Reading mode: Light Dark

DPR Review of EOS R vs Reality

Go to last post
Does someone know, if there are somewhere in DPreview's site some kind instuctions about their ratings? What % is needed in silver or gold award in which categories? And which cameras are in the same categories? (M100 = 79% gold award, M6 = 80% silver award, M50 = 79% silver award?? I would think M50 with viewfinder, better controls and 4k would get better ratings than M100...)

I find these ratings quite messy. And it also seems that if camera is "over-priced", it will be "punished" in the rating. I think it's ok to mention if they think camera is over-priced, but it doesn't make that camera technically worse and that's why it shouldn't affect to rating.
 
janez said:
They only recommend using their own. That means they are greedy or their solution is not implemented to industry standard.
Click to expand...
Most, if not every, vendor do that. Sony, for instance, on page 5 of the A7iii manual says they do not support any lens or accessory from other manufacturers as they "may affect performances and lead to accidents and malfunction"
 
Last edited:
pyla said:
KrisAK said:
I did watch Peter Gregg’s summary review, in which DPAF for video surprisingly failed using an EF 35mm. That matches some of what they call out here.

He speculates that the RF 35 might not have that issue, but didn’t have the lens to test.

It would be nice to know the cause. Those reports of sketchy DP focus are the only thing holding me back.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly Peter Gregg used a third party lens, not an EF lens.
Click to expand...
An earlier video showed issues with a Sigma, but in his wrap-up for the R (which is largely positive) he uses a Canon EF 35mm 1.4, which loses focus on what looks like an easy target.

I'm not saying that's definitive; just another (somewhat surprising) data point that matches what's in DP's review.

Which, by the way, is maddeningly vague on this front. What lenses were they using? FF or crop? Was it based on that Chris/Jordan video where they used an EF-S lens not known for good video performance? Do the RF lenses not have an issue? Is it just some Canon EF mounts? Etc., etc.

A little due-diligence about their findings would be nice, rather than just a blanket statement that DPAF isn't at the level of previous iterations.
 
Last edited:
Yake said:
Noogy said:
What totally surprised me was the auto focus portion of the review. It is so completely different from my experience. Makes me wonder sometimes if these reviewers really spend enough time to use the right settings.

I used my 5DMIV and my EOS R over the weekend to do a stylized wedding shoot with a couple of professional models. My EOS R focused faster and more accurately than my 5DMIV. And I never really disliked the fact that the focusing points of the 5DMIV cannot go to the edges of the frame until I'm able to do that on the EOS R!
Click to expand...
For more fun, read the A7III review's conclusions. None of these actual A7III cons made DPR's list of "What we don't like":
  • grip too close to body with some lenses
  • terrible menu system
  • no top-level LCD
  • no fully articulating flip out screen
  • drop in DR when shooting compressed raw in continuous mode
  • lack of classic aspect ratios like 1:1 and 4:3
  • small aps-c lens mount
  • total reliance on 3rd parties for adapters (with mixed results)
They actually mention the "updated menu system" in the list of "What we like" ... so Sony gets points just for improving on something that was terrible in prior cameras, never mind that it's still terrible.
Click to expand...
To add, in their conclusion they rated Sony’s ergo much higher than Canon’s !

I have never seen such atrocious bias!

Shame on you, DPR.
 
Noogy said:
What totally surprised me was the auto focus portion of the review. It is so completely different from my experience. Makes me wonder sometimes if these reviewers really spend enough time to use the right settings.
Click to expand...
I am puzzled too. The reviewers definitely know what they're doing but I believe their scoring is flawed, or more truthfully - trying to assign a "score" to a camera is just not a good idea. It's much more useful to look at the What We Like / Don't Like chart while considering your own priorities.

I am not even looking to buy a camera now but honestly, I would probably buy the EOS R over the Nikon or Sony based on the overall package. The faults of the camera seem irritating but don't block you from getting the shot.

I do wish they started with some smaller lenses and IBIS though :)

Greg.
 
Last edited:
Noogy said:
NRBlack said:
Ed Rizk said:
Objectivity is a state of perfection that doesn't exist in this world. Everyone has a bias, and that bias manifests itself in everything they do.

I invite anyone who disagrees with me on that to a poker game.

That's why it's important to read both positive and negative reviews of any product. The question for me is not are there flaws. The question is are the particular flaws going to make the camera something I don't like.

"The camera is too big". Good. I like my cameras big.

"The camera lacks electronic gadgetry and foo dads". Oh well. I'm a simple man. I do things in simple ways.

No one expected anything else from DPR. I'll still read their reviews. They are useful to me, because I know their bias.
Click to expand...
Well said.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Good that you knew their biases, it seems, early in the game!
Click to expand...
Some reviewers said up front what they shoot with normally, what genres they shoot, and how they use which features. That should be the first thing any reviewer does. The feigned objectivity is an old tired concept.

I have far more respect for those who are up front with their bias, whether in camera reviews, news, or anything else. Feigned objectivity is a lie by omission, but it apparently sells, because people tend to believe it and seek it out.
 
pyla said:
Yake said:
Noogy said:
What totally surprised me was the auto focus portion of the review. It is so completely different from my experience. Makes me wonder sometimes if these reviewers really spend enough time to use the right settings.

I used my 5DMIV and my EOS R over the weekend to do a stylized wedding shoot with a couple of professional models. My EOS R focused faster and more accurately than my 5DMIV. And I never really disliked the fact that the focusing points of the 5DMIV cannot go to the edges of the frame until I'm able to do that on the EOS R!
Click to expand...
For more fun, read the A7III review's conclusions. None of these actual A7III cons made DPR's list of "What we don't like":
  • grip too close to body with some lenses
  • terrible menu system
  • no top-level LCD
  • no fully articulating flip out screen
  • drop in DR when shooting compressed raw in continuous mode
  • lack of classic aspect ratios like 1:1 and 4:3
  • small aps-c lens mount
  • total reliance on 3rd parties for adapters (with mixed results)
They actually mention the "updated menu system" in the list of "What we like" ... so Sony gets points just for improving on something that was terrible in prior cameras, never mind that it's still terrible.
Click to expand...
Did they also mention that while on paper Sony has 1080p with 120fps, the video is soft and auto focus is not that good?
Click to expand...
Hows the AF on the Eos R at 120fps? ;)
pyla said:
Did they mention that Sony only has 100 MBPS in 4K that falls apart under heavy grading? Did they mention that compared to other cameras, it overheats more quickly while recording 4k? That when shooting in bright conditions, the LCD screen is so poor that it makes exposure simulation practically useless.

They also compared the video quality of the EOS R to the fuji X-T3. According to Fuji's own spec sheet, in 4k video mode there is a 20 minute recording limit when shooting 60fps and 30 minute when shooting 30fps. But yet very few reviewers talks about this limitation. Can you imagine if Canon did such a thing? There would be endless reviews about how Canon "cripples" their cameras.

I am not saying that these negative factors make Sony a bad camera. I am just using this as examples of how biased reviewers are against Canon.
Click to expand...
 
wmlele said:
Jonathan Brady said:
the emphasized portion is why they criticized the USB charging implementation.
Click to expand...
That's either a bug, or a protection feature, depending on how you see it, (I can even tell why it happens) and it affects you exactly each time you attach a charger that is not compliant with the standard for USB power delivery.

Now is that's an issue to be listed to the minuses of the camera and not the charger?

Let me add this: a good share of the cheap chargers that can't be bothered with properly implementing PD aren't even compliant with the relevant electrical safety regulations. They have flimsy insulation from mains, bad regulation, huge ripple and can cause damage to your devices when not become dangerous to people and property.

Refusing to work with them is what any vendor should do.
Click to expand...
Seems like the solution is to buy a compliant charger I am sure Apple makes one and I bet it is less than $190 :-).
 
I agree with a lot of comments here. I too was surprised by the overall review and then the fact that the Z7 got a 89% in comparison.

Ergonomically they say that R is too big, which to me is a little silly since every reviewer actually say it is the best feeling MILC FF camwra they have ever held. I look at it like this... size in terms of diminishing returns. I have to use same sized bags for both the R and the Sony bodies, since none of them just fit in my jeans pocket. Generally they all have comparable lens sizes (same FL and max aperture).

in terms of AF, assuming don’t only shoot in ideal lighting conditions they all have their issues. The R doesn’t do as well as the song in terms of continuous AF in good lighting. But it beats the pants off all of them in single AF especially when the light levels drop. Considering that many of us experience winter for 1/3 of the year it is something that really annoyed me about the Sony camera. And the forced stopped down AF.

The Z7 which they ranked higher had very iffy AF. To me that is the very basic thing a camera should be able to do, good AF especially in AF-S since you can’t always trust any camera to not do iffy things at times in AF-C requiring the photog to take over.

Law of diminishing returns should be applied. At one point certain features are simply not as important as the key ones. I bought the R and got rid of the A7III when I stopped to evaluate how I really shoot. I never used the A7III beyond the mid FPS setting. I hated the CDAF in AF-S mode. The lenses cost more than counterparts by a good margin. Always stopped down focus in AF-C (causer I don’t want CDAF that AF-S does) affects AF responsiveness. Smaller body make the A7III “feel” heavier (density). Time used in PP with Sony files is definitely longer. Hundreds to thousands of photos over the course of a year adds up for sure... that is time I can’t get back. Immediate sharing of images with the canon files is very much better... which also makes in camera raw edits valuable. Seamless app integration which alllows for time lapse with 3rd party apps like Cascable, and the geotagging with camera connect is vastly better.
 
janez said:
wmlele said:
janez said:
Prehaps you are right but it really looks like they did that because they want to sell chargers for 190$.
Click to expand...
Since they implemented the industry standard, you don't really have to buy theirs, do you? Actually, since they implemented the industry standard, you can use any charger implementing said standard, and be reasonably sure it will work, and not damage the camera.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly Canon does not recommend using third party chargers (even if they are 100% compilant to standard). They only recommend using their own. That means they are greedy or their solution is not implemented to industry standard.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. They also recommend that you use their branded batteries as well (have you seen that cute commercial they run?). There are other valid reasons for doing this besides "Canon is greedy" which is that you know that it will work. What makes them greedy is that they charge close to $200 for something that should (and could) sell for $20. But they also sell the camera for $300 more than the competitors as well. Welcome to Canon -- if you don't like this well, there are other options.
 
David Hull said:
wmlele said:
Jonathan Brady said:
the emphasized portion is why they criticized the USB charging implementation.
Click to expand...
That's either a bug, or a protection feature, depending on how you see it, (I can even tell why it happens) and it affects you exactly each time you attach a charger that is not compliant with the standard for USB power delivery.

Now is that's an issue to be listed to the minuses of the camera and not the charger?

Let me add this: a good share of the cheap chargers that can't be bothered with properly implementing PD aren't even compliant with the relevant electrical safety regulations. They have flimsy insulation from mains, bad regulation, huge ripple and can cause damage to your devices when not become dangerous to people and property.

Refusing to work with them is what any vendor should do.
Click to expand...
Seems like the solution is to buy a compliant charger I am sure Apple makes one and I bet it is less than $190 :-).
Click to expand...
 
diness said:
pyla said:
Yake said:
Noogy said:
What totally surprised me was the auto focus portion of the review. It is so completely different from my experience. Makes me wonder sometimes if these reviewers really spend enough time to use the right settings.

I used my 5DMIV and my EOS R over the weekend to do a stylized wedding shoot with a couple of professional models. My EOS R focused faster and more accurately than my 5DMIV. And I never really disliked the fact that the focusing points of the 5DMIV cannot go to the edges of the frame until I'm able to do that on the EOS R!
Click to expand...
For more fun, read the A7III review's conclusions. None of these actual A7III cons made DPR's list of "What we don't like":
  • grip too close to body with some lenses
  • terrible menu system
  • no top-level LCD
  • no fully articulating flip out screen
  • drop in DR when shooting compressed raw in continuous mode
  • lack of classic aspect ratios like 1:1 and 4:3
  • small aps-c lens mount
  • total reliance on 3rd parties for adapters (with mixed results)
They actually mention the "updated menu system" in the list of "What we like" ... so Sony gets points just for improving on something that was terrible in prior cameras, never mind that it's still terrible.
Click to expand...
Did they also mention that while on paper Sony has 1080p with 120fps, the video is soft and auto focus is not that good?
Click to expand...
Hows the AF on the Eos R at 120fps? ;)
Click to expand...
It is flat out amazing, have you tried it? Not only will it blow your socks off but it will set them on fire as they fly away.
diness said:
diness said:
Did they mention that Sony only has 100 MBPS in 4K that falls apart under heavy grading? Did they mention that compared to other cameras, it overheats more quickly while recording 4k? That when shooting in bright conditions, the LCD screen is so poor that it makes exposure simulation practically useless.

They also compared the video quality of the EOS R to the fuji X-T3. According to Fuji's own spec sheet, in 4k video mode there is a 20 minute recording limit when shooting 60fps and 30 minute when shooting 30fps. But yet very few reviewers talks about this limitation. Can you imagine if Canon did such a thing? There would be endless reviews about how Canon "cripples" their cameras.

I am not saying that these negative factors make Sony a bad camera. I am just using this as examples of how biased reviewers are against Canon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
David Hull said:
diness said:
pyla said:
Yake said:
Noogy said:
What totally surprised me was the auto focus portion of the review. It is so completely different from my experience. Makes me wonder sometimes if these reviewers really spend enough time to use the right settings.

I used my 5DMIV and my EOS R over the weekend to do a stylized wedding shoot with a couple of professional models. My EOS R focused faster and more accurately than my 5DMIV. And I never really disliked the fact that the focusing points of the 5DMIV cannot go to the edges of the frame until I'm able to do that on the EOS R!
Click to expand...
For more fun, read the A7III review's conclusions. None of these actual A7III cons made DPR's list of "What we don't like":
  • grip too close to body with some lenses
  • terrible menu system
  • no top-level LCD
  • no fully articulating flip out screen
  • drop in DR when shooting compressed raw in continuous mode
  • lack of classic aspect ratios like 1:1 and 4:3
  • small aps-c lens mount
  • total reliance on 3rd parties for adapters (with mixed results)
They actually mention the "updated menu system" in the list of "What we like" ... so Sony gets points just for improving on something that was terrible in prior cameras, never mind that it's still terrible.
Click to expand...
Did they also mention that while on paper Sony has 1080p with 120fps, the video is soft and auto focus is not that good?
Click to expand...
Hows the AF on the Eos R at 120fps? ;)
Click to expand...
It is flat out amazing, have you tried it? Not only will it blow your socks off but it will set them on fire as they fly away.
Click to expand...
i have not tried it, but everything I have read and seen is that the R does not AF at 120fps. Is that incorrect?
David Hull said:
David Hull said:
David Hull said:
Did they mention that Sony only has 100 MBPS in 4K that falls apart under heavy grading? Did they mention that compared to other cameras, it overheats more quickly while recording 4k? That when shooting in bright conditions, the LCD screen is so poor that it makes exposure simulation practically useless.

They also compared the video quality of the EOS R to the fuji X-T3. According to Fuji's own spec sheet, in 4k video mode there is a 20 minute recording limit when shooting 60fps and 30 minute when shooting 30fps. But yet very few reviewers talks about this limitation. Can you imagine if Canon did such a thing? There would be endless reviews about how Canon "cripples" their cameras.

I am not saying that these negative factors make Sony a bad camera. I am just using this as examples of how biased reviewers are against Canon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drhull
SmugMug: http://davidhull.smugmug.com/
Click to expand...
 
They are wrong because the pointed out some glaring issues with the camera?
 
David Hull said:
janez said:
wmlele said:
janez said:
Prehaps you are right but it really looks like they did that because they want to sell chargers for 190$.
Click to expand...
Since they implemented the industry standard, you don't really have to buy theirs, do you? Actually, since they implemented the industry standard, you can use any charger implementing said standard, and be reasonably sure it will work, and not damage the camera.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly Canon does not recommend using third party chargers (even if they are 100% compilant to standard). They only recommend using their own. That means they are greedy or their solution is not implemented to industry standard.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. They also recommend that you use their branded batteries as well (have you seen that cute commercial they run?). There are other valid reasons for doing this besides "Canon is greedy" which is that you know that it will work. What makes them greedy is that they charge close to $200 for something that should (and could) sell for $20. But they also sell the camera for $300 more than the competitors as well. Welcome to Canon -- if you don't like this well, there are other options.
Click to expand...
 
Jonathan Brady said:
Noogy said:
The other flawed logic these professional reviewers have is that they evaluate the camera based on a perspective of not being invested in a particular system.
Click to expand...
Well, that's kind of a necessary aspect if your review is going to be applicable to the greatest number of people as well as to try and prevent bias (ie, be neutral or brand agnostic). The reader should read the review carefully and apply what they're reading to their own situation.

Also, DPR did in fact address Canon users specifically when they said:
plus Canon offers a total of three EF lens adapters depending on your needs. But unfortunately said:
Noogy, post: 61945814, member: 818428"]
It guess that is where they breach the line between decent-enough neutrality and downright advocacy. And when reviewers become advocates, they start to worry less about their credibility and focus more on how they prove themselves right.
Click to expand...
Speaking of neutrality and advocacy (and I'll introduce the opposite: critic), given that you criticized DPR for not doing what they did do, what say you of your position towards DPR and also your position towards Canon? Where do you think you fall on the critic-to-neutral-to-advocate continuum?
Click to expand...
Why are you defending the paid, professional reviewers like they're the most principled critiques?

I've sent direct criticisms to Canon, including what's wrong with their after sales service. That the 6DMII was an incremental update to the 6D, where the DPAF was the most major change. And the big file sizes of 5DMIV 4k video, plus that I had to pay for C log. My list is long. However, I am NOT the reviewer with an influence on customers. I shouldn't be under such scrutiny.

The polarized approach to addressing the audience is part of the problem. The polarizing perspective is not helping. Many users are on multiple or at least two systems. To assume there is just the invested on Canon system vs those who are not reveals to me why their positions, statements, constructs are so skewed towards praising their preferred camera. They should if they were to be mentally consistent present a review and score for those who are invested in the system or two systems. And include comments like if you're using the D850 then the Z7 makes more sense for you than our favorite self-proclaimed holy grail of digital photography called Sony. That however is not how they do their reviews. Butler for one cannot claim he is pointing to the best camera for people without a chosen system yet when he is not providing a score or rating for those who are invested in a system. To do one and not the other is what I call wanton advocacy.
 
Simon Barker said:
Plagen said:
To add, in their conclusion they rated Sony’s ergo much higher than Canon’s !

I have never seen such atrocious bias!

Shame on you, DPR.
Click to expand...
What's the correct way to rate comfortable to hold but odd button placement?
Click to expand...
I would just a camera on the often needed settings. Exposure triangle. Followed by drive, and AF (modes, servo and such). The rest (less used items has to do with how quickly and easily can I get to them (quick menu and regular menu system).

With the R and native lenses you have 3 dials... so exposure triangle is handled right off the bat. AF mode is a matter of getting muscle memory there (AF button scroll, MFN button and info button). It was annoying at first but it is no issue now. Drive can be done via MFN button. WB I have on the bar.

I have two of the D pad buttons for sleep and LCD/VF switching. Coming from the A7III I wouldn’t say the R is worse, just different. But there is one point it takes a hit. You can’t customise every button to do anything. That but is annoying. Like the record button (if you don’t do video it is a complete waste of a perfectly good button).
 
wmlele said:
  1. wmlele wrote:
pyla said:
I am not saying that these negative factors make Sony a bad camera. I am just using this as examples of how biased reviewers are against Canon.
Click to expand...
The very example of this, like I said on another branch of this thread, is the "choosy charger" thing.

Canon did absolutely the right thing. They correctly implemented the industry standard for charging devices over USB. The same industry standard used by Google, Apple, Dell and major vendors on their devices, and still somewhat ignored by manufacturers of cheap "compatible" devices.

Yet, it appear under the minuses. I get the feeling that just not doing what other trendy vendors are doing is a minus, no matter what it is.
Click to expand...
Because the paid professional reviewers of DPR knows best when it comes to chargers? 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
  • User review User review
Tele-Compact?
Replies
19
Views
7K
Alastair Norcross
Alastair Norcross
D
Canon Eos R vs R5
Replies
17
Views
4K
drsnoopy
D
M
56/f1.2 R WR vs 16-55/f2.8 mkii
Replies
17
Views
3K
Minolta TC-1
M
P
  • User review User review
Z5ii - a hobbyist's review
Replies
0
Views
13K
pyang88
P
MrHollywood
Heavyweights for the Money
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
ARClark
ARClark

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top