Canon EOS R: first sample images posted

as mentioned in the statement following it..

The EOS R has Eye AF...

the nikon s lenses are sharp, they said the depth of view is more like f1.4 then f1.8 because how close to the sensor the flange is and the wider mount for bigger optic. But they are comparing this to the dslr flange math so I image most milc will get this improvement too. Shooting wide open is what the S lesnes are design so that is an improvement for me I have to stop down to f2 or f2.2 on a 50mm and 85mm right now. the f2 zoom is impressive on canon.

Because those values are fine and can be justified. I just don't get the noise at ISO 500 on this FF sensor. I'm referring to this one and do view it on loupe or 100% details.

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS600x450~sample_galleries/0450281051/7054307576.jpg

I'm not seeing the noise.

4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 25. I'm not critical focus fanatic, but 25% is a lot for a selection gallery. Still, this is a just first generation of a budget option of the new family. There is a lot of space for improvement and good lenses create a good system :).

Of the ones I checked, the pictures you say are not in focus were shot wide open and the depth of field on them is extremely shallow. Consequently, the eyes may be in focus even if the nose of the person isn't.

@Baba Ganoush Yes, this. Canon’s official sample shot collection includes a wide-open bust shot of a woman in which the right eye is in focus, but the left eye is not. At first I thought it was misfocused, but checking the DOF on her face, I fail to see how it could have been done otherwise without stopping down.

These pics are "technically" in focus BUT... Not stopping down far enough to get the face in focus on a head shot is a mistake, unless you're interested only in a particular face feature i.e. the left eye or else.

No I shoot a D850 and so far haven't seen anything better outside of medium format

@zxaar

And AF speed. And AF precision. And doesn't need a grip tacked on to get faster fps.

@mholdef

"while fully agree Sony has a lot to offer, you can not say they have better image quality than Nikon."

Depends on the body and lens.

henrik:

September 5th 2018.

Honestly I can't answer that.

I've tried RawTherapee 5.0, UFraw 0.19.2, and DarkTable 2.44. None worked.

There reason I've not tried a later RawTherapee (the latest is 5.4--from March 2018) is that anything later than 5.0 refuses to work correctly on my Windows 7 laptop.

deleted. Wrong post.

Yake, what does that actually mean? As far as I can tell, you made a broad statement that is completely devoid of meaning.

It's photography, so it's visual. There is no "whatever that means" because you can see exactly what it means.

The point (my point anyway) is that Canon delivers some awesome image quality that rarely gets acknowledged amidst the constant criticism.

DPR's studio comparisons are for comparing noise and default (Standard) color in JPG (and DR in the other version of the test). NOT detail/sharpness. All tests are lens limited, and looking anywhere outside the central region isn't definitive for sharpness at all.

Many people initially thought the A7R III was softer than the A7R II due to the studio scene. But DPR switched lenses from the Zeiss 55 to the Sony 85 for the III. A razor sharp high end lens vs a standard consumer lens. Why? Because there was no E-mount 85/1.8 when the A7R II was tested, and 85/1.8 is what DPR uses by default. The 55 was the closest prime lens available. So even DPR doesn't consider detail/sharpness to be a tested element in their own comparisons.

The ONLY way to test sharpness is by using the same lens for EVERY camera. Even then, going down in sensor size will render tests between sizes useless, as smaller sensors are more demanding in terms of lens sharpness.

Actually, there is a "whatever that means". You don't even seem to grasp that different tools have different strengths and weaknesses, and that some tools are "best" for certain tasks.

But sure, lets take your view, then we'd have to say that the "best" cameras are the Hasselblad and Pentax medium format cameras, closely followed by the Nikon D850.

That being said, I wonder what I would see if I looked at your gallery.

@Will Murray, I said best full frame. Obviously. Because obviously medium format are better.

@BlueBomberTurbe, It's funny how you redefine the DPR studio scene to mean what you want it to mean, not what it actually shows. And what it actually shows is the 5DSR deliver the best image quality even with a "crummy" lens. Imagine what it could do with a great lens.

@Will Murray, You're playing a game that I won't play. I said best full frame image quality, which you can actually see in the DPR Studio Scene. It's visibly better than any other full frame. That's what I said. But you're ignoring that, just as you ignored it with your medium format point. Now you're asking about "best for" a bunch of diverse uses, so you're again ignoring the actual point, and just arguing for the sake of arguing. I won't play that game. Stop wasting time.

@BlueBomberTurbo In the absence of a comparison using the same lens on various cameras, the Studio Scene still shows a sharpness comparison. You're talking as if it shows nothing at all. It shows actual detail from a 5DSR paired with a cheapo lens, and actual detail from a bunch of other cameras paired with various lenses, some obviously better lenses. Even handicapped with a cheapo lens, the 5DSR *still* comes out a little ahead. How is that possible if not for quality of the 5DSR? It's the sensor, no magic fairy dust, nothing else. And with a better lens, the 5DSR would only get better. If one day the Studio Scene shows a Sony coming out slightly ahead in detail, we'll never stop hearing about it.

The only difference I see is that the 5DSR image is more contrasty. That can easily make people perceive extra sharpness.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr144_1=nikon_d850&attr144_2=sony_a7riii&attr144_3=pentax_k1&attr146_0=100_0&attr146_1=64_1&attr146_2=100_0&attr146_3=100_0&attr177_3=off&normalization=full&widget=333&x=-0.187097063736477&y=-0.595617599070021

Let me correct that for you, Yake.

I'm a photographer who is working in the real world, and realises that all gear involves compromise. As opposed to someone who lacks the courage to display their images, but comes onto forums to make stupid and meaningless sweeping statements for the purpose of engaging in empty arguments.

There, fixed.

@Will Murray My statement stands for anyone to see. I think it's meaningful to give Canon credit where credit is due — they delivered the still current best FF image quality with the 5DSR 3 years ago. For some strange reason, you're talking about other things. Of course all gear involves compromise — that's completely besides the point, just like your comments about mommy blogging, etc.

I don't show my work because a few people on these forums engage in nastiness outside of the forum, in a way that would frighten you. I'm not letting that happen to my business or my family. It's simple self defense.

@BlueBomberTurbo I think there's more detail. You think it's just more contrast. I'll say the D850 is very close, certainly not better. But even if the D850 "just" matches the 5DSR, it still speaks to Canon's achievement 3 years ago. The A7RIII, Sony's current "best" sensor, is worse than either. If the Sony were better, we'd hear about it all of the time.

Sharpness isn't an achievement. Canon could put out a 500MP sensor without an AA filter, and it would be sharper than any sensor ever made, but the quality will be garbage. Doesn't take much to make a "sharp" sensor when the AA filter is removed. Not an achievement, just making a FF sensor with the pixel size of one of their APS-C sensors. Canon literally stated to expect APS-C quality out of the 5DS/R. There's a reason Nikon didn't bother to go 50MP or higher. It's image quality.

As I said, if Sony were superior in showing detail, we'd hear about their achievement all of the time. It would be like: "Look -- superior detail -- advantage Sony!" But they are not, so it is downplayed as being meaningless. As for Nikon, they don't have a sensor of 50mp or higher, so that might be the real reason.

Imagine that I might take into account "other things".

The good thing about being cognitively impaired is that people usually don't realise that they are cognitively impaired.

You seem to fail to realise the rate of technological development, 3 years is old. So is it "best" or is it really good?

So, why don't you just drop a link to your images so I can decide whether you are totally worthless? But then, your deep insecurity with regard to your photography has, in all probability, answered the question.

@Will Murray, As I wrote, I won't play your game, which now includes personal insults, denigration and bullying. I certainly won't be showing you any work. Hostile behavior like yours (over a camera topic) raises alarm bells, and reminds me why it's wise to keep my work private from people on this forum.

Your game is to pretend I said something I didn't say. Instead of replying to what I actually wrote, you pretend I said something ridiculous. And then you slam the ridiculous thing that you pretend I said. Your game is to try to fool me into defending the ridiculous thing that I didn't say. Specifically, your game is to pretend that I said something about a "best camera", which I never said. I made a specific point about best FF image quality in the DPR studio scene. But repeating it makes no difference as you're determined to ignore it and pretend I'm talking about something that you can ridicule. Why? I don't know. But I won't play that game.

Your game also is to engage in personal insults: about my intelligence & my work (if you could see it). As you wrote, you want see it so you can "decide" whether I'm "totally worthless". That's bizarre & hostile behavior over a camera. People who behave the way do here sometimes take their hostility offline. Anonymity is prudent self-defense.

@HowaboutRaw No, I did NOT claim "best camera". Just stop with that. I claimed best FF image quality, which I *explained* with reference to the studio scene. And it's still there for anybody to see. Hasn't been beaten yet, even after 3 years.

And no, I'm not denying the relevance of lenses to image quality. As I already explained, the 5DSR was tested with a cheap lens. Nothwithstanding that, it still offered better image quality than many other cameras with better lenses. How is admitting that handicap "denying" the relevance of lenses. On the contrary, I expressly mentioned the relevance of lenses, saying look how good this image quality is even when hampered by a cheap lens. Imagine what it could do with a better lens? If the 5DSR were tested with the best lens on the planet, then you would have a point. You could then say, the lens is giving it a big advantage.

Again, I'm not going to play the game of defending ridiculous statements that I didn't make.

@Will Murray, Yes, both the 5DSR and the cheap, ancient 85/1.8 USM lens got mediocre scores from DxO. There are so many cameras & lenses scoring higher on DxO. Yet the 5DSR + 85/1.8 deliver an unsurpassed visual result in the DPR studio scene — a result that any photographer can see with their own eyes. What does that say about reliance upon DxO scores? Sometimes we photographers should trust our eyes more than somebody's "scores".

Sometimes "photographers" should just shut the f**k up about camera gear, and go out and practice their photography.

Did I say *anything* about dynamic range? No. Again, you're changing the claim to turn it into something that you can ridicule. Same old transparent game.

https://tenor.com/view/uhh-okthen-nvm-gif-7234486

Yake, lest you believe that my comments with regard to any inference I made about the quality of your photography were personal, I posted the following comment in the main thread before I interacted with you (I do make a habit of looking at the work of those who are vocal):

"Despite knowing the psychological reasons you people sit and mindlesslessly argue over brands, it still confuses me every time.

I would bet that at least 90% of people who argue over camera brand do not have much in the way of talent."

Now, you may be the best photographer in the world, but what I know is that you have consistently had people tell you that your work is poor, and therefore you won't show it, rather sticking to platforms where people will simply tell you that your work is good.

In any case, having a Phase One, or any other piece of equipment will not make you a better photographer, only consistent practice, study, and harsh criticism of your own work can do that.

Happy shooting.

@Will Murray, You are back to full personal insult mode. Where do you get off saying people tell me my work is poor?!? Why do you make up LIES about my work?! You just keep on raising the insult level here ... just because I made a comment about a camera's image quality. That is mind boggling. This has nothing to do with my photography — which you know NOTHING about. Stop all of your BS. You can't stand the message, so you attack the messenger, and even go so far as to attack the messenger's work — which you know NOTHING about. That is full bizarre mode ... mean, hostile, aggressive, bullying ... and probably breaks a bunch of DPR rules.

@HowaboutRAW I don't how you came up with that list cameras or what you consider important to measure when judging image quality. In any event, it seems I can't have a conversation with you without being harangued by this ever-escalating stream of insults and bullying from Will Murray. This conversation is getting totally weird and hostile when some guy who knows absolutely nothing about my work starts fabricating strange and insulting claims about it — all because he disagrees with a statement I made about a camera's image quality.

Yake, you are impressively obtuse, and impressively sensitive.

Let me spell this out in point form (I really dislike repeating myself to humour idiots).

1. I did not say that your work is poor. Indeed, I specifically said for all I know you "could be the greatest photographer in the world".

2. You said that you don't post your work because multiple people have told you that your photographs are poor. Usually if people are saying your images are poor it is because they are poor.

But what is certain is that you don't have any faith in your own ability as a photographer, else you would be able to accept any criticism of your images.

You really are a sad little man, aren't you?

In any case, my point stands, you would be better served practicing as opposed to arguing for days about stuff that is both obviously untrue, and does not advance your practice as a photographer.

It must be hard viewing the world as you do. You really are pathetic.

@Will Murray, With each post, you keep ramping up the personal insults, calling me insulting names, etc. This is meanspirited bullying. If this were a school, you would be in detention and your parents would be called.

You write: "You said that you don't post your work because multiple people have told you that your photographs are poor." I did NOT say this. YOU made this up. It's a big fat LIE that you've repeated now. STOP WITH THE LIES. You know absolutely nothing about my work, yet you trash it over and over — apparently because you disagree with a statement I made about a camera.

@DPReview, If and when I report Will Murray for his abusive behavior in these comments, please note that I haven't called him any names, insulted his intelligence, or criticized his work which I know nothing about.

Yeah yeah, you are very flexible with regard to your recollections of your own statements.*

Frankly, you aren't worth my time, or anyone else's time.

Cry me a river. Everyone is a victim.

I'll gladly leave you to making stupid statements, which are clearly untrue, and disprovable with an absolute minimum of time on Google.

Every single time I think I've seen the depths of human stupidity, someone comes along...

*This is what you said, and I quote: "I don't show my work because a few people on these forums engage in nastiness outside of the forum, in a way that would frighten you. I'm not letting that happen to my business or my family. It's simple self defense."

Sure, you can spin that any way you want, even if you are trying to pretend that doesn't mean that people were looking at your work when you annoyed them, and then telling you that it was garbage.

Poor, sensitive, little Yake, has zero confidence in his ability as a photographer.

Yake: my work is not poor, how dare you.

Me: explains that I did not say that, and pointed out that what I said was explicitly stated

Yake: you trashed my work, wahhh

*****

The truly terrifying thing is that you are so desperate to be a victim.

I guess point form was still too difficult for you. Complex stuff.

@Will Murray, Wow, another barrage of personal insults from you?

The "nastiness outside the forum" that I wrote about has nothing to do with any alleged criticism of my work. That is something YOU made up. I'm talking about people who threaten violence or other harm to a photographer, their family or their business. I can't tell whether you're one of those, but I'm not giving you a chance to take your pattern of nasty behavior to that level.

Yes, I'm sure people will conduct a reverse image search, conduct a skip trace, and a full work up, and then travel to whatever backwoods cesspit you live in to do you harm.

Further to this point, you are entertaining the notion that I will fly from Australia to do you harm. This is nothing short of epic.

We can add paranoia and delusions of self-importance to the list.

I'm getting a pretty solid picture as to why people don't like you.

It's actually to the point I'm just laughing at you. This is awesome.

I love the interwebz so much.

@Will Murray, You continue with your stream of abusive, bullying comments, now adding "people don't like you" and that I live in a "cesspit" to repeated comments that I'm "stupid", an "idiot", etc. There seems to be no end it. I've reported it to DPR. Maybe they'll give you a timeout to consider whether such bad behavior is appropriate when you disagree with someone's comments about a camera.

@HowaboutRAW If there's some reason for your camera list, why not explain it? Instead, you claim it is something I should already know about. As for the D750, it doesn't even come close to the 5DSR on the DPR studio test scene. Put an excellent lens on both, and they both get better but the difference remains.

Yeah, reflecting upon the irrationality of the fact you believe I'm going to reverse image search your images, skip trace you, do a full work up on you, and then fly from Australia to destroy you is certainly "abuse".

It must be so comforting being a victim.

Howaboutraw, it should be clear by now that Yake is not exactly rational.

I think my favourite part was when I pointed out that dynamic range is not class leading, you said that we should use the cameras instead of looking at test results. I imagine you would state similarly with regard to colour depth.

You've now been arguing for two days over something that is easily disprovable, and was rebutted.

Yeah, you're the epitome of rationality.

WM:

For low ISOs, compared to say the Sony A7RIII or the Nikon D850, I like the results from the Canon 5DSR. Now, correct, I'd not want to lift the dark part of a landscape after exposing for a bright sky with the camera. But one could use a split ND filter.

Bodies will iterate quickly enough (for some). Lenses are (relatively) forever. Better to launch the unique and useful stuff as early as possible. Canon made a great double duo of small/affordable/good and large/expensive/excellent. Both sets will appeal to a wide variety of shooters as their first lenses, and the wide variety of adapters will help others migrate their old lenses over without losing features (one has an extra function ring, another a filter holder, etc.).

That 50mm costs around 2300 bucks ... plus the camera, you're over 4'500... enough reason NOT to get it.

Love the post!!!

s1oth1ovechunk: I have used a few of the Panasonic early Lumix point and shoots, but have not extensively used their latest models e.g. G9, so cannot really comment. My early experiences were not happy with sensor quality, however they were easy to use and I often carried one of their compacts around in my pocket before the days of reasonable smart phone cameras. They are certainly worth investigating but I like larger sensors in general.

Sony cameras are for computer geeks (I'm both a photographer and a computer geek and even I don't like the interface/menus). The buttons cut your fingers if you use them for more than twenty minutes. Canon DSLR just fit into your hand as well as a comfortable glove. Unfortunately they also take up a huge amount of space in a backpack.

Panasonic cameras have been fantastic to use (usually ugly to look at though). Sadly Panasonic joined the MFT movement and so the sensors are hopelessly small for low light photography/video. APS-C looks like the sweet spot to me for non-studio use, as sensor tech stands now.

For me too, Fuji cameras are what end up in my hand/bag (out of a choice of good Canon, Sony, Fuji bodies) every day. I'm open to coming back to Canon (have a lot of good glass). Not sure the EOS R 1 is the body to persuade me to make the move now though. Expensive crippleware again (no IBIS, lots of rolling shutter, weak recording to card).

@AlexisH Have you compared cameras with the high ISO tool here at DPReview? Good APS-C bodies get you to 6400 ISO retaining great image quality. MFT falls apart after 1600 ISO. I can live with 6400 ISO (it's about the limit of none-see-in-the-dark footage) but 1600 ISO won't do it for me. I often shoot movement in low light so all the IBIS in the world or other MFT crutches won't help.

Full frame retain image quality to about 25600 ISO these days (recent Nikon/Sony bodies). That's see in the dark territory (fantastic) but it requires carrying a much heavier camera bag.

PS: To add my views on MFT, I find the GX85 (16MP, no AA filter) to have about the same DR as my old A6000 (same sensor as Fuji 16MP, but more DR), with roughly 1/2 to 2/3 stop noisier high ISO. Well exposed/lightly overexposed high ISO isn't bad by a long shot, but 6400 is the the furthest I'd take it, vs the A6300's 12,800 looking VERY presentable in decent lighting.

@Raist3d A picture says more than a thousand words.
Sony A7RIII vs Canon 5DS R
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/08/comparison-4-800x533.jpg

@Shiranai - I didn't argue the point you presented. I argued the OP's. Not that we are talking about RAW here or adjusting the JPEGs. From the reviews I have seen here, the latest batch of Sony cameras do JPEG quite well.

It's going to be interesting to see them waste money attempting to become #3. Assuming they're stupid enough to go for that - I don't believe this rumor.

If it don’t get stupid and shifts out of Panny price range , it could be.

You'll be waiting endlessly at that point.