So, as promised, Canon Portugal made an EOS R available to me for an extended test run, now that their schedule in what relates to promoting the camera with major retailers has finally slowed down a bit.
They were incredibly nice and also provided me with 2 lenses I really wanted to test, the RF 24-105 f/4 and the RF 50 f/1.2.
Xmas was around the corner and there’s a Christmas Village every year in a park about 500mm from my home, so the stars were really all lined up for a good test run with the perfect location.
An EF-to-RF adapter was also included, so I was able to further see how my 35 f/1.4, 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/2.8 II performed with the EOS R.
I won’t be duplicating what has already been pointed out by many reviewers and, instead, will just try to report on how the specifics of this camera served my shooting style and workflow.
It should be noted that what serves me might not serve other photographers and that, not using other brands cameras, I have a double-sided relation with these kind of evaluations.
On one side, I am able to mostly get all the camera has to give, as a function of both my familiarity with Canon intricacies and a workflow geared, years and years in a row, to serve those specific requirements (...I just recently came to the conclusion that the lack of said familiarity is a recurrent factor in many negative appraisals of Canon products...).
But, on the other hand, I am surely not in the best position to evaluate how advantageous some features offered by other brands (...i.e, Eye-focus is C-AF and IBIS...) would be to further enhance my full enjoyment of Canon’s already high quality products.
As a result, although while using my 135 f/2.0 I could easily feel that IBIS would certainly be a welcomed addition, I was still more in awe at the optical quality of that lens as “read” by the EOS R than I was in any kind of anguish over the lack of that particular feature.
Overall, I liked the EOS R a lot and found it to certainly be an excellent performer for most photographic tasks.
The positives:
The so maligned M-Fn bar was quite useful to me, both when I mapped it for ISO functions and when I switched it for AF modes selection.
I do, however, concur with many reviewers in that the firmware should be tweaked in order for the user experience to be a more precise and positive one.
I confirmed my initial impression when I first had a short interaction with the camera a few months back and, again, had a ball with the 3rd ring on the lens.
As I had done previously, I mapped it for EC and, once more, it was the main factor in giving me a fully immersive, operationally-transparent experience with the camera.
I am ambivalent, though, about the replication of such feature through the use of the ring-enabled adapter for EF lenses.
I fear that the fact that the ring then switches to another position along the camera/lens coupling axis might be detrimental for the mentioned regular flow of instinctive interaction, when we switch from RF to EF lenses and vice-versa.
AF is insanely fast and accurate.
It is especially impressive in low light. The 2 furniture photos included in the gallery were made in close sequence in a pretty much completely dark room and the camera’s AF had absolutely no problem in fast-locking on the 2 drawers little pull pins, one right after the other.
The EVF is just a pleasure to work with (...apart from the important caveat noted below...) and I found myself frequently forgetting I was not working with an OVF, something that certainly does not happen when I use my EOS M5.
As expected and since I was already used to it from the M5, the “touch&drag” AF selection was a breeze to use, with the touchscreen proving to be extremely reactive and precise.
I really cannot begin to understand Rishi’s and Richard’s reports when they first interacted with the camera, other than those negative comments having come from not being used to work with this particular system. There is simply and objectively no way that the touchscreen can be construed as “laggy”.
I was happy to find that EC in “Manual” mode with Auto ISO selected works as in my 5DMKIV, with the added advantage of having EC mapped to the 3rd lens ring.
I did not have the time to test the new FV exposure mode.
What I didn’t like:
Action photography is quite impaired with this camera.
The fps count is just too low and the EVF black out although not dramatically long is still noticeable longer than when working with a mirror camera at high shutter speeds.
This adversely impacted servo action sequences as I was momentarily left with the uncomfortable doubt as to if I was actually keeping the AF areas over the subjects being tracked.
I made some very low-demand action servo sequences with Area AF only and managed to get sequences with a high number of exposures in focus up to the point of actually getting the good “split moment” shot but, overall, it was not the best of experiences...very far from what I get from my 5DMKIV, for sure.
Auto-switching between EVF and OVF is still as poorly implemented as it is on my M5.
It is a bit better to work with when compared with that APS-C camera but only because the M5 has a tilting LCD, whereas this one has a pivoting one, so the hand tends be less intrusive on the sensor when screen focusing on a high or low-level shot on the EOS R.
We can turn “auto-switching” off but that is hardly a practical solution.
I really cannot understand why the feature is so sensitive and I have a really hard time understanding how Canon continuously fails to notice it in field tests.
Although Canon claims the R sensor to be basically the same as the one in the 5DMKIV (...if anything, just with some further small enhancements, they say...) I found the noise at high ISOs to be noticeable higher than what I get from my 5DMKIV at equivalent settings.
I was told that this was a pre-production camera so, hopefully, maybe the differences I noticed stemmed from that fact (...although DPR’s studio shots for both cameras seem to confirm a slight difference between these 2 cameras).
Also, the sensor does tend to put out more banding than my 5DMKIV (...it is practically negligible in that model...).
Exposures have to be significantly cranked up from under exposures (3, 4EV) but noticeable banding is certainly there.
One thing I found a bit odd but was unable to further explore was that the type of banding and its intensity was not consistent from one scene to another.
In a specific scene it could already start to be noticeable at 2, 2 ½ EVs whereas other exposures from different scenes would show very little banding or practically none, even when the exposures were pulled up beyond that.
Since I am a strong believer that this is something that has a much lower actual impact in our photography than some people like to make us believe and my time with the camera was limited, I did not further dwell into it.
I was wondering if the BT+WiFi was a good solution to partially replace a second card slot, should it allow for Raw transfers, but I found out that, although the photos displayed in the Camera Connect app in my tab showed the .CR3 suffix in the file name (...when "Raw only" was selected as the files to be recorded in the camera menu...), what I was actually seeing and was transferred were merely the Raw file embedded Jpegs.
So, no, BT+Wifi is not a viable replacement for a second card slot for those of us who shoot Raw.
Overall, as already mentioned, I liked the camera a lot, both for its ergonomics and overall performance in most scenarios.
About the lenses...
I found the 24-105 to perform better than the EF version I own and couldn’t help but feel a bit frustrated that I switched from the EF version I to the version II just before last summer, with this noticeable better performing new offer was just around the corner (...this is a crucially important tool for my type of photography...).
The RF50 is a dream of a lens, as many already pointed out. It is so good that it is making me vacillate about a FL that I usually don’t care about much.
There are repeated objections flying around about its size and weight (...objections that, I believe, come more from a “the fox and the grapes” kind of place than any other logic, since there far more bulkier and heavier lenses around...) but I can report that it was extremely comfortable to work with and not once did I think about such considerations while using it.
The vignetting can be noticeable and Lightroom still does not feature a profile for this lens but it didn’t matter that much to me since I find vignetting to be pleasant in most scenes, at this particular FL.
My conclusion?
In spite of the fact that, in most areas, the EOS R is definitely not an improvement over my 5DMKIV but just a good backup companion that already encompasses most of the advantages of a mirrorless, I am quite inclined to get one together with the RF 24-105 and, most probably, a ring-enabled adapter (...even with the reservations laid out above...).
I will probably also be getting the VND-enabled adapter.
I will still be on the fence for a while, though, regarding the outstanding, incredibly performing RF 50...at least until the price drops and/or to see if a fast RF 24 prime (...what I really need...) actually comes around.
Now for the actual photographs, what it should be all about
You can see the whole set here:
https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1053263956/albums/eos-r
The RF 50 f/1.2:
The 2 young ushers at the admittance tunnel for the Christmas Village were kind enough to pose for me J
I included several shots from the kids train because it was running in an enclosure lighted by strong projectors at relatively low height.
No matter the position I was shooting from, they were always partially illuminating into the lens so I feel that the dilution of contrast and partial flare they imposed were useful for the overall lens assessment (there are a couple more of these taken with the 135).
I managed to get a good portrait of my 84 year-old mother with the RF 50 and, if for nothing else, that shot alone made this whole evaluation a very satisfying endeavor
The RF 24-105 f/4:
I found it to be more pleasing and better performing than my already very good EF 24-105 II.
Since this is a crucial lens for my type of photography it immediately became a very strong factor weighing on my decision to probably get an EOS R in the very future.
The palace shot (Museu Conde Castro Guimarães, Cascais, in the gallery) was processed from 3 bracketed exposures.
The EF 70-200 f/2.8:
I used this lens of mine to test the continuous servo performance.
The 35 f/1.4 II:
I was quite pleased with this particular combo both for performance and ergonomics. The lens is the best one I currently own, I use it very, very often and felt it was especially “right” for the EOS R.
The 135 f/2:
In the gallery, take notice on how the camera/lens combo locked on the Wise Man/Magi on the left.
I couldn’t see his face features as he sat on the very dimly lighted tent but, still, the combo snappily focused at 1/125, f/2, 12800 ISO.
The camel shot is also quite impressive for contrast and overall detail (again, at 12800 ISO).
I hope this appraisal of mine was somewhat useful to you guys.
All the best and, please, have a great 2019 (...focused on actual photography, not specifications ...)
PK
