Title was supposed to be funny. Here's my semi-coherent rant about camera spec tech and such nonsense. Full disclosure: I think this is my very first post EVER on DP. If I've ever made one before it was so long ago I forgot, probably not though, I rarely read or participate in gear related discussion on-line/off-line/cross-line whatever. I own and use multiple camera systems, always have, even with film. Last item is that I am I guess one of the four people that ordered an EOS R the day it was available for pre-order. Yep, I am that much of an idiot according to the rest of the interwebs... Oh one last thing, I do a lot of work for a lot of other photographers that actually make a living at it as well as for myself.
Okay with that out of the way, I accidentally ran across 84 million threads while attempting to find a very specific pieces of info about my pre-purchased, yet to be evaluated camera. Doesn't even matter what that info was now. I'll figure it out 22 seconds after turning it on (hopefully soon). Let's list the reasons I am an idiot with some of my random commentary on each reason I'm an idiot. Not in any particular order but I'll probably go with the most repeated ones first...
1. No IBIS... OMG???? For me it's a who gives a crap, I rarely use it in any camera that has it. In fact I go out of my way to not use any stabilization for stills (due to may odd and random goofy looking unpredictable crap that happens here and there that "shouldn't" when it's on and you don't actually need it). For ME OIS of any kind falls into the "really don't give a crap about this picture". Now I understand it's useful to some people that shoot in many circumstances that happen to have gear that doesn't provide OIS. Ps. The same is kinda true for every other photographer that I do various other work for. What about video... ummm sort of the same for ME. Why? Oh gee, some sort of gimbal is in use for just about anything that actually matters when it's a hand held camera. Every now and again for something quick and dirty I'll use the IS on one of the 82 lenses I have that's fine... fine for quick and dirty. Actually probably find for a lot of other stuff as well but when you want great footage ummm, gimbal. Oh, and all the other gear for any sort of real production = who the hell cares about a $2000 body. Throw away.
2. Crappy sensor... 400 years out of date, DR, blah, blah, blah. Hmmmm not really. Truth be told under the circumstances I shoot in I LOVE my 5DsR, I also love my 5D4. Is that because I can't afford anything else? Is it because I am a fanboy? Nope. Is it because I don't own anything else? Nope. Oh ps. the biggest badest ass D850 (Sony sensor with Nikon juice) looks like garbage (to me) and I process files all day every day (well not actually but sometimes it feels like it) from other photographers that have been shooting the D850 since it's been available. How can that be??? Well do you actually know where that sensor is SOOOOOOOO much better (which it's not)? That would be at ISO 64... after that really it's a nit and in the circumstances I shoot I like the Canon files a lot better. I especially like the Canon lenses better A LOT BETTER in the critical lenses to me (IE the entire TS line and some others). I think most people think Sony sensors are like some sort of alien tech because the can do ONE thing way way better than Canon sensors (for stills). If you happen to under expose constantly by many stops, as in many many many stops the files look better when you add that back in post. This is NOT DR... this is just the way the sensor works. IE setting the ISO dial on the camera doesn't make a huge difference(at various points in the gain curve) on canons you do have to actually set the ISO and expose properly. Look ma I'll purposely underexpose this file 8 stops and like magic it looks about the same if I add 8 stops in post.... In reality you may have 1.5 to 2 stops at absolute base ISO better, MAYBE. I say maybe because honestly at the extreme edges both sensors look like garbage (in the work I have to deliver), it's a contest of which one looks a little less bad. I love my current two Canon sensors in my use-cases. (I'm not the only one).
3. No joystick, whatever. Honestly this is a wait and see for me. I've discussed this with quite a few people that have actually handled the camera. If the drag focus point works well it will obviously be a better way of dealing with the ever increasing granularity of focus points. Two people I trust said it's fantastic, a few other people I've chatted with didn't even know you could do that when they handled it. One guy on the internet said it was "laggy". I am sensitive to laggy, very sensitive (a big reason I like DSLR's in most cases still). I'll see for myself. If focus point selection is a PIA it's out the door, NBD. I lost a few dollars and will see what's next from whoever. (I tend not to react to violently and change things when I can get significant benefit). Now, let's say it's great. I am assuming that the DPAF is at least as good as the 5D4 and some of the stuff I've used. Maybe better according to a few ppl I know that have seen for themselves. If so it will be AWESOME and actually solve a problem I have in a few circumstances (crazy close, crazy shallow DOF subjects, PS. I don't shoot in continuous 99.9999999% of anything I shoot so frame rate is absolutely irrelevant to me, OTOH I do go nuts if I cannot make the NEXT picture very quickly = that's my bread and butter = timing with human subjects). Last but certainly not least is that new manual focus indicator. If that works like I think it does and as accurately as I think it will this will actually make my life a WHOLE lot better and one of the primary reasons I will ordered it in the first place. It solves problems I have every day. Just ask and I'll explain. If I am wrong and it does not work the way I think it does... out the door (maybe). Don't even get me started about focus peaking... completely inaccurate for my needs without magnification, distracting with magnification, actually just plain old zooming in is better at the moment.
4. I'm an idiot because I didn't realize there's only one card slot. Shhhhh don't tell anybody but I use only one card a lot in my dual slot cameras. Yep I am not an event shooter and if a card goes belly up? I know right then and there and it's not a giant deal given my shooting conditions... Oh yeah then again I am tethered to C1pro for anything that actually counts (for what this camera is going to get used for).
5. I'm an idiot because it does cropped 4K... Hmmm so does the biggest baddest ass Pany M43.... Hmmm... it also doesn't have IBIS. I guess they are idiots too. But but but what about wide, as if I can't get the wide zoom EF-S for like $5? I'm being smug but for the few occasions (if ever) this will pull 4K duty for me it will be fine. I guess if there was actually a reason I NEEDED wide 4K a lot and I couldn't afford a $5 EF-s lens that's WAY better than required for 4K video I'd probably be out of market. For me I'd actually rather 10 bit c-log for the few occasions that it might do 4K duty. If I were MR cheapo 4K I would buy another camera but honestly who out there that's going bananas is making money shooting 4K where the cost of $2K is actually the big deal? I would bet anyone complaining about this probably doesn't actually make much video let alone make a living at it. Obviously I'm not someone primarily interested in this as a video camera (but it's fine for a secondary video use camera, maybe better than fine depending on your ACTUAL use)
6. I'm an idiot for even remotely thinking about using ANY Canon product in 2018... Ummm, yeah right. I like they way they feel and handle which for hand-held still work is make or break for me much more than tech specs or theoretical stuff that never comes into play in my stills world. I tried an XT-1 for an entire year. I hated it. I tried the Sony A7xxx bodies for extended times, I don't like they way they feel or the way they handle. I do like the XPro-2 way more but it has it's faults in feel/handling as well. This is somewhat a personal thing, and somewhat a universal thing. Based on a few ppl I know that have handled the R, I HOPE HOPE HOPE I am going to like it. It looks like I will based on side by side pics with other cams but that's a guess until I actually hold and use it. That's the personal part. The "universal" part is build quality both in reality and in "feel" (which is a little personal). Overall (yes every company has Q/A issues here and there) but having handled, used, and abused more cameras than most Canon bodies feel great and OVERALL seem to have a fit, finish, feel, and actual reliability better than most for quite a long time. Even the FF Nikon bodies seem to have gone downhill year after year since the D3. Japan vs not Japan? Who knows... We'll see. Canon seems to actually have gotten progressively better on the 5D series, 7D, etc since the 5Dmk2.
7.I'm an idiot because the lenses are WAY too expensive and big. Hmmmmm, have you seen the Sony GM lenses lately? What the...??? Oh and the Zeiss branded lenses I've used no matter what the on-line nonsense is actually blow... compared to Canon's glass that I use. Overall I trust Canon glass based on my own experience. Again they seem to have started out pretty darn good with the EF lenses and got better and better and better. We'll see what happens but much of Canon's glass has been clearly superior at high resolution than Nikon's have (again the TS lenses, some of the zooms, etc) I'm guessing that is due to the larger lens opening advantage by a wide margin. Maybe? Probably? Why are the GM lenses so god damn big and so damn expensive? My guess... hmmm maybe an APS-C mount opening isn't such a good idea? Again only time will tell but at the moment I am fine with my MUCH older canon glass and none of the GM lenses are that attractive to me. The TS Canons, cannot WAIT to see what happens with new Canon designs. The proof will come soon but I also ordered the 35 1.8 for the R, when it ships in December it should be a good indicator.... price performance size, etc.
8. I'm an idiot because ummmm SOOOONNNNNY, Sony, Sony, Sony. Whatever, been there, used them, giant pain in the ass in many cases (goofy weird twilight zone stuff when shooting with strobes, don't even get me started about the uselessness of various things when the lens stops down to focus in studio situations, etc, etc). All cameras have faults, all systems have strengths and weaknesses. Sony has a couple of interesting things and they are hell bent on delivering 673 tech features as quickly as possible, most of which I don't want or need, some that take two or three versions to get right, etc. I had a 2 x 5Dmk3 since it came out. I got rid of one and got a 5DsR when it came out 3 years ago. It ended up replacing a H4D handily with the few reasons I wanted/needed 50mpix. Especially in the circumstances the H4D with far more flexibility and performance. I got rid of the 5Dmk3 when the 5D4 came out. I'll try the R because it appears to actually solve a problem (inconvenience) issue I actually have and we'll see if the 5DIV goes. All in all I am super happy with the EXTREMELY long camera cycle so far. None of the "upgrades" I've made over that last decade have made a HUGE difference in how I shoot or honestly the general quality nor have they been earth shattering in terms of what I can or cannot do. The 5DsR made the stuff I use it for FAR cheaper and actually improved IQ in a few ways. The only thing that has really wowed me was that 5DsR in the same conditions I was using the H4D. The other thing that wowed me was the DPAF on the 5D4... I just think that will be more useful in the R format and better battery life when using it. I'm hoping the manual focus additions with also be a fantastic thing in a segment of my work. Thru the same decade I have also been thru more than twice as many mirrorless camera in all formats. Guess what... all of them were "earth shattering" until the next one a year later... No, I don't have the XT-3, no I don't have the A7x-III, etc. I've had the rest of them that are not release this year... earth shatteringly world changing-ly uber fantastic-a change your life? Nope.
Anyone that has been around the block in making pictures or making video knows that most of this stuff adds a few conveniences, might make you a hair more productive but in real world pictures and content output they are going to be an incremental improvement (if any) and 99.999% will be irrelevant to actual work performed. Go look at people that actually make FANTASTIC video, doesn't really matter if they were using a Sony, Canon, Pany... Honestly doesn't matter if they were shooting 2K 4K or whatever. Was good then, is good now. All of the IBIS/cropped 4K/blah blah blah... Show me your awesome content that absolutely depends on any of it... even a little bit. If it actually does and if it blows the crap out of people not using that because all this stuff is just now so so so easy (it's not, that's a fallacy the camera companies have been selling forever mostly to consumers) I'll agree with you that that's a great solution for what you do. Does it solve problems other people have? Maybe... does it solve problems I have? Probably not. I'm not a curmudgeon. I actually do try things and see what they have to offer but if you've not learned a LONG time ago that buying stuff to solve problems you don't actually have is a completely futile effort. Buying stuff THINKING that it will cause you to gravitate to doing something you don't do now is also wishful thinking. Trust me it's better to ACTUALLY go do that and then figure out what will do you the most good.
I've stayed away from many Mirrorless cameras because I hate using most of them, I don't like the way they feel and they way they handle. In many cases I'm not a huge EVF fan under many conditions -- sometimes I like them but only the latest ones I've seen (the Leica SL comes to mind) and only under some conditions. Nothing is magical, ultimately the only Mirrorless system I currently have is a Fuji system that uses their least popular body the XPro-2 and a couple of primes. Why? Because they are the only company that Does APS-C right and is actually smaller than my other systems with a balance I can live with in a camera I don't hate to use. Do I use it for everything? Nope... why? Because my other systems have done a better job for other work and deliver output that is better suited for it's intended purpose (Ps. the canon's I use completely smoke the Fuji in IQ not that it matters at all except when it does. Yes I have used the GFX as well but at the moment it doesn't solve any issues I have, especially with the lack of TS lenses, even then it probably won't... we'll see about the GFX100 or whatever down the road).
/rant
