Canon Complaint

Comments are up to date as of 2:09 Saturday

I received a complaint recently that I opened the door for a discussion about Canon R cameras but then promptly fell down on keeping the comments current, and moved past the subject before a conversation could develop.

The main problem with cultivating that conversation might be that I don't know anything about Canon. I have nothing against the marque at all; positive feelings, positive impressions, love the results I see. I've owned a Canon in the past, and at one point rented one to write about to try to stay current with them.

Uh, boss...
How-ev-er. The Canon I owned was the EOS RT, which came out in 1989—I bought mine in '91. (As often happens with me and camera purchases, I bought it because it was too cool to resist. In 2020 I named it as one of the ten favorite cameras of my lifetime.) And the camera I tried out to "keep up to date" was the 5D Mark II...in 2008. It's been a minute since then*.

I know almost nothing about the Canon R line. I've never seen one in a glass case, never held one, never shot with one. I could get up to speed with the lineup, but I wouldn't even know as much as the average shopper because I'm not motivated by interest. But, again, nothing against them at all. I assume they are excellent cameras used by a great many expert photographers and a great many happy customers.

Canon R1 from the operator's side

If anyone wants to step in and school me from their personal experience with R-line Canons of any sort, I'd love to hear!

Was Ronny right?
One bit of unfinished business: when I named the three types of customers who might pay $6,300 for the EOS R1, Ronny A. Nilsen wrote:

"I guess I'm sort of a forth type: people that need or can use the new capabilities of the cameras to get more or better images? For me the other three types is a bit...odd? Why would I buy something that would not give me more or better images? But it has to be seen in context of what kind of photography one do. For my landscape photography I only need a reasonably high resolution camera, and I do everything in manual mode. But for wildlife and my daughter's horse show jumping, I need low light and autofocus to get more keeper images. My current Canon R5 can do all the kinds of photography I do, so I only need one camera."

I answered: I need to reply to this but I'm out of time this morning....

So here's why I didn't add "people who need the improved image quality" as the fourth reason people would buy it: the R1 is just a 24-MP camera. All the speed and operability parameters are optimized, but I assumed IQ wasn't optimized—like a lot of the other "speed/sports/action" pro cameras that offer ordinary IQ but things like a very high frame rate, no lag, superfast and capable AF, and so forth.

But on (slightly) closer inspection, Ronny's right. The R1 does offer what Canon calls "neural upscaling" that results in a "a 96-MP JPEG in about 10 seconds," so maybe image quality is a reason to buy an R1. It also depends on how one chooses to define "image quality," because a camera that has very good high-ISO performance, low-light AF, and all the other "speed camera" features might indeed offer better image quality, if you define image quality to take those potentialities into account. Which I guess Ronny did.

We can get around the IQ debate by adding another customer type to the list in this way:

No. 1: people who are not price sensitive to that amount of money;

No. 2: people who really want the camera and don't mind stretching their finances to get it;

No. 3: people who make money with their cameras and consider it a sensible purchase for their business; and

No. 4: people who need or can make use of whatever special features and capabilities the camera has. (And can also afford it.)

Things have changed
Maximized speed and operability features don't tend to interest me. But that's only lately. They mattered very much back when they mattered. As time has marched on, digital camera capabilities have reached and exceeded the point of sufficiency for me in all sorts of parameters. I used to care a lot about noise when I shot with the Sony F-707 (4.9 MP, 2001). But I don't care any more, because virtually any top camera these days just doesn't have enough noise to worry about, by my personal standards. Same with resolution and "uprezzing"; it mattered a lot until it stopped mattering so much, which to me was at about 15–16 MP, which for me happened with the 16-MP Pentax K-5 of 2010. Same with throughput, which is fine for me on virtually any camera. Same with high-ISO capability; same with color fidelity; same with frame rate; same with AF. On virtually any good current camera at the "prosumer" level or above, it's likely going to be good enough for me, and I sort of lose interest in discussions of which has the most.

...But that's just me, of course. You have your own standards and your own needs or wants. And some people just want the latest, the most and the best because they want the latest, the most and the best. There have got to be people out there who are enthusiastically comparing the R1's neural upscaling to the pixel-shift mode of some other camera to high-MP medium-format files of a third type of camera, because that matters to their work and they are vitally interested in it. For me the point might be moot, but not for everyone.

Mike

*It's also been a minute since "it's been a minute" was an up-to-the-minute expression.

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Bruce Bordner: "When I bought a Nikon D850 after using a D800 for 10 years, I found no visible image quality improvements unless you really look. However, it's a much improved tool. The handgrip is more comfortable, more focus options are available and can be assigned to buttons, the shutter sound is so nice (snick).... It makes me want to pay attention and work harder when I use it, and that's a bigger improvement than going from 30MP to 45. Sometimes it helps to buy more than you need, to challenge yourself."

Hugh: "Mmmm…I’ve read pretty much everything you’ve written since you started (nearly half a century ago?). So I’m a fan. That’s in spite of the blind spot for Canon cameras…. Shared by Kirk, and a lot of YouTube experts. IQ…. Maybe rent one and print a 24x 36" print or two? The R8 and R6 Mark II have enough image quality for me at that size, and the AF is amazing. Possibly Canon are for people who just want to take photos and aren’t that interested in cameras? They just work, and the lenses are good."

Mike replies: First article published 1987. So 37 years.

Tex Andrews: "So infrequently do I disagree with you, especially given your long career. But I'm afraid that having a camera spit out a 90-something-MP JPEG is absolutely not what I would be looking for in any camera I'd be using for work that required high resolution. The limits of working with JPEGs in post are well known, and with the sorts of things I need high-MP images for, I absolutely want a raw file. After that (and only if necessary, and it is sometimes) a TIFF file. JPEGs are for speed, convenience, snaps, easier file transfers, and other situations where all those things matter more than being able to milk all the possible goodness out of a file. I think Canon was dumb here."

Comments

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

One could see the "image quality" as the ability of the camera to render an image with maximum detail, sharpness, resolution, etc. I do think for most intents and purposes, we are sort of operating in a post-"imagequality" world.

At this point for me, the ergonomics and autofocus speed and accuracy have become the critical points. Those are the variables that allow ME to yield MORE images that I would describe as good or great. I am drawn less to images that are judged by the camera's ability to render. I am more interested in a camera that is most close to a natural extension of your ability to see. That camera allows me to concentrate on the moment and not on the camera.

My progression has looked like: Nikon F3, N90, D1, D3S, Sony A73, A92, A1 and A93. The A93 is incredible by this criteria.

[David Bennett]

I moved from Nikon and Fuji about a year ago. I kept my Ricoh GR III and bought an R6. Had I had the budget I would have gone for the R6 Mk II but since owning the R6 I can say:
- the shutter let-off is the best I have ever used
- the viewfinder is big and clear and the readout is very easy to read
- the colours are the most pleasing I have ever had in a camera.
- the evaluative metering in contrasty light isn't the best I have used
- It's a one-button press to go from centre focus to facial recognition

[Bill Tyler]

There is yet another consideration in buying a high-end camera. Ruggedness and weather resistance may be important, depending on the intended use environments. On the other hand, carrying two cameras, each half the price of the megacamera, probably provides more reliability.

[Bob Johnston]

I am with Mike on this one. I have a much more advanced camera than the one I owned five years ago. Am I taking better pictures as a result? Of course not. However, if I was to specialise in sport then there might well be a difference.
It seems to me though that camera development has now reached a peak. It will be difficult for manufacturers to persuade us to part with our well earned cash. The likely differantiator could be more AI. In that respect phones are well ahead of cameras at the moment. The problem is that all the models in a manufacturers line tend to be based on the flagship model and just have fewer features. The flagships tend to be aimed at professionals who for authenticity reasons probably cannot use advanced AI.

[Tom Burke]

I've been using Canons since 1988 - I bought an EOS 650, the first EOS camera, that year. My then brother-in-law had previously bought an EOS 620, somewhat more advanced and released two months later. I had played with it and had just loved everything about it. It's hard to remember now, but those early EOS cameras were regarded as the best of the first generation of AF SLRs. Canon received both praise and opprobrium for creating the new all-digital EF mount: praise because digital communication between lens and camera was clearly the way to go, and opprobrium because this left FD mount users high and dry.

I'm no expert but I have stuck with Canon (broadly) ever since, through SLR, DSLR and now mirrorless cameras. For me, they just feel right in my hand. I've never had a high-end model. The nearest I came was a 5DIV, and I quickly realised that was a mistake; it was too big, especially with the set of lenses I bought to go with it (and they were only f4 zooms, not f2.8). In the main I found the APS-C bodies preferable, using a mixture of EF-S and 3rd party lenses.

I've now moved to the R-mount cameras, and I have an R7 - this is pretty much the R mount version of the 90D, my last DSLR. It's lighter and smaller, and as such is easier to carry and handle (important considerations as I've got older). One annoying thing has been that Canon has kept the mount private - you could only buy native RF lenses from Canon. But they've now licensed the RF-S version of the mount, and there's already a good Sigma lens available (the 18-50 f2.8, which has existed in other mounts for a while) and there's at least one Tamron coming.

Although I've used very few of the lenses, I understand that the RF lenses are regarded as generally being an improvement on the EF equivalents that they replaced. Additionally, Canon have introduced some completely new lenses. There's a variable aperture 100-500, and an f2.8 100-300, for example, both of which are regarded as very good, and ferociously expensive.

There have been times over the years when I've been tempted to switch. For many years Canon's sensors were criticised for having less dynamic range than Sony's sensors (as seen in both Sony and Nikon models, of course). But I was able to resist the call - how many times would that be an issue in grey, cloudy Yorkshire? In any case, what shows up in a lab or in test shots of a wall is a lot harder to spot in real-world shooting. I also think that Canon never received the praise they deserved for some of their early technical advances - dual-pixel AF, for example.

I'm happy with the choices I've made, and I'm certain that switching would not have made any difference to the quality of the images I produced.

[Ronny A Nilsen]

Just to clarify a few things about what I am thinking on this subject.🙂

It's the R5 I'm interested in, it has a high mp sensor, and very good AF. The over the top R1 AF would probably not give significant more keepers over the R5 for me, and with only 24mp the over all "quality" would probably not be good for my personal use cases.

The sensor (as long as it have enough mp for my taste) is not as important as it used to be, as most sensors today are good. What is important for me is the systems ability to get the photons I want to capture, to the sensor. Not just any photons passing by in time that the sensor can render beautifully.

And that is when lenses, AF with eye focus, focus peeking even in manual focus, and all the other technologically improvements comes to play.

I use tilt-shift lenses for most of my landscape photography (I have written about it here: Build a View Camera with your Canon R5 https://www.ronnynilsen.com/Articles/Article/ViewCamera/ ) and Canon is the only manufacturer where I can get all my needs for lenses and cameras covered in one system. I also like to photograph my family, and some of the activities highly benefits from the technology in modern higher end cameras from Canon, Nikon and Sony. But since I like to save money, I stay with the system that can cover all my needs in the cheapest way possible.🙂

Another benefit is that since I use just one camera for many years, and that camera is just an upgrade form the previous generation, I really know how to use it and know the limits and possibilities.

I often hear people say they only need an entry level camera, because they are only going to use it to photograph their family and kids. That is not an entry level camera requirement, and I have many pictures of my kids that would not have been possible without the more advanced cameras I have owned.

Given all this it might be surprising that I don't really care all that much about the gear, like Hugh says, I just want to create images, and I pic the total system and camera that is most capable of delivering on my needs. I have used some of my lenses for more that 15 years now, and only use one camera at a time for 3-5 years. If you buy something that fits your need and is of hight quality you tend to use it more and you don't have shop around and worry about the gear. It's cheaper to buy something once.🙂

[Steve Biro]

” Possibly Canon are for people who just want to take photos and aren’t that interested in cameras? They just work, and the lenses are good."

I think Hugh is onto something here. I have long thought of Canons as the Toyota of cameras and lenses. Nothing flashy - even almost invisible. But they work well. Maybe that’s why so many professionals use them.

[Chris Kern]

The current sensors for mid-range cameras and above all strike me as quite capable, but I don’t think that is true for lenses: there, you get what you pay for—and what you pay can make a substantial difference in image quality. And I’m also comfortable paying a premium for better handling characteristics. After being configured to suit the user’s shooting style, setting the controls for a particular image should be essentially instantaneous, intuitive, and as transparent as possible.

[almostinfamous]

i have friends and colleagues who have stuck with canon for as long as i have stuck with nikon. my envy was never the bodies, most of which have had too tiny buttons for my fat fingers, but always the lenses. my forever fascination has been the EF 135 f2 L-series lens. more recently though, i have grown to like the look delivered by the affordable but stellar RF 85mm f2 macro

[John Camp]

I no longer think it makes much difference which higher-end camera you use, if you know how to use it, and you like the way it handles. (I say higher-end, not high-end, because i think it's almost pointless, and way too expensive, to go with the latest and greatest. I have nothing to do with Keh camera, but they're known for fair condition assessments, and they will sell you a Like New Minus Nikon Z7II for about $2000 less than a new Z8, and as a long-time Nikon user, I don't believe there's a hell of a lot of difference between the two cameras, for still-shooters, anyway.)

About your correspondent Ronny -- I was interested in his comment because I can't think of two more different shooting situations than horse competitions and landscape. Landscapes are (almost always) in decent light (or light that can be made decent) and rarely move much. Indoor horse competitions, even good ones, are usually in crappy light and you can't get close and the subjects are moving and you not only want to get the horse, if the rider is a friend of yours (or a wife or daughter) you also want to get the expressions on her face and her body position and so on, as they go over the jump. I suggest Ronnie may want to get two different cameras. :-)

[Sergio Bartelsman]

Nowadays I find camera gear the least interesting topic about photography. I use fujis because it is ehat I have. I can't care less about brands. If it feels good in hand, and takes the picture in the precise instant you press the shutter, that is all I ask for. There is no longer any big practical difference other than price and Veblen vanity. The days when you could spot any perceivable difference between Leicas and whatever other brand are over.

[Tam]

I just went to an inflation calculator site and it tells me that the $2999 MSRP Nikon D700 from 2008 would be something like $4300 in 2024 dollars, so I think some of the price complaints about the new Canons are off the mark.