Canon EOS R with RF 24-105mm f4 vs Nikon Z6 with Z FX 24-70mm f4
There are endless largely inconclusive discussions on user forums about this camera vs that.
This post expresses some of my personal thoughts having used both camera/lens kits being discussed.
I have no dog in this race, no affiliation with any entity which makes or markets photographic gear and no personal preference for any brand.
The EOS R with standard zoom lens and Z6 with standard zoom lens are both excellent cameras which make excellent pictures.
I cannot tell one from the other on the basis of picture quality. There may be minor differences identifiable on technical analysis of sensor characteristics but any such differences are highly unlikely to be noticeable in photos.
They have very similar specifications, features, performance and capabilities for stills and video and are pitched at the same buyer demographic.
Prices are highly variable these days but in Australia the Nikon kit is usually a bit less expensive than the Canon.
They both use the same basic approach to design with prominent handle, EVF hump, twin control dials and Mode Dial and articulated monitor screen.
I think that most buyers could be happy with either model.
On release the EOS R drew a lot of negative comment about nearly all aspects of operation.
The Z6 was better received but still got considerable criticism about its autofocus operation.
Both have received firmware updates improving performance and autofocus.
For me the main differences between them relate to spatial design, holding and operating.
Both bodies are the same size give or take a millimeter or two, but the Canon makes better use of the width x height x depth envelope.
Look at the photo of the top view of the two kits.
The Nikon lens is shorter when collapsed but when unlocked for use it is almost the same length as the Canon one which has 50% more zoom range.
While we are on the top view see the location of the Canon M-Fn button, between the shutter button and front dial.
This in my view is the best location for such a button which I have seen on any camera. The right index finger has to move only a few millimeters back from the shutter button to press the M-Fn button then back a few more millimeters to change a setting with the front dial.
The only issue with the way the M-Fn button is implemented on the EOS R is that the items in the menu which it accesses are not user assignable. Canon needs to fix this ASAP.
Still on the top, notice the Nikon has a traditional Mode Dial to the left (as viewed by the user) of the viewfinder hump. The Canon has a combined Mode/Control dial just in front of the thumb on the right side.
Several reviewers have expressed dis-satisfaction with the Canon arrangement but I have come to prefer it.
The Nikon dial has a lock button which cannot be disengaged. It must be pressed to turn the mode dial every time. This is not the end of the world but it does make changing mode while looking through the viewfinder very difficult. I can never remember which way to turn the Mode Dial to reach my desired setting so I need to see the dial to make the adjustment.
With the Canon I can keep looking through the viewfinder, easily locate the mode button with my index finger and press it. This brings up a menu panel in which I can select the required mode with the 4 Way controller or either of the control dials.
Now see the front view. The two cameras are the same height at the hotshoe.
The finger grip section of the EOS R handle is 65mm high which is enough for a full four finger hold with my average adult male sized hands. The finger grip section on the Nikon is 58mm high which is not enough for my little finger to get proper purchase on the handle.
Grip height on the Nikon can be increased with an aftermarket extender but the Canon does not need one.
There are two reasons for the difference between the two cameras:
1) The top plate of the Nikon is lower and
2) The Nikon front command dial (called sub-command dial by Nikon) is located in front of and below the shutter button. This presents the user with two problems:
a) There is insufficient height for a full four finger grip
b) The middle and 4th fingers have to jiggle down a bit in order to make room for the right index finger to bear onto and operate the front dial. In itself this is not a big deal but it does mean that operating the sub-control dial requires more actions each more complex than is required on the Canon.
Canon’s approach makes better use of the available height. The front control dial is in the usual Canon location behind the shutter button. The right index finger is always free to swing back to reach and operate the dial.
No accessory grip extender is required.
These might be thought minor issues by reviewers who have a camera for a short time, write a report and move on.
But the experience of using a camera over time is influenced by the accumulated effect of all the little positive and negative factors with the negative factors tending to become more annoying as time goes on.
Now look at the picture of the rear of the cameras.
I want to draw attention to two things.
The first is the thumb-rest.
That on the Canon causes the thumb to lay across the back of the camera at an angle. This is desirable as the angled thumb provides a secure hold without much muscle effort.
The one on the Nikon is way over to the right, actually protruding a bit beyond the right side of the body. This locates the thumb in a more upright position which although serviceable does require more muscle effort to keep the camera stable.
Still on the back of the camera, notice that the Nikon is more crowded with buttons than the Canon which gets the job done quite well with fewer control access points.
In addition the Nikon has two buttons beside the lens mount at the front. That’s not necessarily a bad idea but the Canon gets the job done just fine without those buttons.
In Review Phase the Nikon has +/- buttons inconveniently placed right down the bottom for enlarging/reducing the review image. The Canon does the job more efficiently using the more conveniently located Zoom button and the front dial.
The Nikon has a thumb stick for moving the AF area but the location and haptics could be better implemented.
My thumb wants to find the stick about 6mm further to the left and about 4mm higher than its present position. But it can’t be there because that would place the stick right on the corner of the rear screen.
If Nikon had made the top plate higher the designers could have had more options to better locate the thumb stick.
The stick itself needs to have a greater diameter and more grippy top profile for better haptics.
Yes the Canon need a thumb stick and the R5 will have one. But in the meantime I would rather use a well implemented 4-Way controller than a could-be-better-implemented thumb stick.
The largest element on the rear of the body is the monitor screen. There are never ending arguments on user forums about the merits of the tilt-up-down type used on the Nikon versus the fully articulated type used on the Canon.
Whatever one’s view on this might be the fully articulated type can do what the tilt-up-down type can do plus three. These are facing forward for vlogging, being able to tilt down in portrait orientation which I find very useful and being able to face the body for protection when desired.
Some advocates of the tilt-up-down type say they believe the fully articulated type is more difficult to swing out (not true in my experience of both types over several years) and that it will be more likely to break (not seen by me in many years and not reported either) or that when swung out to the left of the body it will be a nuisance (not my experience) or that it will interfere with the access ports (only true if the ports and/or monitor swing are badly designed, the EOS R is OK).
I have not shown a view of the bottom of the cameras but here both locate the tripod socket quite far forward. The distance of the center of the socket from the front of the body is 11mm on the Canon and 10mm on the Nikon. I would be a bit wary of mounting one of the heavy lenses, some of which do not have a tripod foot, on either of these bodies.
Summary
Either of these cameras can provide a satisfactory user experience.
However for my money the EOS R is a more appealing proposition and a more engaging camera than many of the initial reviews might have you believe.