Reading mode: Light Dark

EOS R for photography only still worth?

Go to last post
Rafavox

Rafavox

Well-known member
Messages
124
Reaction score
67
Location
Florida, FL, US
EOS R is still worth it? Read that Canon is not manufacturing those cameras anymore , how it performs for travel/ landscapes/ active kids? the autofocus is a problem for moving subjects?
 
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS. For me 5-8 FPS is ideal.
  • Lack of IBIS hinders sharpness with unstabilized glass and video.
  • 4K video is cropped (video is useful with kids)
Click to expand...
But looks great and supports dpaf.

Cropped 4k also makes me more potential buyer for rf-s 11-22 and 22 mm and thus subsequently a potential R8/R50 buyer.
sportyaccordy said:
  • Lens selection is somewhat lacking IMO. No native 3rd party options, RF options are too bifurcated with lower end stuff being behind the competition, EF lenses to adapt are getting older and less competitive
  • Function customization was limited compared to Sony
Pros:
  • Great image quality
  • Really nice colors (slightly cool in temperature)
  • Near perfect ergonomics (amazing grip... just didn't like touch bar or power switch location)
I bought into RF out of frustration with Sony FE, but over the time I had the EOS R Sony addressed my gripes (key new lenses and bodies becoming more affordable).

If you are starting from scratch I would probably write out everything you want in a system- the lenses you need, the features you want, what performance aspects you want to prioritize- and look at all the systems to see what works best for your budget. You might find out you don't even need full frame. But personally for a midrange FF system for family with kids I'd be looking at Sony or Nikon over Canon.
Click to expand...
 
KEG said:
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS. For me 5-8 FPS is ideal.
  • Lack of IBIS hinders sharpness with unstabilized glass and video.
  • 4K video is cropped (video is useful with kids)
Click to expand...
But looks great and supports dpaf.

Cropped 4k also makes me more potential buyer for rf-s 11-22 and 22 mm and thus subsequently a potential R8/R50 buyer.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage for you or for Canon?
KEG said:
KEG said:
  • Lens selection is somewhat lacking IMO. No native 3rd party options, RF options are too bifurcated with lower end stuff being behind the competition, EF lenses to adapt are getting older and less competitive
  • Function customization was limited compared to Sony
Pros:
  • Great image quality
  • Really nice colors (slightly cool in temperature)
  • Near perfect ergonomics (amazing grip... just didn't like touch bar or power switch location)
I bought into RF out of frustration with Sony FE, but over the time I had the EOS R Sony addressed my gripes (key new lenses and bodies becoming more affordable).

If you are starting from scratch I would probably write out everything you want in a system- the lenses you need, the features you want, what performance aspects you want to prioritize- and look at all the systems to see what works best for your budget. You might find out you don't even need full frame. But personally for a midrange FF system for family with kids I'd be looking at Sony or Nikon over Canon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
thunder storm said:
RDKirk said:
Laqup said:
But if you read this thread here you could get the impression that out of the sudden the R can do everything and the later models are basically obsolete. That is the illogical part for me.
Click to expand...
That's rather hyperbolic.
Click to expand...
Is it? Tracking running and playing kids is one of the most demanding tasks for AF. R3 is for basketball games, R5/6 are for running and playing kids and the R6II might do that a little better, and the R is for landscapes and posed portraits. That's what the reviews are telling us, and that's what reflects my experience for the R and R5 (I've never used the R3).

When Laqup comes up with evidence the R can't do it, and he's also on the latest firmware folks are suggesting his camera is defective, rather than accepting the obvious conclusion to derive from all the data available.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said anything to give the impression that "the R can do everything and the later models are basically obsolete," so yes, that assertion is hyperbole.
 
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS.
Click to expand...
No, it's 5fps. I have never found any difference in focus accuracy between the 3fps and 5fps settings. Some people seem scared to use 5fps, because they assume that the focus won't keep up (because of the silly labels Canon gave to the two speeds). That's simply not true. Of course, 5fps isn't lightning fast either, but it's considerably faster than 3fps (67% faster).
sportyaccordy said:
  • For me 5-8 FPS is ideal.
  • Lack of IBIS hinders sharpness with unstabilized glass and video.
  • 4K video is cropped (video is useful with kids)
  • Lens selection is somewhat lacking IMO. No native 3rd party options, RF options are too bifurcated with lower end stuff being behind the competition, EF lenses to adapt are getting older and less competitive
  • Function customization was limited compared to Sony
Pros:
  • Great image quality
  • Really nice colors (slightly cool in temperature)
  • Near perfect ergonomics (amazing grip... just didn't like touch bar or power switch location)
I bought into RF out of frustration with Sony FE, but over the time I had the EOS R Sony addressed my gripes (key new lenses and bodies becoming more affordable).
Click to expand...
sportyaccordy said:
If you are starting from scratch I would probably write out everything you want in a system- the lenses you need, the features you want, what performance aspects you want to prioritize- and look at all the systems to see what works best for your budget. You might find out you don't even need full frame. But personally for a midrange FF system for family with kids I'd be looking at Sony or Nikon over Canon.
Click to expand...
 
thunder storm said:
KEG said:
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS. For me 5-8 FPS is ideal.
  • Lack of IBIS hinders sharpness with unstabilized glass and video.
  • 4K video is cropped (video is useful with kids)
Click to expand...
But looks great and supports dpaf.

Cropped 4k also makes me more potential buyer for rf-s 11-22 and 22 mm and thus subsequently a potential R8/R50 buyer.
Click to expand...
That's an advantage for you or for Canon?
Click to expand...
The advantage being how good RF 16/2.8 is in crop mode.

Another advantage is weatherproofed magnesium build, ALL-I and headphone plug with the option of using weatherproofed 14-35L or 15-35L.
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
thunder storm said:
  • Lens selection is somewhat lacking IMO. No native 3rd party options, RF options are too bifurcated with lower end stuff being behind the competition, EF lenses to adapt are getting older and less competitive
  • Function customization was limited compared to Sony
Pros:
  • Great image quality
  • Really nice colors (slightly cool in temperature)
  • Near perfect ergonomics (amazing grip... just didn't like touch bar or power switch location)
I bought into RF out of frustration with Sony FE, but over the time I had the EOS R Sony addressed my gripes (key new lenses and bodies becoming more affordable).

If you are starting from scratch I would probably write out everything you want in a system- the lenses you need, the features you want, what performance aspects you want to prioritize- and look at all the systems to see what works best for your budget. You might find out you don't even need full frame. But personally for a midrange FF system for family with kids I'd be looking at Sony or Nikon over Canon.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Alastair Norcross said:
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS.
Click to expand...
No, it's 5fps. I have never found any difference in focus accuracy between the 3fps and 5fps settings. Some people seem scared to use 5fps, because they assume that the focus won't keep up (because of the silly labels Canon gave to the two speeds). That's simply not true. Of course, 5fps isn't lightning fast either, but it's considerably faster than 3fps (67% faster).
Click to expand...
It has been a while since I had/used the R so I could be wrong. My overall impression though was that the R's AF was a lot more hesitant and cumbersome than my A7III's. A7III goes up to 10FPS though again I often cut it back. But it still feels way more responsive at 5FPS than the R ever did.

And there are operational differences too... again maybe I'm remembering wrong but the R required me to actively engage Eye-AF mode, even after the big AF update, then disengage it to use zone AF.... whereas A7III grabs an eye if it can find it and defaults to zone otherwise.

There are def some user experience things I miss.... again ergonomics... and the R's EVF is superior in many aspects.... but it just wasn't as easy of a camera to get shots with as Sony bodies I've used.
 
sportyaccordy said:
Alastair Norcross said:
sportyaccordy said:
In my ~2 years with the EOS R, here are my pros and cons. Overall I was not a fan for similar use. I'll start with cons because one directly answers your question:

Cons:
  • Not really great for action/tracking kids. Burst speed with AF-C tops out at 3FPS.
Click to expand...
No, it's 5fps. I have never found any difference in focus accuracy between the 3fps and 5fps settings. Some people seem scared to use 5fps, because they assume that the focus won't keep up (because of the silly labels Canon gave to the two speeds). That's simply not true. Of course, 5fps isn't lightning fast either, but it's considerably faster than 3fps (67% faster).
Click to expand...
It has been a while since I had/used the R so I could be wrong. My overall impression though was that the R's AF was a lot more hesitant and cumbersome than my A7III's. A7III goes up to 10FPS though again I often cut it back. But it still feels way more responsive at 5FPS than the R ever did.

And there are operational differences too... again maybe I'm remembering wrong but the R required me to actively engage Eye-AF mode, even after the big AF update, then disengage it to use zone AF.... whereas A7III grabs an eye if it can find it and defaults to zone otherwise.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. I have eye-AF engaged the whole time on my R. I have a button set to cycle through different AF area settings, including single point. It doesn’t use eye AF for single point (I don’t want it to). It doesn’t start tracking from single point, like the R5/6, and unlike the R3/7. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of? It’s certainly not as snappy as the R7, which is quite amazing, but it’s no slouch.
sportyaccordy said:
There are def some user experience things I miss.... again ergonomics... and the R's EVF is superior in many aspects.... but it just wasn't as easy of a camera to get shots with as Sony bodies I've used.
Click to expand...
 
Rafavox said:
EOS R is still worth it? Read that Canon is not manufacturing those cameras anymore , how it performs for travel/ landscapes/ active kids? the autofocus is a problem for moving subjects?
Click to expand...
The R uses the same senor as the EOS 5D.4 so image quality is the same. The R has more reliable AF and an EVF. But the R is much less expensive than the 5D.4. Ergonomics is a mixed affair. The 5D.4 has a fixed screen but three dials and a thumb stick. The R has a simplified 2 dial layout with no thumbstick although the 4 way controller works OK. I never had any problems configuring the camera for changing conditions.

I have used the R for birds in flight with decent results especially with larger birds.

Overall the R is now very good value. It makes excellent pictures with high resolution and excellent color and good dynamic range.

It can manage active children quite well.

After a series of firmware updates it is a much better camera than it was on initial release.

The fn-bar is a mistake, just disable it. I sold mine to help fund an R5 but rather wish I could have kept it.

Andrew
 
axlotl said:
Rafavox said:
EOS R is still worth it? Read that Canon is not manufacturing those cameras anymore , how it performs for travel/ landscapes/ active kids? the autofocus is a problem for moving subjects?
Click to expand...
The R uses the same senor as the EOS 5D.4 so image quality is the same. The R has more reliable AF and an EVF. But the R is much less expensive than the 5D.4. Ergonomics is a mixed affair. The 5D.4 has a fixed screen but three dials and a thumb stick. The R has a simplified 2 dial layout with no thumbstick although the 4 way controller works OK. I never had any problems configuring the camera for changing conditions.

I have used the R for birds in flight with decent results especially with larger birds.

Overall the R is now very good value. It makes excellent pictures with high resolution and excellent color and good dynamic range.

It can manage active children quite well.

After a series of firmware updates it is a much better camera than it was on initial release.

The fn-bar is a mistake, just disable it. I sold mine to help fund an R5 but rather wish I could have kept it.

Andrew
Click to expand...
The Fn bar is best seen as a viewfinder control - I use one end to toggle the histogram, the other end for the level and the swipe for magnification. That way it can't affect exposure and so doesn't need any delay or lock. I miss it a lot on my 5Ds, if not quite as much as I miss the touchscreen selection of the focus point.
 
Last edited:
axlotl said:
Rafavox said:
EOS R is still worth it? Read that Canon is not manufacturing those cameras anymore , how it performs for travel/ landscapes/ active kids? the autofocus is a problem for moving subjects?
Click to expand...
The R uses the same senor as the EOS 5D.4 so image quality is the same. The R has more reliable AF and an EVF. But the R is much less expensive than the 5D.4. Ergonomics is a mixed affair. The 5D.4 has a fixed screen but three dials and a thumb stick. The R has a simplified 2 dial layout with no thumbstick although the 4 way controller works OK. I never had any problems configuring the camera for changing conditions.

I have used the R for birds in flight with decent results especially with larger birds.

Overall the R is now very good value. It makes excellent pictures with high resolution and excellent color and good dynamic range.

It can manage active children quite well.

After a series of firmware updates it is a much better camera than it was on initial release.

The fn-bar is a mistake, just disable it. I sold mine to help fund an R5 but rather wish I could have kept it.

Andrew
Click to expand...
During the holidays a few on here picked up refurbished R's for $899. I think my Rebel T5i back in the day cost about that much. Pretty incredible capability for those on a budget or starting out.
 
ZX11 said:
axlotl said:
Rafavox said:
EOS R is still worth it? Read that Canon is not manufacturing those cameras anymore , how it performs for travel/ landscapes/ active kids? the autofocus is a problem for moving subjects?
Click to expand...
The R uses the same senor as the EOS 5D.4 so image quality is the same. The R has more reliable AF and an EVF. But the R is much less expensive than the 5D.4. Ergonomics is a mixed affair. The 5D.4 has a fixed screen but three dials and a thumb stick. The R has a simplified 2 dial layout with no thumbstick although the 4 way controller works OK. I never had any problems configuring the camera for changing conditions.

I have used the R for birds in flight with decent results especially with larger birds.

Overall the R is now very good value. It makes excellent pictures with high resolution and excellent color and good dynamic range.

It can manage active children quite well.

After a series of firmware updates it is a much better camera than it was on initial release.

The fn-bar is a mistake, just disable it. I sold mine to help fund an R5 but rather wish I could have kept it.

Andrew
Click to expand...
During the holidays a few on here picked up refurbished R's for $899. I think my Rebel T5i back in the day cost about that much. Pretty incredible capability for those on a budget or starting out.
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought I was getting a great deal when I got mine refurbished for about $1100 a couple of years ago. At $899 it's a steal.
 
davel33 said:
thunder storm said:
davel33 said:
Laqup said:
With you anything related to the EOS R is fantastic anyway as that is the camera you use and that you somehow need to defend. Your posts are not really objective, not only in this thread.
Click to expand...
When I see this kind of post it tells me they have given up on logic :(
Click to expand...
I think it's more fair to not just quote this from just one post, but also to mention the evidence Laqup gave. He did a lot of effort to make his point clear, didn't he? Logic is for arm chairs, and at least Laqup did some effort to come up with an empiric approach. It's totally reflects my experience as well for hundreds of not thousands of pictures. It's a fine camera, but certainly not for moving kids.
Click to expand...
His first line is an attack with no logic what so ever. That is the point that any logical thinking person stops reading.
Click to expand...
 
Laqup said:
Despite everything thst was written by others: the R is not good for kids. Keeper rate on running kids or kids on swings or similar will be super low. I still have two Rs and tried often enough. My Z6 and Z7 can't do it either. R5 (R6, R6 Ii, R3) s the first body that is fast enough for that type of photography. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

For more static subjects it is still fantastic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I saw above that someone said "kids yes, pro sports no" and I think they vastly underestimated how quickly kids move.

Plus, in most situations, kids running are relatively close by, which means more range for the focus motor to work thru, making it *harder* than pro sports tracking.

Add to that the fact that most family shots will not be taken with f/2.8 glass and potentially in varying light, and you get a situation where family/pets running around can be some of the most challenging shots you can take.
 
Well said.
 
thunder storm said:
Well said.
Click to expand...
You guys still bragging that you can't take shots of active kids with any camera less advanced than the R5?

Meanwhile, plenty of people on here have no problem getting the shots with the R.

There are people who post that they can't get focused shots of birds with the R5 or the R3. Hence, me being surprised people still use the R5 or R3 since they are evidence those cameras can't get the bird action,...using your logic.
 
ZX11 said:
thunder storm said:
Well said.
Click to expand...
You guys still bragging that you can't take shots of active kids with any camera less advanced than the R5?

Meanwhile, plenty of people on here have no problem getting the shots with the R.

There are people who post that they can't get focused shots of birds with the R5 or the R3. Hence, me being surprised people still use the R5 or R3 since they are evidence those cameras can't get the bird action,...using your logic.
Click to expand...
Somewhere in there is also the consideration of whether it's worth another thousand dollars to avoid an occasional missed focus of the kids when everything else a person does is on the nose.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
 
Last edited:
ZX11 said:
thunder storm said:
Well said.
Click to expand...
You guys still bragging that you can't take shots of active kids with any camera less advanced than the R5?

Meanwhile, plenty of people on here have no problem getting the shots with the R.

There are people who post that they can't get focused shots of birds with the R5 or the R3. Hence, me being surprised people still use the R5 or R3 since they are evidence those cameras can't get the bird action,...using your logic.
Click to expand...
Who was saying that? I didn't, nor did I see anyone claiming otherwise.

I *did* say it was stupid to claim that grabbing kids running around is trivial for anyone. Depending on lighting conditions and the camera+lens combo, it can be quite challenging. That's not really up for debate - that's a simple fact of small aperature + light gathering + high ISO + autofocus. Most of the people asking such questions are typically using kit lenses with small apertures, so it is relevant.

Freezing the action with a kit lens in anything short of a sunny day will often require very high ISOs, which the budget cameras typically suck at. Ditto for AF speed with said conditions.

Can many of us still get great shots with cheap gear - obviously. That goes without saying. I have pulled off many nice action shots with my film SLR and later with El Cheapo lenses on a DSLR. But claiming that it's stupidly easy and that anything works for it is just absurd.
 
BirdShooter7 said:
davel33 said:
thunder storm said:
davel33 said:
Laqup said:
With you anything related to the EOS R is fantastic anyway as that is the camera you use and that you somehow need to defend. Your posts are not really objective, not only in this thread.
Click to expand...
When I see this kind of post it tells me they have given up on logic :(
Click to expand...
I think it's more fair to not just quote this from just one post, but also to mention the evidence Laqup gave. He did a lot of effort to make his point clear, didn't he? Logic is for arm chairs, and at least Laqup did some effort to come up with an empiric approach. It's totally reflects my experience as well for hundreds of not thousands of pictures. It's a fine camera, but certainly not for moving kids.
Click to expand...
His first line is an attack with no logic what so ever. That is the point that any logical thinking person stops reading.
Click to expand...
We all have our biases and it’s logical to take that into account.
Click to expand...
Would you like to rephrase that ?
 
davel33 said:
BirdShooter7 said:
davel33 said:
thunder storm said:
davel33 said:
Laqup said:
With you anything related to the EOS R is fantastic anyway as that is the camera you use and that you somehow need to defend. Your posts are not really objective, not only in this thread.
Click to expand...
When I see this kind of post it tells me they have given up on logic :(
Click to expand...
I think it's more fair to not just quote this from just one post, but also to mention the evidence Laqup gave. He did a lot of effort to make his point clear, didn't he? Logic is for arm chairs, and at least Laqup did some effort to come up with an empiric approach. It's totally reflects my experience as well for hundreds of not thousands of pictures. It's a fine camera, but certainly not for moving kids.
Click to expand...
His first line is an attack with no logic what so ever. That is the point that any logical thinking person stops reading.
Click to expand...
We all have our biases and it’s logical to take that into account.
Click to expand...
Would you like to rephrase that ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Eos SL1 to R8 upgrade question/advice needed
Replies
17
Views
3K
Digirame
D
N
Still in love with my Eos R
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
sportyaccordy
S
M
  • Solved
R7 2y vs 4y warranty with more money - worth it?
Replies
3
Views
24
maboleth
M
K
Worth trading in for G9ii?
Replies
7
Views
148
ZilverHaylide
Z
Z
Is the EOS R10 right for me?
Replies
7
Views
88
Andy01
Andy01

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