[surfar]

I think the comments had more to do with Canon's decision not to stabilize the sensor in the EOS-R.

Canon didnt include IBIS due to the fact they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation.

Many of the reviewers have remarked that"no IBIS" it cant be any good, maybe they forgot that cameras started out completely unstabilised.

A small minority of the reviewers tested the stabilisation of an unstabilised lens on the EosR,one remarked "I ran along trying to unstabilise the image but couldnt"...

---------- Post added 09-13-18 at 10:02 PM ----------

It is still pretty big and expensive

Yes, true on both counts.However what does a F2 prime cost and how much space does 28/31/35/40/50/55/58/70....8 primes,take up?

One interview i saw with a Canon official from Suid Afrika,remarked that these new lenses were superior to the EF mounts.Of course he is paid to spruik Canon but he directly compared the 50 f1.2s from both EF and R,his view was the R is vastly superior.

Time will tell of course.

Obviously there are people out there with specific needs who probably will love it

Yes and Canon will love that they will pay for it!

[BigMackCam]

Canon didnt include IBIS due to the fact they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation.

What I don't understand, though, is if they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation, why did they go to the expense of giving the 35mm and 24-105mm in-lens stabilisation?

I'm definitely curious to learn more about both the camera and lenses...

[surfar]

why did they go to the expense of giving the 24-105 in-lens stabilisation?

Well maybe?...the stabilisation is still evolving as well.

28-70 isnt released with the body....the 24-105 and 35 are.

Canon announce the first firmware update is in October,this camera was rushed for PhotoKina.

---------- Post added 09-13-18 at 11:01 PM ----------

I'm definitely curious to learn more about both the camera and lenses...

Eos R and Nikon Z will both be very good systems.

The reviewers who have poked fun at them dont realise what they are capable of.(they havent even read the specs)

$$$ony Bankrupt(Aussies are more imaginative than Kiwis) couldnt even put the correct card in the Canon...he had lessons from Fro from when he reveiwed the XH-1.

I will find the video that explains how the stabilising system works.

[Kunzite]

What I don't understand, though, is if they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation, why did they go to the expense of giving the 35mm and 24-105mm in-lens stabilisation?

I'm definitely curious to learn more about both the camera and lenses...

Because they don't have faith that electronic stabilization can eventually replace their optical one?
If they did, then they'd rather add in-body stabilization now, and remove it later.

[Rondec]

Canon didnt include IBIS due to the fact they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation.

Many of the reviewers have remarked that"no IBIS" it cant be any good, maybe they forgot that cameras started out completely unstabilised.

A small minority of the reviewers tested the stabilisation of an unstabilised lens on the EosR,one remarked "I ran along trying to unstabilise the image but couldnt"...

---------- Post added 09-13-18 at 10:02 PM ----------



Yes, true on both counts.However what does a F2 prime cost and how much space does 28/31/35/40/50/55/58/70....8 primes,take up?

One interview i saw with a Canon official from Suid Afrika,remarked that these new lenses were superior to the EF mounts.Of course he is paid to spruik Canon but he directly compared the 50 f1.2s from both EF and R,his view was the R is vastly superior.

Time will tell of course.



Yes and Canon will love that they will pay for it!

Having faith in electronic stabilization doesn't change the fact that this camera doesn't have either it or in body image stabilization. Even if electronic stabilization comes down the road, there would be no reason you couldn't have it work with IBIS to give even longer exposures hand held, just as some of the micro four thirds cameras combine in lens with in body stabilization. Leaving it off completely and releasing lenses with it just says to me that Canon is staying true to the course they set a long time ago.

Regardless, I think it is a good camera, but of course there is room for improvement.

As to your comment about the f2 zoom, most people I know do not carry the number of primes you mention. They carry one for each end -- say, FA 31 f1.8 and FA 77 f1.8 and if they really want to push it, they could include the DA *55 or FA 43 for the middle. You then have three lenses that are faster than the f2 zoom and would certainly take up less space and be easier to use on the camera.

The reason to use the zoom would be purely for flexibility purposes, as is the case for all zooms as compared to primes. It is tough to change lenses frequently in the middle of a photo shoot.

[surfar]

Having faith in electronic stabilization doesn't change the fact that this camera doesn't have either it

Oh Doesn't it...???

Well switch this video onto 12mins 30

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 09-13-18 at 11:56 PM ----------

I'm definitely curious to learn more about both the camera and lenses...

This guy in this youtube is a Canon shooter, he understands their gear.

[torashi]

The new 24-70 f/2 is not even stabilized. It is so big as to be comical.

Frankly I think the extra 1 stop is not worth it over a 24-70 f/2.8. This trend towards bigger more corrected lenses is not very well thought out. The interview I posted earlier this week with Zeiss says it all. You can make the lenses bigger even than the Otus or any other large highly corrected lens, but at some point practical is impeded by this. He makes the point that heavily corrected zooms can outperform primes particularly in the middle of the range because it is easier to justify the extra complexity and cost in a zoom, but that today's super primes are pushing that boundary.

I wonder how popular the adapters will be. They have quite a few of them, I'm not sure how wise it was to not settle on a single feature set.

30MP is an odd place to put a 24-70 f/2 and a 50 1.2 statement lens. There must be a plan to bring higher resolution sensors to this platform.

Not if you're going for low noise, bigger pixels and more light gathering capability. Same for the lens. This system just screams astro, even action and sports, but I wonder if they put in all of the right features. Time will tell.

[BigMackCam]

Oh Doesn't it...???

Well switch this video onto 12mins 30

...

This guy in this youtube is a Canon shooter, he understands their gear.

Question:

With digital (rather than mechanical) stabilisation, surely it would have to reserve some of the sensor area to implement that, and hence provide a slightly cropped image?

Also, I guess it's only providing stabilisation in three axes?

[torashi]

Question:

With digital (rather than mechanical) stabilisation, surely it would have to reserve some of the sensor area to implement that, and hence provide a slightly cropped image?

Also, I guess it's only providing stabilisation in three axes?

Yes, it's like doing it for video after being taken in post. It gets cropped. Maybe the sensor is 36MP, but with DS it's 30MP? Haven't looked at the specs thoroughly…
If not, then it's going to be downwards of 30MP and lesser FOV consequently.
I wonder if the image gets cropped before, or after being shown on the display or digital viewfinder. That makes a HUGE difference in processing on one case, and composition on the other.

[UncleVanya]

Not if you're going for low noise, bigger pixels and more light gathering capability. Same for the lens. This system just screams astro, even action and sports, but I wonder if they put in all of the right features. Time will tell.

That's fair, and Canon sensors haven't been as good at high ISO as Sony's so a faster lens and lower mp count may be needed.

[surfar]

Question:
With digital (rather than mechanical) stabilisation, surely it would have to reserve some of the sensor area to implement that, and hence provide a slightly cropped image?
Also, I guess it's only providing stabilisation in three axes?

Answer...The sensor gathers the information,the processor adjusts the stabilisation.Thats the way i understand it works.

Its a different gearbox to drive the car,same concept ,as he states.Canon have their way which may be better or may be worse,until the system is out amongst the users, its only the reviewers who we can belive or not?

[BigMackCam]

Answer...The sensor gathers the information,the processor adjusts the stabilisation.Thats the way i understand it works.

Yeah, I get that - but since it's not physically moving the sensor, there must have to be a cropped window within the larger sensor area that the camera's image processor can move around. What I guess I'm interested in is, have they actually used a sensor with more than 30.3MP, but they crop to 30.3MP to give a full-frame movable window around that larger sensor? Or, is the whole sensor 30.3MP and do they crop to slightly smaller than that for the stabilised image, meaning that the stabilised image is slightly smaller than full frame?

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to answer this... It's just the question floating around in my head right now. That, and the fact that I don't see how it can operate on more than three axes if it's purely software based, with no electro-mechanical movement of the sensor...

[surfar]

I'm not expecting you or anyone else to answer this... It's just the question floating around in my head right now.

Yes, i cant...down the track the info will come.As will the Panasonic FF,now thats going to be interesting!

[reh321]

What I don't understand, though, is if they have faith in their evolving electronic stabilisation, why did they go to the expense of giving the 35mm and 24-105mm in-lens stabilisation?

I'm definitely curious to learn more about both the camera and lenses...

Have you looked at prices?
This is a place where some sort of "specs" may be helpful

The 35mm is listed at $500 by B&H
The 24-105mm is listed at $1100 by B&H

The 50mm is listed at $2300 by B&H.
The 28-70mm is listed at $3000 by B&H

The first two list 'IS' .... the last two do not,
but price says something else is at work here.

[surfar]

This is a place where some sort of "specs" may be helpful

You can look at everything on Canons site.

The body is 2299U$ and the standard adapter is included at that price.

The adapter with the control ring is 200(i think) and the Filter adapter is around double that.

Ive seen a lens roadmap,HA HA, it was in Japanese and was a photo so translate couldnt work.

Canon dont give a good deal on buying the kit 24-105.its a better deal to buy the body separate from the lens.($1)...Nikon gives a good discount to buy their Kit lens.