EOS R, who is it for?

[Don Lacy]

So specs did come into play for the people you quarried?

No actual performance, there is no spec that tells you how fast a camera re acquires focus when it loses it or how the AF works with low contrast subjects against a a similar colored BG. No mention of how the camera renders colors or a lens adds contrast when comparing similar specced cameras. Put it this way the 1DMKIII shots at 10 FPS while the 5DMKIV is at 7 so you would think that if you shooting BIF the 1D would get you more images but in the field the improved AF of the 5DMKIV will result in more keeper images then a 1DMKII. These are the things I am talking about a spec sheet only tells you half of the story.

--
Don Lacy
https://500px.com/lacy
http://www.witnessnature.net/

 

[MathiasWSWE]

...professional camera. So they are targeting the enthusiast market. People at Canon have also said the R is meant for those who have been looking for a mirrorless FF from Canon. So it would seem it's meant to respond to the enthusiasts thinking about switching to Sony.

From my point of view, this camera is ideal for Canon APS-C users who are looking to go FF; people who have several EF-S lenses but few if any EF lenses. Those people can keep using their EF-S lenses (something they couldn't do with a FF DSLR) while they begin purchasing RF lenses.

My $0.02.

I have never meet this mythological user that is claimed to exist - the APS-C user with several EF-S lenses looking to go full frame. I have meet several APS-C users with EF-S lenses that wants to stay on APS-C.

I have meet even more APS-C users that have mostly EF lenses and might in the future go FF. I think this is the common way to go - starting with a decent APS-C body and adding good EF lenses.

 

[davev8]

IMO, the R serves one main purpose. To keep Canon FF DSLR users from buying Nikon's new FF MILC. Also, it is intended to keep them from buying Sony's FF cameras but I think Canon is far more worried about Nikon as history shows. With the Z7/Z6, Nikon has made a major blow to Canon in that it offers so much more capability than the R and what Canon is capable of delivering. Nikon also is Canon's closest competitor regarding lenses and this makes the Z7/Z8 an even bigger threat.

The R is Canon's attempt to keep their DSLR users in the fold but I don't think it will woo many of them. They are a savvy bunch and will see the R for what it is. Basically, a 6D2 with a quickly aging 5D4 sensor. Once the Z6 hits the market I think the R will look far less appealing. Canon needs a FF MILC that has IBIS, cutting edge sensor tech, robust eye AF, fast frame rates, etc. The R is so lacking in features against the competition that it is dated even before it gets into the hands of its users. Notice this is getting common with Canon?

yes it was pointed out several years ago canon is alway behind in tech and people will go elsewhere ...well that has not happened ..sony is still floundering on 12-14% market share ...just like it had in 2008 ..10 years and and all that effort and cost and gone noplace ..canon on the other hand is gaining market share . dont see canon doing anything any different to make them lose MS and nikon, canons closest rival is/was losing a little ...probably Nikon biggest problem is not getting new cameras out the door fast enough ...its not just with the D850 my 1st DSLR was going to be a D200 but got fed up with waiting on back order and went Canon

Between Nikon and Canon, Nikon as laid a far better foundation for its MILC future. What they have offered out of the chute is far better than the R and they will offer lenses for these cameras over time that will equal what Canon offers.

 

[crashpc]

Found this funny piece of video...

 

[MikeJ9116]

IMO, the R serves one main purpose. To keep Canon FF DSLR users from buying Nikon's new FF MILC. Also, it is intended to keep them from buying Sony's FF cameras but I think Canon is far more worried about Nikon as history shows. With the Z7/Z6, Nikon has made a major blow to Canon in that it offers so much more capability than the R and what Canon is capable of delivering. Nikon also is Canon's closest competitor regarding lenses and this makes the Z7/Z8 an even bigger threat.

The R is Canon's attempt to keep their DSLR users in the fold but I don't think it will woo many of them. They are a savvy bunch and will see the R for what it is. Basically, a 6D2 with a quickly aging 5D4 sensor. Once the Z6 hits the market I think the R will look far less appealing. Canon needs a FF MILC that has IBIS, cutting edge sensor tech, robust eye AF, fast frame rates, etc. The R is so lacking in features against the competition that it is dated even before it gets into the hands of its users. Notice this is getting common with Canon?

yes it was pointed out several years ago canon is alway behind in tech and people will go elsewhere ...well that has not happened ..sony is still floundering on 12-14% market share ...just like it had in 2008 ..10 years and and all that effort and cost and gone noplace ..canon on the other hand is gaining market share . dont see canon doing anything any different to make them lose MS and nikon, canons closest rival is/was losing a little ...probably Nikon biggest problem is not getting new cameras out the door fast enough ...its not just with the D850 my 1st DSLR was going to be a D200 but got fed up with waiting on back order and went Canon

What got Canon to where they are today is their innovation in the DSLR market. They are far, far from being an innovator in the MILC market. Past performance does not necessarily indicate future success. Canon is far behind in MILC tech and their native lens catalog is in its infancy and Sony has a substantial lead over them in lenses and especially bodies. Watch the video linked below to get an understanding where Sony is headed with lens design in coordination with camera design.

Canon is facing stiffer competition from Sony regarding the MILC market than it ever saw in the DSLR market. Sony is advancing camera/lens tech at a ferocious pace and if the current situation continues Canon will not maintain market leadership as MILC overtakes DSLRs in market share. Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and now Nikon are leaving them in their dust technologically. Maybe Canon has a clip full of silver bullets to shoot but I am starting to doubt this is the case.

Between Nikon and Canon, Nikon as laid a far better foundation for its MILC future. What they have offered out of the chute is far better than the R and they will offer lenses for these cameras over time that will equal what Canon offers.

 

[Finsbay]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either. I can’t see the point of making a smaller camera with bigger lenses like The Sony A7 of Nikon Z, they just don’t feel right in the hands, or look right. Fuji and Sony and Canon can make small lenses for APSC, but as yet, nobody can make a small standard zoom for mirrorless.

I only want 1 lens, still waiting after nearly 5 years of full frame mirrorless.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

 

[aftab]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

 

[bhollis]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

 

[aftab]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

Because of the shortest flange distance Z7 is smaller. Wait till Nikon releases faster lenses and more pro bodies with Dual card slots. With 55mm mount faster lenses will be large.

--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[bhollis]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

Because of the shortest flange distance Z7 is smaller.

The Z 24-70 S is significantly smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and is probably significantly sharper as well.

Wait till Nikon releases faster lenses and more pro bodies with Dual card slots.

Wait how long? For what exactly? You're welcome to wait if you want, but I'm done waiting for Canon. The Z7 delivers everything I want now.

With 55mm mount faster lenses will be large.

No more so than Canon's 54mm mount.

The point I was trying to make is that I think Nikon had made an effort to address your (and my) desire for a smaller and lighter kit, while still delivering superb IQ. And I think they've largely succeeded.

 

[MikeJ9116]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

Because of the shortest flange distance Z7 is smaller.

The Z 24-70 S is significantly smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and is probably significantly sharper as well.

Wait till Nikon releases faster lenses and more pro bodies with Dual card slots.

Wait how long? For what exactly? You're welcome to wait if you want, but I'm done waiting for Canon. The Z7 delivers everything I want now.

With 55mm mount faster lenses will be large.

No more so than Canon's 54mm mount.

The point I was trying to make is that I think Nikon had made an effort to address your (and my) desire for a smaller and lighter kit, while still delivering superb IQ. And I think they've largely succeeded.

I agree. Nikon has put forward a much more compelling set of initial FF MILC cameras than the R. Considering they have far less resources to tap than Canon makes their effort even more impressive. I think the Z6 is going to be a very successful model in the $2k price range. I also think Nikon will be much faster in bringing an APS-C MILC to market as they currently have nothing to offer in this class of camera.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

You have your reasons for switching and that's fine, but what you say here is simply false. Nikon's 35/1.8 is *much* bigger than Canon's, and the 50/1.8 is the biggest I've ever seen for any full frame DSLR or mirrorless. And Nikon's 24-70 is smaller than Canon's 24-105 largely because it's a 24-70 not a 24-105. The size difference is in about the right proportion for that.

 

[bhollis]

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

You have your reasons for switching and that's fine, but what you say here is simply false. Nikon's 35/1.8 is *much* bigger than Canon's, and the 50/1.8 is the biggest I've ever seen for any full frame DSLR or mirrorless.

What I think you're overlooking is that when the reviews come out, I'm pretty sure we'll find that the IQ the Z/S lenses deliver blows other f/1.8 lenses out of the water. Sure the Z/S lenses are bigger than most other f/1.8 lenses--they have to be to deliver the kind of IQ they do. But, that said, the IQ they deliver will (I believe) be on a par with much bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. Again, what I think Nikon has done is to strike a balance between size and weight on the one hand and IQ on the other. You may not like that balance, but it suits me very well.

And Nikon's 24-70 is smaller than Canon's 24-105 largely because it's a 24-70 not a 24-105. The size difference is in about the right proportion for that.

I think that's probably right. And for someone like me who's looking for reduced size and weight, I'm quite willing to give up the additional 35mm on the long end. I've been shooting the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II as my primary travel lens for years, and generally found this focal length range sufficient for my needs. And with the Z7, whenever I want a little more reach, the additional 15MP of resolution will give it to me. And finally, as I've said before, in addition to being substantially smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 L, I also expect the Z 24-70 S to be noticeably sharper.

 

[lawny13]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

Because of the shortest flange distance Z7 is smaller. Wait till Nikon releases faster lenses and more pro bodies with Dual card slots. With 55mm mount faster lenses will be large.

Flange distance here isn’t the reason. They all pretty much have the same backfocus limitations. Look at the Sony vs the canon. Physics will simply ,are a 24-105 on the Nikon about the same size. So a 24-70 f4on the canon will likely be the same in size. The advantage that Nikon and canon will have over the Sony is the flange diameter. Sony needs to aggressively bend light. This is why adapted lenses on Sony do not do so well in the corners. It is why sigma literally pointed out the challenages to designing for the e-mount. That is why Sony was working on curved sensors.

Right Sony has then advantage of being out for longer. But they made a massive mistake with the flange diameter. Nikon had the F-mount diameter limitation for decades, Sony should have learned fro, that, but the e-mount pro full frame was a mistake. It was supposed to be the a-mount for pros and e-mount for size. They didn’t foresee this (I don’t think). From my optics courses I am confident that what canon and Nikon have said about the large diameter advantages are true.

Lastly, I am already seeing an advantage for canon that many people don’t seem to take into account, and that is cost. Yes the R is €200 more expensive (we get the adapter practically fee here in Europe though, €400 for the meta ones). The 24-105 is launching for €250 cheaper than the Sony. The 35 f1.8 is €100 cheaper than the 35 f2.8 Sony.

i am moving back to canon not just because of the colors and the feel in hand, but because over them buying the things that matter (LENSES) will cost me considerably less over time than Sony. If anything also sigma and tamron should have an easier time designing for canikon mirrorless than Sony.

 

[lawny13]

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

You have your reasons for switching and that's fine, but what you say here is simply false. Nikon's 35/1.8 is *much* bigger than Canon's, and the 50/1.8 is the biggest I've ever seen for any full frame DSLR or mirrorless.

What I think you're overlooking is that when the reviews come out, I'm pretty sure we'll find that the IQ the Z/S lenses deliver blows other f/1.8 lenses out of the water. Sure the Z/S lenses are bigger than most other f/1.8 lenses--they have to be to deliver the kind of IQ they do. But, that said, the IQ they deliver will (I believe) be on a par with much bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. Again, what I think Nikon has done is to strike a balance between size and weight on the one hand and IQ on the other. You may not like that balance, but it suits me very well.

Seriously? Think that the Nikon 50 will blow the 55f1.8 (mini-Otus) sonar out of the water? I would love to see that. I think you should be happy if it comes close or matches it, cause I don’t think anyone can actually falt the Zeiss in any form or way other than perhaps price.

And Nikon's 24-70 is smaller than Canon's 24-105 largely because it's a 24-70 not a 24-105. The size difference is in about the right proportion for that.

I think that's probably right. And for someone like me who's looking for reduced size and weight, I'm quite willing to give up the additional 35mm on the long end. I've been shooting the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II as my primary travel lens for years, and generally found this focal length range sufficient for my needs. And with the Z7, whenever I want a little more reach, the additional 15MP of resolution will give it to me. And finally, as I've said before, in addition to being substantially smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 L, I also expect the Z 24-70 S to be noticeably sharper.

then give up the additional reach. But you seem to somehow be presuming that canon won’t release a 24-70f4. For the early adopter, go with canon for better IQ fast glass, and Nikon for a smaller package... or Sony even. But let’s not kid ourselves. The usual expected lenses will be out for each system over the next 2-3 years. The 24-70f4 is a bread and butter lens that sells ala plenty. So think with some foresight and choose whichever brand you prefer. If you really want a small package I don’t think you can go wrong with the 35 f1.8 for example.

End of the day reading your comments tells me you simply have a preference for Nikon, and that is ok. I would get them too if I liked Nikon. However here in the Netherlands Nikon service stinks and they are rude, which is why when considering the Z I decided not to after hearing about how they treated a friend of mine.

 

[bhollis]

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

You have your reasons for switching and that's fine, but what you say here is simply false. Nikon's 35/1.8 is *much* bigger than Canon's, and the 50/1.8 is the biggest I've ever seen for any full frame DSLR or mirrorless.

What I think you're overlooking is that when the reviews come out, I'm pretty sure we'll find that the IQ the Z/S lenses deliver blows other f/1.8 lenses out of the water. Sure the Z/S lenses are bigger than most other f/1.8 lenses--they have to be to deliver the kind of IQ they do. But, that said, the IQ they deliver will (I believe) be on a par with much bigger, heavier and more expensive lenses. Again, what I think Nikon has done is to strike a balance between size and weight on the one hand and IQ on the other. You may not like that balance, but it suits me very well.

Seriously? Think that the Nikon 50 will blow the 55f1.8 (mini-Otus) sonar out of the water? I would love to see that. I think you should be happy if it comes close or matches it, cause I don’t think anyone can actually falt the Zeiss in any form or way other than perhaps price.

Actually, I think the 55 f/1.8 Sonnar is much more like the Z 50 f/1.8 S than the more typical f/1.8 lenses I was referring to.

In answer to you question whether the Z's IQ will equal or beat the Sonnar, it's too early to know, but I think it will very likely equal the Sonnar, and quite possibly surpass it. I recognize that comparing cross-brand MTFs is somewhat apples to oranges, but FWIW. . . .

Nikon Z 50 f/1.8 S

And Nikon's 24-70 is smaller than Canon's 24-105 largely because it's a 24-70 not a 24-105. The size difference is in about the right proportion for that.

I think that's probably right. And for someone like me who's looking for reduced size and weight, I'm quite willing to give up the additional 35mm on the long end. I've been shooting the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II as my primary travel lens for years, and generally found this focal length range sufficient for my needs. And with the Z7, whenever I want a little more reach, the additional 15MP of resolution will give it to me. And finally, as I've said before, in addition to being substantially smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 L, I also expect the Z 24-70 S to be noticeably sharper.

then give up the additional reach. But you seem to somehow be presuming that canon won’t release a 24-70f4.

I'm sure Canon will release a 24-70 f/4. Just don't know when or how good it will be. (Not impressed with the IQ of the RF 24-105). And I also don't know when Canon is likely to release an R body that suits my needs and desires in the way the Z7 does.

For the early adopter, go with canon for better IQ fast glass

Not so sure about better IQ part, but agree about fast--big, heavy, expensive and fast.

and Nikon for a smaller package...

. . . with equal or better IQ.

or Sony even. But let’s not kid ourselves. The usual expected lenses will be out for each system over the next 2-3 years. The 24-70f4 is a bread and butter lens that sells ala plenty. So think with some foresight and choose whichever brand you prefer. If you really want a small package I don’t think you can go wrong with the 35 f1.8 for example.

If the RF 35 f/1.8 floats your boat, then that's great. It doesn't float mine.

End of the day reading your comments tells me you simply have a preference for Nikon, and that is ok.

Actually, no. I'm currently a Canon shooter (5DIV and several EF lenses, all of which I plan to keep). And if I believed that the R would give me what I want anytime soon, I'd wait. But I don't believe that. So I'll buy the Z instead

I would get them too if I liked Nikon. However here in the Netherlands Nikon service stinks and they are rude, which is why when considering the Z I decided not to after hearing about how they treated a friend of mine.

Don't know about Nikon's customer service. But they can't be worse than Sony. :-D

 

[aftab]

There are 2 advantages to mirrorless: Smaller and lighter. Although I think mirrorless is the future, it’s not for me yet as Canon have not provided anything new or different.

The EOS R with 24-105 is heavier than a 6d mk2 with the excellent 24-105,F3.5-5.6 so there’s one main advantage missing, it’s not much smaller either.

The EOS R is 105 g lighter than the 6D2.

Regarding the lenses, you're not comparing like with like - the RF24-105 is an L, and 95 g lighter than the EF24-105/4L, making a total weight saving of 200g. The lens you mention is a non-L and a stop slower, so of course it's lighter.

If your complaint is that there is no low-end standard zoom for RF mount, then at this point in time you're right. It was a long time coming for EF so I wouldn't hold your breath!

Panasonic and Olympus popularized mirrorless. Their statement was simple, smaller and lighter. At that stage everything, such as EVF, AF and sensor, was poor. Technology advanced and mirrorless closed the gap with DSLR. When Leica and Sony started their FF mirrorless they wanted to be as small/light as possible ( hence less than 50mm mount diameter). Sony gradually started to come up with heavy and big lenses. At the moment mirrorless is not about being small and light weight (to some extent it still is), it is about other advantages of not having a mirror. Both Canon and Nikon have taken this approach. But many still think main advantage of mirrorless is about small and light weight.

Actually, I think Nikon has taken something of a middle road with its initial Z/S lens offerings--slower f/1.8/f/4 apertures to keep them from being too big and heavy, but still built to deliver maximum IQ.

Take a look at this size comparison. Has a lot to do with why I've ordered a Z7 and 24-70 kit lens.

Because of the shortest flange distance Z7 is smaller.

The Z 24-70 S is significantly smaller and lighter than the RF 24-105 f/4 L, and is probably significantly sharper as well.

24-70/4 would be smaller and lighter than 24-105/4. Sony's 24-70/4 is actually lighter than Nikon's at 426g. Sony is lighter because Sony mount is smaller. You can't scape physics. Canon's 24-70/4 should be similar weight to Nikon's.

Unlikely to be 'significantly' sharper.

See here and here. Although it is easier to design a sharper lens with shorter FL.

Wait till Nikon releases faster lenses and more pro bodies with Dual card slots.

Wait how long? For what exactly? You're welcome to wait if you want, but I'm done waiting for Canon. The Z7 delivers everything I want now.

I was talking about NIKON releasing faster lenses, not Canon.

With 55mm mount faster lenses will be large.

No more so than Canon's 54mm mount.

The point I was trying to make is that I think Nikon had made an effort to address your (and my) desire for a smaller and lighter kit, while still delivering superb IQ. And I think they've largely succeeded.

You are right. Nikon's initial lenses for Z mount are aimed to be smaller and lighter. But look at their road map. All faster and heavier lenses than initial iterations. That's what I mean, the general approach both Canon and Nikon have taken going for larger mount diameter. Their lenses are likely to be larger and heavier than Sony (or Leica, Panasonic) equivalents.

At the moment Nikon's offerings suit you, you don't need to wait. But for me 24-70 is too short a focal range for travelling. I guess I will stick to my APSC kit for now and wait to see what comes up in a year or so.



--

Catch45

Explore Catch45’s 200 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Aftab Uzzaman

Explore Aftab Uzzaman’s 2,736 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[SJK065]

I have enjoyed my Canon Digital Cameras over the last 10 some odd years and the lenses as well. I was hoping for and may still get a Canon mirrorless down the road. The thing that concerns me is that I also want the good glass that pairs up to this camera. What I don’t see happening is spending nearly $6,000.00 for “TWO” lenses to get me there. Size wise are you really saving anything from the mirror style cameras. I get all the advantages of mirrorless as I’m experimenting with the Sony line right now but holding onto my great Canon lenses. My Sony lineup I would have to say does not give me a huge weight/size benefit. And-I much prefer the Canon color science over Sony. I have also used the Fuji mirrorless and while it does provide the size/weight benefit, the sensor size does not give me the advantages that FF gives. Then I wondered whether I really needed the FF advantage in the long run or am I just being ridiculous as I’m not shooting weddings anymore. Time will tell and hopefully Canon will pull off some winners in the near future that won’t have everyone mortgaging their homes.

 

[lawny13]

Well about the 50s. Generally most people will have the <30 MP sensors. On the A7III the 55 sonar out resolves the sensor handily, and it keeps up with the RIII well. My point is that the 50 Nikon won’t be blowing it out of the wateR. They will be close enough that we will be splitting hairs and pixel peeping. No there won’t be much appreciable difference.

The RF 24-105f4 IQ is good... just like the 24-105 f4 G from Sony. Only real advantage that Cabo has is the extra control ring and it is €250 cheaper.

As for customer service. My friend had the d3200 and predominantly shoots macro. She wanted to treat herself and got the D5600. All her images made using the view finder are soft (sharp with live view). She sent it in twice and both times they told her she was wrong and that it is fine. I had to advise her to specifically send it in for calibration since it seems to me to be the issue.

i hope for you that Nikon releases some better (faster) glass and take advantage of the apparent benefits of their new mount, and on my side I hope that canon will release some high end and also affordable glass. I personally would prefer a decent not 2.2k fast 50, perhaps a 1.4 or 1.8. But I would like the 35 f1.8 for travel and street photography. I don’t like/need the 35 mm FL enough to pay more than 600 which is why I don’t own one for my Sony anyway.