Canon EOS R User review 7 April 2020

When Panasonic and Olympus presented their first mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) in 2008, I could see that in due course MILC would supplant  DSLR  as the mainstream interchangeable lens camera technology.

MILCs can be made smaller and lighter with fewer moving parts, leading to lower cost of production.

In addition  MILC is a better fit with the increasingly electronic and software driven nature of modern photographic equipment.

In due course most camera makers followed OlyPana’s lead with their own versions of the MILC theme.

Sony launched the APSC  NEX line in 2010 with the all new E Mount. This morphed into the current Alpha a6xxx series.

Sony discovered they could use the same lens mount for 43mm diagonal sensors (“Full Frame”) even though the sensor is a tight fit inside the mount.

With less commitment to  DSLRs  than Canon or Nikon, Sony was able to abandon the ex Minolta A Mount and be first to produce a line of 43mm MILCs and lenses,  starting with the A7 in 2013.

With their oddly named “1” series of MILCs from 2013,   Nikon  surprised many observers by moving to an even smaller (15.9mm) sensor than the 21.6mm type used by OlyPana in their Micro Four Thirds (MFT) series.

This venture was soon abandoned as the 15.9mm sensor is better suited to fixed zoom lens bodies than to ILCs.

Canon entered the MILC arena in 2012 with the EOS-M using a 27mm Canon APSC sensor.

The EOS-M series uses  a new lens mount matched to the  APSC sensor.

This was presumably Canon’s answer to Sony’s NEX series which was proving very popular especially in Asian markets.

However Canon did not try to fit full frame mirrorless into the EF-M mount.

Leica  produced a 43mm MILC in the form of the SL in 2015. This camera uses the Leica L mount which now used by Leica cameras with 43mm and 28mm sensors and  Sigma and Panasonic full frame models.

Nikon produced its answer to the 43mm MILC in the form of the Z6 and Z7 in the early part of 2018.

Canon eventually delivered its first 43mm MILC, the EOS R, towards the end of 2018 using the RF mount which has the same diameter as the EF mount (but with a different layout of bayonet flanges so EF lenses cannot be mounted) and a much shorter flangeback distance.

Last to enter the full frame MLC race was Panasonic with its Lumix S1 and S1R models early in 2019.

As the first full frame MILC model from the number one brand, the EOS R was arguably one of the most anticipated new models this century with a lot of hopes and expectations riding on its slim shoulders.

In the event the EOS R proved disappointing to many commentators leading to a lot of negative reviews. There were complaints about specifications, features, image quality, video quality, performance and ergonomics. In other words just about everything.

In the 15 months since release Canon has improved the EOS R with several firmware upgrades, the latest being FW 1.6 which was installed in the test camera.

Reading through initial reviews of the EOS R there appear to be several sources of complaint.

One is about new controls and ways of operating which are different from those found in most Canon full frame DSLRs but which with familiarity prove to work well.

I put the Mode Button/Dial module in this category. I find it works well once one is accustomed to the way it operates.

Another is about new controls which in practice do not work well at all.  The chief offender here is the M-Fn bar which is a really inexcusable mistake and has to be disabled.

There were many initial complaints about overall speed, responsiveness and continuous autofocus performance.  These have greatly improved with the firmware updates to the extent that when I read through some of the initial reviews seem like  critique of a different camera.

Let us look at the camera’s ability to follow focus on moving subjects, using the RF 24-105mm f4 L lens at 105mm. I tested this on cars moving towards and away from the camera and people walking towards and away from the camera at close range.  I also had a person walk across the line of the optical axis to confirm that I can keep the subject accurately located in the frame.

For these tests I used the following settings:

P Mode, CRaw, AF Servo, ISO Auto Min SS +3, Drive Mode High speed continuous,  AF Method Expand AF area. I used a Sandisk Extreme Pro 64GB 170MB/s card.

With these settings the camera runs at 6 frames per second with live view, AF and AE on each frame. 

The camera shoots 114 CRaw files before slowing down, then the buffer takes 16 seconds to clear. 

Viewfinder blackout is negligible.

Around 95% of the hundreds of frames which I made were in sharp focus with very few misses.

Next I tested Tracking performance, with AF Method at [Face/eye detect+ Tracking]. I had the options on Menu>AF>Screen 3 all at Default.

I set the topmost option on Menu>AF>Screen 5>Initial Servo AF point for face/eye/Tracking to the topmost option on the screen.

Again the camera ran at 6 fps with AF, AE and live view on each frame. Accuracy was not quite as consistent as standard follow focus but still gave a respectable 90% of frames in focus on the selected tracking target.

I noticed that the camera performed better with a 170MB/s card than a 95MB/s card.

Many reviewers criticised the EOS R for having a slower frame rate in AFC than some recent Sony models. I have a Sony RX10.4 which can fire away at 24 fps with AF, AE and live view on each frame but I don’t use that speed because it just creates a lot of redundant files. Even the 10 fps rate is faster than required in many situations. I find that 6fps is actually the optimal rate for many moving subjects.

One review said that evaluative metering can vary greatly from one shot to the next with the same scene. I found this in a Canon G1X.3 a while back but not in the EOS R. Presumably this was a bug which got fixed somewhere in the firmware updates.

One thing which I did notice and appreciate is that evaluative metering is biased to the in focus area which gives me a higher percentage of well exposed frames than standard evaluative metering.

This same review claimed the buttons are mushy, don’t offer good feedback and are “questionably”  (whatever that means) located on the body. I found the rear dial and AF-ON button need to be moved a little but in my hands most of the buttons feel well positioned and easy to locate and operate by feel.  

I find image quality to be excellent. I accept that on technical laboratory testing some other cameras have slightly better numbers in terms of high ISO noise and dynamic range.  Fair enough but the EOS R is still very good and in the real world outside a test lab makes excellent pictures.

I profess to know very little about video. I have read conflicting opinions about the quality of video from the EOS R. Some say FHD video is excellent, others say it is soft.

I have yet to properly explore the video capabilities of the EOS R but my amateurish tests to date are not promising. FHD video at 25 fps (PAL) looks soft with over saturated reds. 

* The basic shape and  size of the body, the shape of the handle and thumb rest and the layout of the controls.  I feel “at home” photographically speaking with this camera in hand.

* High quality construction.

* Excellent EVF and fully articulated touch screen monitor.

* Shutter closes and anti-dust shake operates when camera is powered off.

* Open aperture focussing and exposure metering.

* Nicely implemented manual focus aids.

* Lens selection. This is a work in progress but RF lenses to date have been well chosen for usefulness and  excellent quality at reasonable prices.

* Very reliable dual pixel autofocus system.

* Handlebar strap lugs. Yes !  I hate the protruding types which have to be fitted with those annoying triangle thingies which are a nuisance to get on and off.

* One thing I do not appreciate about Canon lenses is that the zoom ring turns the wrong way. Lenses from other makers turn the logical way which follows the instruction:  “rotate clockwise (as viewed by the operator) for value up”. 

Unfortunately Canon is stuck with it’s zoom rings turning the way they do. With millions of units out there they cannot change it now.

* That silly M-Fn bar should be removed and its place taken by a proper Thumb Stick.

* Rear dial and AF-On button need to be slightly repositioned.

* IBIS is needed. Some lenses have no stabiliser.

* A larger battery would be welcome and necessary if IBIS is implemented.

* Functions assigned to control access points (buttons, dials) need to be more user selectable.

* Movie features and capabilities need to be brought into line with current best practice, including a more direct way to select Movie Mode.

* There is nothing “wrong” with the sensor but more ability to recover highlight and shadow detail would be welcome, as would any reduction in high ISO noise.

* Higher frame rates in AFC and dual card slots will mollify the armchair critics. I guess the 43mm camera market is moving to CFE cards as pixel counts rise but these are much more expensive than SD cards and require a separate reader.

* The fake “no blackout” in single shot capture needs to be replaced by a real but very brief blackout which is so short it barely registers in the user’s awareness.

* Include an option for exposure compensation to auto cancel when the camera is switched off.

* Include a fourth Custom Mode.

* There are others but that’s enough for now.

The EOS R almost fell over at the starting line with a range of problems but now with FW1.6 it has morphed into a solid full frame mirrorless option for Canon 43mm sensor users, delivering high image quality, good performance and a decent user experience plus the opportunity to use the growing catalogue of excellent RF lenses.

But Canon still has a lot of work to do if it is to challenge Sony’s head start in the full frame MILC market.

The forthcoming EOS R5 will have to get everything right from the start or I suspect many more Canon faithful will become apostates and switch their allegiance to another brand.