuji.

Click to expand...

Could you expand on this statement please? The Sony cameras are comparable in size & weight to the bigger m43 versions.

Click to expand...

I take it you don't use lenses.

Of course, an alternative is that the M4/3 cams have features they prefer, or smaller cameras, but I'm going to guess it's mostly about the lenses.

Click to expand...

My dealer was quite cryptic. His words were "They find the camera too much for them" .
Yes, I think it mostly about lenses, but I am also told that high MP FF cameras really need a tripod, as camera shake and such are brutally exposed.


I remember I always used 120 on a tripod for IQ reasons.


I am thinking about getting a more up to date FF for architecture. As far as I can see, it seems that up to 24MP the resolution hides some camera shake and poor lens quality. At high MP's one needs a tripod/high shutter speed and top-notch lenses.


I have some research to do. Maybe I will put the question to the Nikon FF forum who were very helpful when I asked about the D700.

I don't see this sort of gear as a direct competitor with M43, myself.

I have a bunch of Nikon F glass and a D810. I would probably replace the D810 with the Z something or other.

I wouldn't biff my M43 stuff. I carried FX Nikon gear around for years and made great images with it but it is just a monumental PITA to carry internationally if your style is fast zoom shooting. I carried two full size bodies with a 17-35 f2.8 and a 70 - 200 f2.8 hanging off a spider belt all day on jobs in places like Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Philippines etc etc and they produced nice work.

Boy, were they a huge pain to lug about in crowded, hot conditions - I would stagger into the hotel after 8 hours out shooting and the feeling of bliss as I took off that spider belt and the camera weight that went with it was indescribable.

I'm heading to Japan next week with my Olympus gear and I am trying to decide whether to do it with just the 12-100 and the 17 f1.2.

All these FF mirrorless systems are only replacement bodies for DSLRs. I don't see the lenses getting much smaller or lighter.

For my shooting, at the moment the most likely outcome is that my Nikon gear will go in PX soon.

I just can't decide whether to get a second EM1 backup now or wait until the announcement and see what is coming. The EM1 will be cheaper soon and the new body is likely, according to friends in the photo industry here, to be closer to US$2500 and not likely to be announced until Feb with delivery who knows when.

m43 could be a viable and successful system going forwards.

It is threatened by the possibility of Olympus lacking commitment in the short term, 3 to 5 years, and also making products that don't capitalise on its strengths, or offering an inadequate range of technologically out-to-date products failing to cover entry level to enthusiast level patrons.

The R mount and Z mount give the big two economic platforms for developing diverse products in the future which will supersede all their existing platforms.

Obviously it seems doubtful that APSC has any long-term future from the big three. It's doubtful there will be any Z or R mount APSC lenses. So the only long-term APSC manufacturer might be Fuji, but their products don't offer any real future advantage over m43.

But will Olympus/Panasonic hold their nerve?

Tango 55 said:

Today I had the opportunity to handle the new EOS R at Nelson Photo in San Diego, California. My first reaction was "this thing is incredibly heavy" when paired with the 24-105/f4 kit lens attached, which makes it a really poor choice for general travel photography (what I do most of the time).

Although I thought the size was okay, the general ergonomics left some to be desired (the Nikon Z7 felt better in my hands), to the point of saying "how could Canon do this?!"

Some positives: I liked the customizable lens ring and the strap lugs... ;-) , but not much more than that.

Although I'm sure the EOS R takes technically very good pictures, I left the store loving my m43 cameras and lenses more than ever before, with the certainty of having chosen a fantastic system that I'll keep enjoying and recommending for years to come.

Cheers,

Ricky

Click to expand...

Well, handling is subjective, but look at this from this perspective:


A Canon 5d mkII owner can actually feel that the EOS R with the new 24-105 is light. If it is heavy for you, just stay with a lighter setup, that's it.

Tango 55 said:

Today I had the opportunity to handle the new EOS R at Nelson Photo in San Diego, California. My first reaction was "this thing is incredibly heavy" when paired with the 24-105/f4 kit lens attached, which makes it a really poor choice for general travel photography (what I do most of the time).

Although I thought the size was okay, the general ergonomics left some to be desired (the Nikon Z7 felt better in my hands), to the point of saying "how could Canon do this?!"

Some positives: I liked the customizable lens ring and the strap lugs... ;-) , but not much more than that.

Although I'm sure the EOS R takes technically very good pictures, I left the store loving my m43 cameras and lenses more than ever before, with the certainty of having chosen a fantastic system that I'll keep enjoying and recommending for years to come.

Cheers,

Ricky

Click to expand...

Which M43 cameras and lenses do you compare the EOS R + 24-105mm/4 to?

NCV said:

I see FF as a format that can take care of more static things. The high-resolution FF bodies need a tripod to get the most out of them as well as to avoid camera shake problems. This is the go to format when image quality is more important than weight considerations. I see this as the best format for my architecture photography.

Click to expand...

Olympus in hi-res mode is actually better for such a work than any full-format. You get the same resolution (after some downsampling of the 80 mpix raw) with less noise and better details and colours, due to absence of any moire and false colours, caused by bayer demosaicing.

FoPar said:

m43 could be a viable and successful system going forwards.

It is threatened by the possibility of Olympus lacking commitment in the short term, 3 to 5 years, and also making products that don't capitalise on its strengths, or offering an inadequate range of technologically out-to-date products failing to cover entry level to enthusiast level patrons.

Click to expand...

Well, the next Olympus camera will tell everything. If it will be similar step forward as was E-M1 II with all its advanced features that are largely not surpassed by competition even after 2 years (60 frames/sec burst, pro-capture, 80 mpix hi-res ...), the future will indeed be bright.

Tango 55 said:

Today I had the opportunity to handle the new EOS R at Nelson Photo in San Diego, California. My first reaction was "this thing is incredibly heavy" when paired with the 24-105/f4 kit lens attached, which makes it a really poor choice for general travel photography (what I do most of the time).

Click to expand...

Try comparing it to a EM1 II with 12-100/4. I'm sure there are no more than a few ounces separating them. The Canon can give you 30MP of FF goodness from 24-105 and then you can crop on the long end to achieve the same effective FL as both lenses are 100/105 actual FL. So what are you really getting for a few ounces weight saving with m43?

Smaller/lighter/slower lenses are sure to follow as are more compact bodies. The system is just starting. Also can adapt Canon DSLR lenses and they have some very good APSC lenses that are small and light.

Tango 55 said:

Although I thought the size was okay, the general ergonomics left some to be desired (the Nikon Z7 felt better in my hands), to the point of saying "how could Canon do this?!"

Click to expand...

Haven't tried the R, but in general my Canon cameras handle much better than my m43. Maybe Canon messed up, but I doubt it.

Tango 55 said:

Some positives: I liked the customizable lens ring and the strap lugs... ;-) , but not much more than that.

Although I'm sure the EOS R takes technically very good pictures, I left the store loving my m43 cameras and lenses more than ever before, with the certainty of having chosen a fantastic system that I'll keep enjoying and recommending for years to come.

Click to expand...

Glad you love your m43. Enjoy it.

Tango 55 said:

Cheers,

Ricky

Click to expand...

--
Jonathan