Canon EOS R review

Go read what you posted again. Maybe you'll see how nonsensical it is.

Any reason for the EOS R becides brand loyality?

Good ergonomy, very nice EFV, very nice articulating screen, very nice touchscreen imementation, nice colours from LR Adobe profiles, fast and precise autofocus in single shot (much more than my not-so-precise-as-Sanyal-preaches A7RIII autofocus), easy menus, easy to configure and customize, nice lenses, so there is something to love about it, too expensive though, the right price sits between 1700-1800 euros, so yes there are some reasons :)

you can't buy a bad camera in 2018

@davev8 Really, no bad cameras in 2018? I dare you to plunk down your hard-earned on the new Yashica DigiFilm. You'll be singing a different tune.

ha ha i will give you that one .....

Exactly no bad cameras in 2018, only bad value cameras in 2018.

it depends what you want from a camera ....different cameras have different value to different folk ...if you want the best low light AF and don't want to take a hit changing lenses really like the output over other cameras want a flappy screan and like the canon touch interface you like astro photography so want a camera that not mess with the RAW file with NR (that rule out sony and nikon )then to that guy the R is the best value ......but obviously its not to folk who line up spec sheets

Except the Canon EOS R is from 2013

which part of it? ...as of 2018 has the best color science, the best touch interface the best low light AF ..its the only camera ever that can AF on a single star only FF MILC with a flappy lcd .....canon seams to be the only one that taking advantage with lenses making use of the short flange distance ...sony has not really done that in 5 years..if you remember milcs from 2013 did not really have AF that worked and some still have not matched low light AF to a DSLR ,,i think comments like that just make you look silly

If a camera is the sum of the parts so R is not at all a bad camera, it took me 15 minutes to understand how it operates and the controls on the lenses are beautiful, the new control ring is really helpful and it's part of the sum.

Sony users are making so many really great videos with their cameras... videos of how they feel about Canon is getting very entrenched as a genre. It's like advertising for Sony, but it's done willingly by their users. "Canon makes me lust for vengeance! look at me shooting Sony!!!!"
See the very sassy in action on the DPR forums... it's practically harassment... Sony users are anti-social apparently. We need some Sony police to manage their users.

I have no problem with low light AF with the Olympus EM5.2 and EM1.2

the R tracs well at 5fps and apparently the keeper rate is very good so making up some what for the low fps

So mais51 the only spaces left for non-smartphone cameras are video and sports?

I allready Have a smartphon..

If you think a phone is all that's needed if you dont need those functions ----- quit photography. Now.

Maybe a 6dm2 for $1100 would have been a better purchase.

@Jens Evensen
the main problem with the camera is the price. If you are happy to shell out what Canon asks for it and it fits your bill that is cool.

@c h u n k
$2,400 is reasonable? it would be without the shortcomings. I'd take the A7RII for $1,600 over the R any day. Personally I would not buy the R even for $1,600. Note that I am in the market for a Canon FF mirrorless so I am not here to trash Canon.

@Vignes
you might want to present that as your own opinion, Sony are not "cheap" by any means. They definitely have a lighter duty construction but that does not qualify them as cheap. I have now heavily used 3 Sony bodies and I have not had a single problem with them. I am talking professional work from sports, to wedding, to events, studio, etc. Even in bad weather. If your definition of cheap means that the camera gets the job done and it does not break under standard professional use, I will take that AND the additional performance features.
Actually my A9 went now though about 1M images, that would have been 2 shutter replacements for the 1DX. So stop talking about thin air.

@Jens Evensen
just reinforcing that the R is at this time targeting the existing Canon users attached to the system and sure Canon is making them pay for :-) milking every sigle penny. But again why the R and not the 5DIV? It is definitely worth the price difference, even if the the 5DIV also is overpriced.
On a different note the A7III is definitely cheaper and far more capable than the R.

@Thoughts R Us - when one sum all your (Oscar P, Peter NR) enormous effort here to praise Canon and Nikon and bash Sony, only two things will pop up - hurt feelings, aka ego or payed job, there's nothing else. I'll put my money on second thing...

Well, if you prefer a life that's dull and boring, go for it!

Yeah but most people are only making boring crappy pics with their “exciting mirrorless gadgets. we know dslrs are the camera of choice if photographing on the frontlines of war, sports and action.

T Rus wrote: "And while the future is mirrorless, DSLR's are still the proven and refined workhorses. I think of DSLR's like trucks, and mirrorless like cars"

While both the truck and the car can get you from A to B, I'll take the car over the truck any day

No bad camera in 2018 of course not! But not every camera gets a review like this either!

The sensor cover for lens changing is a very practical idea. I think that is one of the more truly innovative things about the camera.

What about Control ring.

Yes, those 2 features are incredibly practical to real world users, but ones that do not impress most reviewers, because reviewers do not have the same perspective on equipment that a real world consumer does.

Reviewers value gadgety type features, the bells and whistles, and ignore practical features of immense value to consumers. It's the nature of their work, where the live with a camera for a few days or weeks, then ship it off and move on to the next. They also like the bells and whistles because it is more interesting to them.

However to real consumers spending real money, the simple idea of having a cover over the sensor when changing lenses matters a whole lot. Same with basic reliability, where Canon comes out way ahead of the gadget king Sony.

We can learn from reviews, but we should not trust them entirely.

Also new Flexible Priority Fv Mode.

That's an example of Canon innovation being ignored by reviewers. They have their favorite bells & whistles, like the 6-stop Sony push. That gets their attention.

@Yake: reviewers love stuff like the 6 stop shadow push: it gives them something technical to write about, it makes them seem smart, and it allows for them to differentiate between models even when differences are small or negligible. In short it keeps their jobs. I saw the same thing happen in the world of HiFi growing up: increasingly reviewers became obsessed by trivialities and ignored the stuff that mattered.

And this is no knock on reviewers: most try their very best, but I do think many do not realize that their perspective is flawed and not always authoritative.

There needs to be a review of the review community, to assess whether they are focusing on the stuff of most value to their audience. That 6 stop shadow push is a great example...does it matter to most? Are most consumers better served by a shutter curtain for the sensor when changing lenses rather than that 6 stop push? And we haven't even gotten to talking lenses yet, where again the R system shines.

I found that feature interesting too. But, some tech guys mentioned that the shutter is more fragile than the sensor. And if the dust settles on the shutter blades it will sooner or later settle somewhere else in the body as they are moving really fast. Does the R have some dust absorber inside?

Unfortunately no attractive lenses or roadmap..

So wait... you’re telling me that in spite of your best efforts, there are still people who like Canon and a lot of them? And that frustrates you? You need help. I can’t understand why someone’s choice of brand would frustrate you so much that you have to post over and over again in a Canon product review. If you are happy with your gear, stick with it. Someone else’s choice is immaterial.

yes Arun there are a lot of people still loving whatever Canon releases (but this species is one its way out). This is called brand loyalism has nothing to do with objectivity. So when they (and you) come to patronise others (even the review authors!) in the comment section of an objective review, you’ll understand that we are more than a few to point the irony.

Jay- Carey and I had a very decent and rational conversation that is documented under the editors choice comments. The review is objective, the conclusion subjective and reasonable people can disagree and still live happy lives and respect each other.

As mentioned several times there and elsewhere, we have plenty of excellent reasons why we choose Canon that goes beyond brand loyalty. With about 50% of the market in sales and a mirrorless offering that will keep even more customers with Canon, they are here to stay. And so is Sony. I never once tell Sony users they are making bad choices but for some reason Sony users feel compelled to make it their life’s mission to tell Canon users how wrong they are and how their lives will be all sunshine and roses if only they convert.

The success of Sony does not give me heartburn because it forced Canon to make better sensors. Canon’s success should similarly be something you should be happy about.

In Human thinking there is “fundamentalism”, which seems to be an anxiety to have final answers to all questions.
Religious fundamentalism
Science fundamentalism
Brand fundamentalism
This is emerging as a mental health issue.

Those Rebel kits in the right hands is all one will ever need. Canon knows it too.

Kevin: why don't you rent one and try it out? Also rent the Sony with adapter so you can use it with current lenses. For about $250-$300, you'll be able to decide for yourself which is the right camera for you. Opinions (including mine) are cheap, but ultimately it is your money. Both big rental houses have nice Black Friday sales going on. Either will be a massive upgrade over what you have now and I'd be surprised if you will be able to tell a difference other than in handling and ergonomics in casual shooting.

Kevin - Canon move very slowly so don't expect dramatic improvements and don't expect their cameras to be state-of-art. If you want the "latest and greatest" in terms of tech, get a Sony.

Canon cameras are generally fun and easy to use, but if you are looking to get an EOS-R, be sure to play with one for at least several minutes before purchase, to make sure you are happy with the unusual ergonomics. And beware that battery life is quite short.

Nikon? The Z6/7 seem to have better ergonomics than the EOS-R but apart from that there isn't much to choose between them. Cosinaphile's suggestion of Fujifilm (XT-2) is sensible if you are happy to stay with APS, but again I'd caution you to spend some time playing with one before purchase, as the handling characteristics are very different to your Rebel.

I agree with Arun: rent before buying. In the long run it will save you money.

As you see, everyone has their own opinions, which may differ from yours. Myself I find the R to be a great camera with the best ergonomics of any mirrorless right now. The colors are amazing, and the RF lenses are the start of something great. in the long run I believe the RF lenses will come to dominate, just like the EOS EF lenses have.

But I am just one person, and again you won't know until you try. Anything else you are spending a lot of money based on someone else's opinion, and that can be a dangerous thing.

There's no need to get rid of your Canon EF lenses. I am a Canon user who bought a Sony A7II. I am using my existing EF lenses (35/1.4L, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 17-40/4L, 24mm TS-E, 45mm TS-E, etc.) on it using the Sigma MC-11 adapter. Everything works fine. Autofocus, IBIS, face AF all work fine with my Canon lenses (except for the TS-E lenses, which don't have AF because they are manual focus lenses). I took advantage of the recent sales and price reductions. I got the A7II with the Sony 28-70 kit lens for $998. I got the MC-11 for $149. I bought a 3rd party battery grip for $55 (2x battery life, portrait grip). That adds up to only $1202! I'm very happy. With all the money I saved, I can put it towards more lenses in the future. I already added the Samyang FE 35/2.8 pancake lens-- a great compact street shooting lens! It's also on sale, for $249.

I highly recommend the MC-11 adapter for Canon users wanting to continue to use their EF lenses on Sony bodies.

Keep your glass, move to Sony a7rii

thank you dexter for helping to "kill" the myth of an image quality gulf between the 2 sensors
as you say some advantages exist, but not the extremes imagined...

'"killer "comment

Dexter wrote: "the technology is so good that the difference between the two (FF and APS-C) is insignificant." I believe that is true, and in reality the same could be said of the difference between cameras and brands, for the most part, at least so far as IQ is concerned.

I mean when was the last time you looked at a picture and said that had to taken with brand X? The only time I have ever said so is due to Canon colors...I do believe they make a difference in some cases.

IMHO, the main differences come down to ergonomics and lenses. That is one reason why I always say that these reviews that pit one camera against another are usually misleading and do not reflect the way most people choose.

In general, I would advise anyone to buy the camera they feel most comfortable using, and the one with the lenses they want. I would also pay attention to build quality and reliability. Anything else is just splitting hairs.

Agree to a point, I never feel there is anything lacking shooting my D500, but the images coming out of my D850 are noticeably superior in all areas. That being said this only really applies to print output where resolution will always help. If you only shoot for web display MFT is enough for anyone.

Fuji ISO cheat or call it "different ISO rating" if you don't wanna trigger the fanboys.
Let me put it that way. In order to get the same exposure, the actual ISO of a Fuji has to be 2/3 of a stop higher.
Therefore does not match any full frame. Not even close.

In reply to
kodacolor200
Micro 4/3rds is great for printing, your comment that implies that it is only good for web display is utter rubbish and a stupid comment, have you seen some prints from the Olympus micro 4/3rds? i and many others have, they are fantastic, oh!! and dont forget the 1" sensors that you can get a cracking A3 print from, all the micro 4/3rds cameras and 1" models can produce extremely pleasing prints, not just your beloved Nikon, also there is much excellent software out there that is capable of re-sizing images without loss that allows you to print out poster size prints from virtually any sized sensor!!

I own a Olympus Em5 mark ii as a family/walk around camera and I enjoy it for that purpose.The print output is fine for certain professional work. However for the types of printing I do, I need high quality resolution. I make Ultra prints that require 36mp minimum for what I want to achieve - sorry MFT doesn’t cut it here. The Olys hi res mode is useless for the type of work I make.

This why Panasonic and possibly Olympus will also be entering the FF market. The MFT system is the most complete mirrorless system and it’s great in that respect. However once they shift to FF I can see MFT winding down.

kodacolor - MFT isn't for me, but I'd be surprised if MFT winds down. Allthough I don't like the ergonomics or menus of Olympus cameras, they provide good enough resolution to meet many people's needs, and the lenses are so small and light that you could easily carry an outfit twice the size of an APS or FF set-up.

Also, Olympus cameras are extremely weather-resistant - I know someone who slipped and dropped her EM1 Mkii in a river a month ago. Luckily the river was only a couple of feet deep and she was able to retreive it. Amazingly, after a few minutes drying out in the sunshine the camera was functioning perfectly again - and is still functioning perfectly!

I agree the difference in image quality is insignificant. However, in the film days I totally fell in love with my 50mm f1.4, and that's not something APS-C can give you. So the EOS R is a very welcome addition to my camera collection. And yes, it's wonderful even when it's not perfect, as it's a big improvement over my previous 5DMkII. And other systems can be better, who cares, I'm not re-buying all those lenses :-)

Are you talking about the Sony A7II that is under $1000 with lens and come with 5-stop IBIS?

Yes, the A7ii that had overheating issues and poor battery life? And probably won't hold up as long as an EOS R? And has a lesser lens system?

@Thoughts R Us
the A7II might not hold up against the R but the R does not hold up against the A7RII which is currently $800 cheaper.

When I first saw the photos from the 50mm f/1.2, I was blown away. I commented that the lens may be enough reason to buy the camera. If I had a lens like that, I would happily shoot with it using any camera it would work with.

Well Arun you have that now so you can pay the price canon is asking and can use it as much as you want.

I don’t see anything that is coming in your way here.

Very much agree. That’s why I think the eos r system has a future and the z system does not. Look at those lenses! Nevertheless, I think there is little reason to buy an eos r now, because even canon has implied that they will release an ibis body. Probably with full frame 4K to boot, I guess those that can wait should.

Well, DPR names EOS R “class leading in low-light AF” and I have my reservations EOS R. I tested Sony’s top model about 1.5 years ago and it failed badly in low-light. On-sensor AF seems to struggle with low light conditions without high-contrast objects to focus on.

@Jylppy
you might want to check out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1sfy__7A4&t=537s
fast forward to 19:35
With a fast lens my A9 easily beats my 1DX in low light. So my experience is in line Max's test.

@Jylppy
"A9 might be better than the A7 something I tried"
So did you actually try the A9? If you did not try the A9 then the best AF 1.5 years ago was from the A7RII which is not even close to current Sony models. If you did try the A9, what lenses were you using on the A9? Mirrorless AF is far more sensitive to the lens speed. As I said I tested the 1DX against the A9 and the A9 easily wins. Note that I must have shot with my A9 ~1M pics and about the same with my 1DX. I shoot sports and events in low light, so you better have some pretty convincing evidence to persuade me differently. I am very VERY skeptical that the 5DII is even close to any of the current Sony cameras unless you are shooting somewhere around F4-5.6 in low light.
Note that the A9 is far better than any of the other Sony bodies does not just AF in lower light exceptionally well, but it does it also accurately. So if you did not actually try the A9 then your argument is completely invalid.

Badly exposed at 0.75 EV??? Are you kidding me?

EV -3 und shadow 100%. Not kidding

Reviewers have to try to find ways to differentiate between equipment; if they cannot do that then their jobs have no practical use. Now that sensor tech is this good, and all sensors get the job done very well, they have to find all types of weird tests divorced from real word usage.

I remember not too long ago when everyone seemed to be obsessed about DXO scores for sensors; people would argue and fret over a one or two point difference in one parameter. That fad seems to have faded, as people realized that the number was not definitive, the tests had their own subjectivity, and that it was all splitting hairs and had no connection to reality.

Some people like to live on the edge I guess. Faced with a scene like that, I would bracket regardless of what body I was using. Whether I chose to use a single exposure or do a composite is something I would decide after the fact.

//The photo is badly exposed.//

The photo was purposely exposed to prevent blowing out highlights. For a brighter exposure (the definition 'proper exposure' often depends on the photographer and what he or she is aiming for), then having the shadows look brighter would have meant more loss of color in the sky as more of it would have blown to white.

NicoPPC if you need to darken the photo 1.5EV is because it was too bright. On a digital camera, you always try to avoid that, as it's easier to get detail from the shadows than from the highlights. That would be a great exposure on film, but a bad exposure on digital.

OWarning: Time Warp Bubble ahead!
Back in the day,1970, with my Sekonic L-3 light meter and experience from working in a darkroom, I had no difficulty applying experience to my light meter reading while looking at the scene in front of me. I got perfect exposures every time. I spent almost no time “photoshopping” my shots in the darkroom. I still have the prints to prove it.
Today I find it absolutely absurd not to make a good exposures with today’s cameras. And I find it a total disservice to all photographers, especially beginners, to present results from grossly under exposed shots and going on adnauseam and comparing sensors on this dubious basis. This has nothing to do with photography! Stop it!!!

Get over it guys, It's a fair review. Maybe Canon will make something that gets better ratings next time.

Well, in the modern digital world, things are slightly different. For the best possible image quality, in addition to a good photographer at the viewfinder, we need the best lenses we can afford, but we also need the best sensors we can afford, as they contribute equally to the technical quality of the final image.

In truth we need to keep upgrading our lenses *and* our camera bodies (although not as often as most people think - every iteration for lenses, and every 2 iterations for camera bodies sounds right to me).

Also we need to be using a camera that we feel comfortable and confident with, so ergonomics play an important role.

Digital changes nothing: the lenses are still the most important part of the camera system. That doesn't mean the sensor and other attributes don't matter, but the lenses are still paramount.

Consider the RF 28-70 f2. That's a one stop advantage over an f2.8 standard zoom. We obsess over one sensor having a third of a stop improvement over the prior generation. With current tech, it can take years for a sensor to improve by one stop over the prior gen. Yet here we have a lens that, thanks to the new RF mount, gives us a one stop advantage right off of the bat. That's impressive.

If anything, because in digital all cameras are so good, the lenses become even more important. If I had to choose between a better lens and lesser camera, or the other way around, I would choose the better lens. Just like in HiFI I would choose to spend money on better speakers over a better receiver or turntable.

One other point to make: in HiFi it was always advisable to spend more money on speakers than the rest of the system. If you were an audiophile, that was your rule: spend the largest part of your budget on speakers. If you didn't, then you did not optimize your sound. And the speakers would be a better investment anyway, since they would last longer and you could use them with any upgraded equipment in the future.

In cameras, it should be the same thing. If we are not spending the largest part of our photography equipment budget on lenses, then we are doing something wrong. And lenses are also the better investment; they will last longer than a camera body and as you upgrade you can still use the lenses.

Thoughts R Us: great points. Plus a lens will hold its value a lot longer than a camera which has a life cycle of 4 years. Consider that the 1 t f/2L and the 400 f/5.6L are over two decades old and still work perfectly and give great results with modern cameras.

Arun: thank you for your comments.

I agree with what you said about spreading the cost of a lens over the larger amount of time, and that many Canon lenses remain relevant for decades. As I think you meant, the 135 f2 L is still a classic, and it came out in 1996.

For instance, there is a high probability I will buy the $3000 28-70 f2 RF lens. But I will still be using it 10 years from now and beyond. Really that lens will end up costing me at most a few hundred dollars every year, which is cheap considering the quality and uniqueness of that lens. And Canon will release newer R bodies that will make that lens shine even more.

Yes I meant the 135 f/2L. And I actually purchased the 400mm used last year. It is an optically superb lens that works flawlessly on my 5d4. Zero field curvature, takes an extender well, focuses lightning fast, tracks perfectly and has beautiful color rendition. Here I am getting wonderful results with my gear and I am being told that I don’t know what I am talking about and really should be spending thousands of dollars switching to a different system because the review gods say so.

@Thoughts R Us

U'r 50% right (!)... cameras and lenses walk together... using speakers/headphones/IEM w/ poor HiFi/dac is just a waste... the same in photography... having a fantastic/amazing 50/1.2 RF w/ a poor/not-so-great/not-at-the-same-level-as-the-lens sensor is a waste of money and opportunities... lenses are nothing w/o a camera as cameras are nothing w/o lenses.

No. not again the hifi analogy. Can’t believe it.

Arun & ThoughtsRus - We'll have to agree to differ on this one. In my view a brilliant lens is a waste of time if the sensor is mediocre, and vice versa. The two components work as a pair and for premium image quality it's essential to keep "up to date" on both items, hence the need to periodically upgrade cameras.

@entoman: the problem is that the sensor is not bad; all current modern day digital sensors are really fantastic. The review community has come up with ways to split hairs and try to differentiate that are out of sync with real world usage. Think of all of the great images, including by pro's, including award winners, taken with a sensor on par or even rated less than this one.

In reality all sensors are great these days, hence the lenses become even more important.

It is truly like the HiFi era, where reviewers came up with all sorts of creative ways to try to differentiate audio equipment, including measuring frequencies outside of the range of human hearing, all sorts of graphs and curves, etc. None if it mattered when you actually listened, and again, often times the elite brands did not have the best specs.

Thoughts - I agree that the differences between sensors are exaggerated, but don't you also agree that the differences between lenses are equally exaggerated?

Of course, a decent photographer can easily produce a large stunning print from a 10 year old DSLR with a 20 year old lens.

But in terms of *technical quality* a state-of-art sensor will produce that same quality at a much higher ISO rating and with greatly improved ability to recover shadow and highlight detail.

Arun - I'm afraid you are misquoting me and misinterpreting me. I've never said that Canon sensors are "bad" - I wouldn't be using Canon cameras including my current 5DS and 5DMkiv if I believed that!

What I said was that Canon sensors are not "state-of-art", or to put it plainly, they are not as good as Sony sensors of similar MP in terms of DR and high ISO noise control. I happily concede that Canon's dual pixel AF tech is the best for video, but that's irrelevant to me and to the high percentage of others who only shoot stills.

Arun continued - Of course you are right that getting the exposure "correct" is of paramount importance in minimising noise (even half a stop error makes a significant difference to noise), but that applies to any sensor, not just Canon.

The sensor in the 5DMkiv (& EOS-R) is a great improvement on that in the 5DMkiii, but still cannot handle the contrast range of a strongly sunlit scene without irrecoverable loss of shadow and highlight detail. The a7Riii and D850, both of which I've used, have superior shadow/highlight recovery at both low and high ISO, and Canon needs to match or better that performance.

Bracketing of course does not extend the DR, it merely gives you more choice about whether to sacrifice shadow and/or highlight detail.

entoman - If I misquoted you, it was not deliberate.

As it relates to sensors, it is useful to be clear what we are looking at. Bill Claff's numbers (linked in the review) have the 5D4 and EOS R at 10.6; the Sony and D850 are at 11.6 stops of print dynamic range. So we are talking about one stop of DR here. In return for which the Canon sensor offers a better implementation of DPAF and no banding (in contrast to the Z6). The low light focusing is also very useful for astro work - it is a huge time saver for me.

And I never claimed that bracketing increases dynamic range. A bracketed set of exposures, however, can be combined to yield a HDR image. If anyone believes that a one stop DR advantage eliminates the need for bracketing or HDR, then I'll respond by saying you are choosing to shoot a very highly restricted set of landscapes. Or, as DPReview seems to have done in the landscape photo shown, cooking the image to make a specious point.

Arun - As always, a lot depends on the genres of photography one shoots. DR is clearly less important than banding to you, but for myself and many others DR is an important issue where seriously Canon needs to up its game.

Yes it's possible to increase DR (and reduce noise) by merging bracketed exposures, but it's a third rate workaround, only suitable when both the subject and camera are completely static. For anyone who shoots sports, wildlife, action, events, weddings, portraits and most other genres it is useless because these genres contain moving subjects.

Even for landscapes it has very limited value, as it turns foliage into a mush, and falsifies the appearance of moving water. If multiple images could be captured in 1/500 sec and merged accurately and instantly, it might be useful, but camera technology is still a long way from achieving such a goal.

Great Review for a Great Camera!

An accurate review for a stylish but technically underwhelming camera with far from perfect ergonomics.

Forgive the criticism, which is not intended to be personal, but it's pointless to come out with one-liners such as "Great Review" or "Lousy Review" unless you actually say something constructive, i.e. *why* you think it's a great/lousy review, or *why* you think it's a great/lousy camera.... and *what* you would reasonably like the manufacturer to do to improve it.