Hi All,

Just ordered an EOS RP, which I can cancel without penalty till midday tomorrow. My questions are: how is the EVF? Is the lag (if there is any) something that'll irritate a DSLR shooter and, if so, does one get used to it? Is the AF more accurate/consistent than, say, a 6D? On paper the 4,000-and-odd phase detect points sound great but do they perform in the field? I know the 6D only has 11 points but they are contrast detect; my 80D has 45 but, again, contrast detect (outside live-view). What's the difference in real-world performance? Surely thousands of phase detect points should be better overall than a handful of contrast detect points?

Cheers,
Karl

The EOS RP uses Dual Pixel AF, and its continuous frame rate with continuous focus with it is rather abysmal compared to its contemporaries. It's a bigger advantage for video than stills. It's a mirrorless 6D in functionality and features. AF will be more accurate (that is, when it locks focus it'll have less errors) but focus between frames won't be as hot as other, more mature mirrorless options on the market. The EVF is just OK, not going to break any records but also isn't bad. It does not have good live previews in continuous mode. I actually find it to be a better handling body the time I used it versus the R, because of that damned touch strip. Any Canon shooter should feel just at home on it. But if a 6D was not appealing to you, the RP won't help much.

However, it does adapt EF lenses fairly well.

The 6D's AF is actually phase detect, not contrast detect. It's just dedicated array instead of on-sensor for normal SLR shooting mode.

I wouldn't use it as a primary body, but if you want a secondary for someone like yourself who's already invested in the EF system, it's not a bad pick.

Thanks Dan. Is it dual pixel outside LV?

I already have a 6D but it's not the best at maintaining focus lock in AI servo, especially if you zoom in or out. The issue is compounded by very bright light, which is what made me assume that the AF points were contrast detect. In low light, however, the centre point is actually pretty darn reliable!

What I suppose I'm asking is... with the 7 year advancement in mirrorless tech, is the AF going to be generally more accurate and reliable than my 6D with its meagre 11 points? I've heard that there's no performance penalty using the EF adapter; in fact many report better performance due to the overwhelming number of focus points of the R series.

Cheers,
Karl

JakTrax wrote:

Thanks Dan. Is it dual pixel outside LV?

I already have a 6D but it's not the best at maintaining focus lock in AI servo, especially if you zoom in or out. The issue is compounded by very bright light, which is what made me assume that the AF points were contrast detect. In low light, however, the centre point is actually pretty darn reliable!

What I suppose I'm asking is... with the 7 year advancement in mirrorless tech, is the AF going to be generally more accurate and reliable than my 6D with its meagre 11 points? I've heard that there's no performance penalty using the EF adapter; in fact many report better performance due to the overwhelming number of focus points of the R series.

Cheers,
Karl

I would say yes, you would experience better AF performance overall, but you have to take a considerable frame rate hit (3 FPS) to get it with the RP. 5 FPS is locked on first frame. The regular EOS R doesn't have as bad of a penalty, as it can maintain servo AF at 5 FPS. The RF bodies are always "live view," so the performance is the same regardless of screen or EVF. If you can score a better deal on the regular R, I would go that route. Canon is just not there yet for the type of body that I think av people are used to (something in the 7Dii class or a 5DIV with real AF). None of these bodies can currently compete with the Sony a7iii or even the a7R iii, let alone the a9, in terms of continuous AF and frame performance, regardless of adapted lenses or not. The EOS R also just got a recent firmware update to improve AF, but I cannot say as to how it improves things. I would really suggest you borrow one for a period of time and see how it works for you. They're first generation products, and as long as you're willing to accept some bumps, you'll be able to reap mirrorless benefits.

I don't use EOS R as a primary system, my experience is with trading off with my Canon-using friend, and not in an aviation context. He has the EOS R, and I found it was merely OK with his 100-400, but I've certainly shot much worse (as I'm sure you have too). With his 24-105 I found it to be pretty good, no real problems with the AF. I'm still rocking my A-mount gear. Some day I will switch to E-mount, especially for the new 200-600.

D'oh, yes, I forgot that with an EVF it's always LV!

Just to clarify, are you saying that, in your experience, DSLRs such as the 7DII and 5DIV can't compete AF-wise with the A7III? Or were you referring to the EOS R cameras? I have an 80D but rarely use it so can't really vouch for it's AF competency, but I do know it's a similar system to the 7DII.

Basically I want a FF system that can make use of the lenses I already own (Canon EF L series), and that can track moving subjects more confidently than my DSLRs. The 6D was never designed as an action camera but to be honest, the limited times I've used the 80D, its AF hasn't blown me away either (unless I haven't got it set to optimal AF performance).

I have a small Sony A5000 with a selection of cheaper primes (Sigma Art, Samyang FE and Sony E), however I'm reluctant to invest further in Sony as I've never been happy with that camera's image quality (images seem a little 'rough') and only the G lenses — which are an absolute fortune compared to their Canon counterparts — seem to offer decent performance. Even some of the Zeiss branded optics get slated for image quality.

The A7III is only a couple of hundred pounds more than the EOS RP, and I'm aware that it's a better camera overall. I'm not too fussed about the burst rate but if the AF were considerably better (according to many reviews they are very similar except the Sony has better eye detection AF) I'd possibly consider it. Again, though, the issue of the price of decent glass is an off-putting factor.

The other solution is of course to buy a 5DIV but I feel that DSLRs are on the way out, albeit slowly.

I think I need to go and have a play down at a camera shop... although there isn't actually one near me!

Cheers,
Karl

JakTrax wrote:

D'oh, yes, I forgot that with an EVF it's always LV!

Just to clarify, are you saying that, in your experience, DSLRs such as the 7DII and 5DIV can't compete AF-wise with the A7III? Or were you referring to the EOS R cameras? I have an 80D but rarely use it so can't really vouch for it's AF competency, but I do know it's a similar system to the 7DII.

I was referring to the EOS R cameras.

Basically I want a FF system that can make use of the lenses I already own (Canon EF L series), and that can track moving subjects more confidently than my DSLRs. The 6D was never designed as an action camera but to be honest, the limited times I've used the 80D, its AF hasn't blown me away either (unless I haven't got it set to optimal AF performance).

a7iii with the latest firmware and a metabones adapter perform about as well as the EOS R bodies with adapted lenses. They won't perform as good as native lenses in terms of frame rate, but the latest firmware updates have given them almost all the necessary features. You can also use Sigma lenses with their native MC-11 adapter which turns Sigma Canon mount lenses into native E-mount lenses, so the 150-600 is a viable option.

I have a small Sony A5000 with a selection of cheaper primes (Sigma Art, Samyang FE and Sony E), however I'm reluctant to invest further in Sony as I've never been happy with that camera's image quality (images seem a little 'rough') and only the G lenses — which are an absolute fortune compared to their Canon counterparts — seem to offer decent performance. Even some of the Zeiss branded optics get slated for image quality.

The a5000 is one of the oldest cameras in E-mount land and it's been surpassed in so many ways by the FF and APS options in that mount that you can't use it as a fair comparison.

As far as lenses go, I'm speaking in terms of USD, but for the tame aviation photographer you can get a 24-105 and a 100-400 GM for $1200 and $2500. The new 200-600 G is $2000 but has nice features like internal zoom that the 100-400 doesn't do. Since the Canon 100-400L II is several years old at this point, it's no surprise that it's much cheaper (especially with its current cashback rebate). I find the price of lenses correlates to their newness more than the brand. There's also a 70-300 G with a shorter price tag.

There is no 100-400 available for EOS R, but a 24-105 RF is available, but it lags behind the 24-105 G in IQ. Canon's already put a $400 rebate on the 24-105 RF, bringing it down to $899.

Tamron's new zooms and primes are affordable and great performers as well. They operate just like first party lenses in terms of performance and capability. The 28-75 is a great performer and it's only $879.

The A7III is only a couple of hundred pounds more than the EOS RP, and I'm aware that it's a better camera overall. I'm not too fussed about the burst rate but if the AF were considerably better (according to many reviews they are very similar except the Sony has better eye detection AF) I'd possibly consider it. Again, though, the issue of the price of decent glass is an off-putting factor.

Canon's eye detect AF is so bad it's laughable. Nikon's new update for the Z bodies puts Canon dead last on that front. The a7iii just got a new firmware update that completely updated the AF tracking and subject tracking modes, simplifying them and enhancing them with new features like animal eye AF. It also improved focusing with adapters even more, increasing the available framerate to adapters.

If you intend to keep Canon SLR bodies around, go with the EOS R. If you want to make a clean break, consider Sony with a Metabones.

Thanks. I cancelled my order and will wait until Canon release the (rumoured) pro-level RF body, see what the state of play is then. It would be silly to jump to Sony with so many Canon L lenses I think... unless you would recommend Canon glass on a Sony with an adaptor?

I've also looked at the Sony A7II but the AF is apparently not as good as a mid-range DSLR?

On a final note, am I right in thinking that the A7III doesn't have a fully articulating screen? I believe it only flips up 180 degrees? This is where Canon is winning, with it's articulating touchscreens, and for me the ability to hold the camera above my head and compose from below is incredibly useful as airport fences continue to get higher.

The a7ii is not on the same level as the mark 3 bodies, and I would avoid it except as a backup.

On a final note, am I right in thinking that the A7III doesn't have a fully articulating screen? I believe it only flips up 180 degrees? This is where Canon is winning, with it's articulating touchscreens, and for me the ability to hold the camera above my head and compose from below is incredibly useful as airport fences continue to get higher.

The Sony screens articulate in an up-down fashion, not left to right. It's only a problem for portrait orientation shooting. But if you're holding the camera up and above your head, it works fine.

Canon is the only company making a full-frame mirrorless body with a fully articulating screen. It's one reason I'm still using my a99ii which has the best fully articulating screen on the market. I personally don't like side-swivel screens, and the pull-out full articulation on the SLTs is just the best. My guess is that Canon has some kind of patent that other bodies are having trouble working around. I hope Sony ports the system of articulation used on the A-mount SLTs to the E-mount bodies. Since that system was designed by Dolby, a Canon patent issue shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for all your input, Dan, it's appreciated. I really like the look of the A7III and am considering a full move to Sony, however I don't want to live to regret it. I suppose an A7III holds it's resale value well should I not like the system but it means kissing goodbye to some of my favourite Canon lenses (not to mention the fact that Canon has the best lens options around). I'm not keen on the Metabones adaptor idea as some reviews mention issues; plus if anything goes wrong neither manufacturer will be liable. How do you find Sony G glass compared to premium Canon Ls? I've already discounted the Zeiss branded optics as the whole thing seems to be a marketing ploy rather than a true indication of quality.

As I mentioned above an alternative is to keep it 'in house' and go for the 5DIV, but at this stage I'm reluctant to buy something at that price that may well be on the road to becoming obsolete. The final option is to wait for Canon to respond with a pro-level RF body; for many a year now the rumours have been that canon is hiding an ace up its sleeve to deal with the competition but, if true, they're cutting it a bit fine...

Cheers,
Karl

I would really suggest you try a metabones before you write off adapting. I know lots of people that use them with great success, especially on the mark 3 bodies. I know the rental shops usually carry them.

I actually don't know what you have for a lens collection these days. What's in your stable?

EF 16-35 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4 L, 70-200 f/4 L II. Camera wise I have 1300D, 50D, 80D and 6D. I also have a Sony A5000 with Sigma Art 30 f/2.8, Samyang FE 35 f/2.8, Sony E 50 f/1.8 and Sigma Art 60 f/2.8.

Incidentally I went out with the 80D tonight and gave it a full test. AF is superb when used correctly and even in low light it didn't miss a single shot! Also took the 6D and in one-shot mode it really produces (although I knew this anyway). It's nights like tonight that make me think it unwise to change systems. Perhaps I'm expecting the Sony to give me much better results within aviation when in fact the differences may well be negligible. Sure, the Sony wins hands down for DR but, having fully tested the 80D's capabilities tonight, I'm not convinced that a total system swap would be the right move.

Thanks again for all the help, however I think for now I'll hold on and see how the mirrorless market develops over the next 12 months or so. I can't see any future upgrade being anything but Canon or Sony, though — I've admired Sony's efforts for a few years now (which is why I went with their A5000 in 2014).

Right now I'd say there's nothing wrong with holding out a little bit to see where the EOS R system goes. You could try picking up a less expensive used 5D mark4 and then just sell it again when you're ready to move on. I don't think you'll be missing much by waiting a year.

If you were to divest of your lenses, I'd say your potential E-mount setup would be a 12-24 (do you use filters a lot?), 28-75 Tamron, and a 70-200 f/4.

One advantage that mirrorless has in lower light is that it focuses at the shooting aperture (instead of the fixed aperture on the phase module in an SLR), so if you use fast aperture lenses, you can gain advantage in light gathering. For me, the 42 MP system has changed how I shoot. The one-button crop mode with an 18 MP crop has worked very well, and the DR means I can push files a lot more. You wouldn't get that with the 24 MP bodies.

I again took the 6D out tonight and it does produce wonderful results, however the burst rate is a bit a slow (despite my saying I wasn't too bothered a few posts up). I'm over the moon with the last two evenings' images but I have realised that speed is what I need. As nice as the A7III is it's a lot to fork out for a few extra fps; therefore I'll stick with Canon for now and hope they announce a pro mirrorless body soon. If things stagnate over the next few years with Canon I'll reconsider a full switch to Sony.

Cheers,
Karl

Karl,
I know 3 guys who switched all are back with Canon.
Now ll where 1Dx MK2 shooters so the comparisons where against one of the best action cameras ever released if not the best.
Adaptors are poor even when working well do not rely on one to get the best from a great lens on a SOny body even if its an A9.
Two of the three guys bought them as a trial the other an A7MK3...
Adaptors simply are a poor substitute for a native lens however Sony's lens line up is pretty small especially if you use wides.
In fact they have focused heavily in trying to offer any glass for sports shooters something to compete against the Canon and Nikon big lens lineups.
They have little to offer outside a 24-70 under 100mm.
The A9/A7R3 have got battery life to being almost acceptable.
Id love Canon to have their brilliant eye AF it is a brilliant advance its just a pity they dont have a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 to use it fully.
Now they have finished the pro sports line maybe they wil give people so gread short big aperture glass.
Luke Ozawa and Akra Iragashi the lead photogs from Airline magazine in Japan easily the highest circulation aviation mag in the world where given R's by Canon and have taken some stunning images with them.
Just search FB or Google them they are now Canon ambassadors and have been running info and display sessions all over Japan in the big stores like Yodabashi and Bic.
Id wait and see what the Pro R later this year is like even then i would never swap with Sony's lens lineup being so poor(sorry Sony guys its simply a fact to few G lenses but those they have are very good like the 600 and 400/2.8).
If you swap id sell up entirely as adapted lenses simply dont work well when you need them with poor AF response, accuracy and tracking.
At the end of the day great glass makes great photos as cameras come and go.

Thanks Darren. I've done much research since I made this post and have decided that I'm sticking with Canon. They might not be innovators these days but their colour science is the best and their lens range rock solid. The grass is always greener, as they say.

Sony's pro lens line-up is relatively poor, with many of the Zeiss branded optics seeming gimmicky — I've read many reviews in which the results from high-priced lenses have been mediocre at best — looks like the 24-105G and a couple of others are about the only exceptions. It has also been said that Sony's top lenses are overpriced but I found them to be similarly priced (for the most part) to their Canon counterparts.

I've always been happy with the images my Canons have produced; I just feel let down at the moment because they are lagging behind in the mirrorless market. That said, their L-series RF mount lenses look to be something else, so I hope they release a fast, sports-orientated mirrorless body soon!

Dehowie wrote:

Karl,
They have little to offer outside a 24-70 under 100mm.

People still posting FUD like "Sony's lineup is still small" in 2019 is hilarious. It's not 2014 anymore. The holes are niche and are being filled in year over year. Of course regular EOS has more lenses, but it's been around for 30 years and most of that 30 year lens catalog is obsolete in the context of a 1DXii user. For sony, just in primes alone you have:

24 GM (one of the best, tbh), 28, 35 1.4 / 1.8 / 2.8. 50 1.4, 1.8 and Macro. 55 1.8, 85 GM, 85 1.8, 90mm Macro, 100mm STF, 135 GM. Then there's the new 400 and 600 primes. Then there's all the Sigma primes, along with Zeiss Batis (18/25/40/85/135) AF prime options. This also isn't counting the native-mount MF (Zeiss and others) and Korean options for primes, which for wide angle work can do a lot.

For zooms there's the 12-24 (which is half the size and weight of SLR options and is a stellar performer), 16-35 GM, three 24-70 options along with the 24-105 (and the Tamron 17-35 and 28-70). Don't forget the new 200-600 which is the perfect airshow lens, along with the class leading 100-400 GM. Both of which work with TCs and retain full autofocus functions.

What of this would not fill anyone's needs unless you want a tilt-shift? Especially in this business? An Av photographer would get equipped with a 12-24, 24-105, a 100-400, and a 200-600 and be pretty much covered for any scenario except for the most niche of niche. Portrait and people 'togs have the 24-70GM, 35, 50, 85, and 135 options along with the 100 STF. You can eye AF all day long with the 85 GM or the 55 1.8 and get superlative results, and people have voted with their dollars. There's tons of MF ultrawides in native mount as well, or you can adapt another wide. I always chuckle when people bring up the 85 1.2 because it's slow as hell to focus, a third of a stop doesn't help much in our era of massive sensor sensitivity, the mirror box chops off the bokeh, and the less depth of field doesn't help in most portrait scenarios unless you only want an eyelash in focus. I hated that lens. But I get it, some people want the trick stuff.

And yes, adaptors aren't perfect, but they're A. not as necessary anymore and B. Every firmware update (from both Sony and Metabones) has improved them. Obviously native lenses perform the best, but I'm still shocked at how well the adaptors work given constraints. But those same arguments cut both ways for the EOS R and will for a long time. The EOS R performs worse with adapters on EF lenses than Sonys do with a metabones. But that will surely change as Canon advances. They have to, because it's the only way Canon will get buy-in on EOS R.

It's OK to say you prefer Canon! But there's a reason they're on the downslope and Sony has the growth, it's because Sony made a product with a unique value proposition and shoveled the R&D into it to make it work. Canon could have done that, but they didn't. I work for a competitor for all these companies (and no, it's not Sony). I've used systems from all the major companies, and a lot of them have their own strengths and weaknesses. But I consider it a "know thy enemy" approach, even if my current system is my enemy.

BTW, anyone with a "Brand Ambassador" is suspect to me as far as opinions go, and that's true not just of Canon, but for Sony and others as well. Anyone with talent can make great work regardless of the tools they use, but that's their job to make those companies look good. It's why I don't talk about my employer's products (despite the fact that I don't use them personally). That's not a judgment on Ozawa-san's work, because he does excellent work, but it is something that I keep in mind.

This is all besides Karl's needs, where I think an EOS R would actually work but he'd be better off waiting a year or so to see how it shakes out.

dvincent wrote:

And yes, adaptors aren't perfect, but they're A. not as necessary anymore and B. Every firmware update (from both Sony and Metabones) has improved them. Obviously native lenses perform the best, but I'm still shocked at how well the adaptors work given constraints. But those same arguments cut both ways for the EOS R and will for a long time. The EOS R performs worse with adapters on EF lenses than Sonys do with a metabones. But that will surely change as Canon advances. They have to, because it's the only way Canon will get buy-in on EOS R.

Would disagree. EF lenses perform natively on the Canon EOS R, and in many cases, even better. I just came back from an air show using the EOS R and the Canon EF 100-400mm Mk II lens, and it exceeded my expectations, with very few pictures coming back out of focus. Focus acquisition, even with a 1.4x teleconverter was quick and smooth, and the camera's AF tracked aircraft extremely well.

ThePointblank wrote:

dvincent wrote:

And yes, adaptors aren't perfect, but they're A. not as necessary anymore and B. Every firmware update (from both Sony and Metabones) has improved them. Obviously native lenses perform the best, but I'm still shocked at how well the adaptors work given constraints. But those same arguments cut both ways for the EOS R and will for a long time. The EOS R performs worse with adapters on EF lenses than Sonys do with a metabones. But that will surely change as Canon advances. They have to, because it's the only way Canon will get buy-in on EOS R.

Would disagree. EF lenses perform natively on the Canon EOS R, and in many cases, even better. I just came back from an air show using the EOS R and the Canon EF 100-400mm Mk II lens, and it exceeded my expectations, with very few pictures coming back out of focus. Focus acquisition, even with a 1.4x teleconverter was quick and smooth, and the camera's AF tracked aircraft extremely well.

Unless the recent firmware changed this (which it could have), my understanding was that servo AF with live view on an adapter was limited to 3 FPS on the EOS R (versus 5 FPS for the native lenses). Single AF had no limits as far as I knew. My experience with the camera was pre-firmware update.

I've read multiple reports about the adaptors exceeding expectations... but I've also read reports in which certain lenses (primarily wide-angles and a few primes) have been less accurate with the adaptor. It is, however, Canon's own and so I'd expect pretty much native performance out of something that isn't third party. I am again looking very closely at the EOS R but I think I'll resist temptation and see what 2020 brings in the Canon mirrorless world....

Cheers,
Karl

dvincent wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

dvincent wrote:

And yes, adaptors aren't perfect, but they're A. not as necessary anymore and B. Every firmware update (from both Sony and Metabones) has improved them. Obviously native lenses perform the best, but I'm still shocked at how well the adaptors work given constraints. But those same arguments cut both ways for the EOS R and will for a long time. The EOS R performs worse with adapters on EF lenses than Sonys do with a metabones. But that will surely change as Canon advances. They have to, because it's the only way Canon will get buy-in on EOS R.

Would disagree. EF lenses perform natively on the Canon EOS R, and in many cases, even better. I just came back from an air show using the EOS R and the Canon EF 100-400mm Mk II lens, and it exceeded my expectations, with very few pictures coming back out of focus. Focus acquisition, even with a 1.4x teleconverter was quick and smooth, and the camera's AF tracked aircraft extremely well.

Unless the recent firmware changed this (which it could have), my understanding was that servo AF with live view on an adapter was limited to 3 FPS on the EOS R (versus 5 FPS for the native lenses). Single AF had no limits as far as I knew. My experience with the camera was pre-firmware update.

No, there are two modes for continuous AF on the EOS R. One is shooting speed priority AF at 5 fps, then there is accuracy priority AF, at 3 fps. It works with both RF and EF lenses. The only difference between RF and EF lenses for the EOS R is that with RF lenses, you also have the option of high speed display.

JakTrax wrote:

I've read multiple reports about the adaptors exceeding expectations... but I've also read reports in which certain lenses (primarily wide-angles and a few primes) have been less accurate with the adaptor. It is, however, Canon's own and so I'd expect pretty much native performance out of something that isn't third party. I am again looking very closely at the EOS R but I think I'll resist temptation and see what 2020 brings in the Canon mirrorless world....

Cheers,
Karl

The adapter for the EOS R from my understanding (at least for the basic adapter and the drop in filter adapter), is basically a dumb adapter with electrical pass-through. The EOS R natively talks to EF lenses using the EF protocol directly from the camera.

ThePointblank, how do you find the EVF as opposed to the OVF for action? Can you tell the difference and, if so, is it problematic?

JakTrax wrote:

ThePointblank, how do you find the EVF as opposed to the OVF for action? Can you tell the difference and, if so, is it problematic?

There is a slight lag with the EVF as the EVF will freeze the frame momentarily to show you are capturing the image (basically, a slideshow effect), but if you adjust some of the camera settings (turning off exposure simulation), it is barely noticeable. If you have good panning and tracking ability, should not be an issue for shooting aircraft; I probably won't recommend it for shooting something more erratic, such as birds or insects.

Having the EVF was a positive experience from a shooting perspective, as I can see if the picture is exposed properly before even pressing the trigger so I can dial in the exposure, and reviewing pictures in daylight was not an issue as I can look through the EVF to see the pictures.

ThePointblank wrote:

No, there are two modes for continuous AF on the EOS R. One is shooting speed priority AF at 5 fps, then there is accuracy priority AF, at 3 fps. It works with both RF and EF lenses. The only difference between RF and EF lenses for the EOS R is that with RF lenses, you also have the option of high speed display.

OK, thanks. So when I was using it, I used RF lenses (specifically the RF 24-105) on the 5 FPS mode and the EF lenses (100-400mk1) on the 3 FPS mode. It was actually the lack of high speed display that was making me think I needed to turn it down. 5 FPS slideshow mode with CAF is similar to what I had on a99 mk1 in 2012, and I'm familiar with how that works. I did find the servo AF performance on both to be acceptable, but Eye AF was disastrous out of the gate. Fortunately, Canon has generally fixed that problem and improved it by an order of magnitude.

For reference, Metabones on a7 mark 3 bodies with latest firmware, allows the use of Continuous Hi with AF-C, which is 8 FPS with live-view inbetween frames instead of slideshow mode. This isn't the same as no-blackout on a9, as there is still a slight blackout, but you get live updates inbetween those blackouts a la an SLR. a7R mk4 (and also a6400) allows for the new real time tracking AF mode with adaptors as well, taken from the a9. Continuous Hi+ is 10 FPS on a7 bodies, but it's slideshow mode and focus is fixed on first frame with adapters. 120fps viewfinder is available on any of these modes, but sometimes it may slow to 60fps during shutter release on a7 bodies.

Some adaptors (like the Sigma EF/SA adaptor and Metabones in Green mode) emulate a native lens vs. acting as an adaptor, and this can yield better performance in some AF scenarios with some lenses.

On a9, it's 10 FPS with all AF modes at 120fps viewfinder with no blackout and full time real time AF.

dvincent wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

No, there are two modes for continuous AF on the EOS R. One is shooting speed priority AF at 5 fps, then there is accuracy priority AF, at 3 fps. It works with both RF and EF lenses. The only difference between RF and EF lenses for the EOS R is that with RF lenses, you also have the option of high speed display.

OK, thanks. So when I was using it, I used RF lenses (specifically the RF 24-105) on the 5 FPS mode and the EF lenses (100-400mk1) on the 3 FPS mode. It was actually the lack of high speed display that was making me think I needed to turn it down. 5 FPS slideshow mode with CAF is similar to what I had on a99 mk1 in 2012, and I'm familiar with how that works. I did find the servo AF performance on both to be acceptable, but Eye AF was disastrous out of the gate. Fortunately, Canon has generally fixed that problem and improved it by an order of magnitude.

For reference, Metabones on a7 mark 3 bodies with latest firmware, allows the use of Continuous Hi with AF-C, which is 8 FPS with live-view inbetween frames instead of slideshow mode. This isn't the same as no-blackout on a9, as there is still a slight blackout, but you get live updates inbetween those blackouts a la an SLR. a7R mk4 (and also a6400) allows for the new real time tracking AF mode with adaptors as well, taken from the a9. Continuous Hi+ is 10 FPS on a7 bodies, but it's slideshow mode and focus is fixed on first frame with adapters. 120fps viewfinder is available on any of these modes, but sometimes it may slow to 60fps during shutter release on a7 bodies.

Some adaptors (like the Sigma EF/SA adaptor and Metabones in Green mode) emulate a native lens vs. acting as an adaptor, and this can yield better performance in some AF scenarios with some lenses.

On a9, it's 10 FPS with all AF modes at 120fps viewfinder with no blackout and full time real time AF.

Also consider which RAW mode you are in; if you had enabled dual-pixel RAW, it slows down the camera considerably, while massively increasing file size. I wouldn't recommend it for any sort of action photography.

I'm bumping this thread back up as there's been a significant development in the Canon mirrorless world...

Come the end of this month (Sep) Canon will release their latest firmware for the EOS R and RP, which apparently vastly improves the AF. I've read some reviews of the beta version and everyone seems really impressed with it — the main improvement seems to be in eye/face detect and tracking accuracy/consistency, putting in on a level playing field with Sony and way ahead of anything else. With their quickly increasing range of pro lenses this system will now without doubt be my next upgrade... however I'm still wondering whether to get the R or the RP. The update serves both cameras but apparently the R update is better? How so?

Cheers,
Karl

JakTrax wrote:

I'm bumping this thread back up as there's been a significant development in the Canon mirrorless world...

Come the end of this month (Sep) Canon will release their latest firmware for the EOS R and RP, which apparently vastly improves the AF. I've read some reviews of the beta version and everyone seems really impressed with it — the main improvement seems to be in eye/face detect and tracking accuracy/consistency, putting in on a level playing field with Sony and way ahead of anything else. With their quickly increasing range of pro lenses this system will now without doubt be my next upgrade... however I'm still wondering whether to get the R or the RP. The update serves both cameras but apparently the R update is better? How so?

Cheers,
Karl

I'll take a stab at this as I own a EOS R, and have used a 6D Mark II (which has the same sensor as the RP).

The EOS R has a number of advantages over the RP, especially if you are doing aviation shooting.

1. the R has a faster burst speed with continuous auto focus;
2. a higher resolution EVF;
3. a larger, higher resolution back LCD;
4. USB Type-C port, with USB PD charging;
5. longer battery life;
6. option of a proper grip with dual batteries;

There's also stuff that's less noticeable; for example, the EOS R uses the same sensor as the 5D Mark IV, which is currently Canon's best all-around full frame sensor; files from the EOS R seemed far more malleable in post processing, when you are doing stuff like raising shadows and adjusting colour, and has less noise, with the noise that is present less distracting and more pleasing.

I had a chance to shoot with the EOS R with the 1.4 firmware update a short while ago when the Red Arrows came to town doing a fly past demonstration; it seemed to detect and track the Red Arrows just fine from my experience, and I didn't notice any odd or sluggish AF performance with the EF 100-400 Mark II lens.

I finally bought an EOS RP with the RF24-105 f/4 L IS lens this week. I shall be testing it out this coming weekend and will report back, for the benefit of anyone who followed this thread with any interest (since most people seem to have gone for the R rather than the RP).

The R was a lot more money for seemingly not much more (only the faster burst rate was of any real interest to me), and I kinda realised that I wanted to invest in a system (mainly for the RF glass) rather than a particular camera. The RP is also tiny and will fit into a much smaller case than my current gear, which will be good for getting around Europe's budget airlines' stingy cabin bag policies! The only other thing I needed was an articulating screen, which of course the RP features.

Cheers,
Karl