The Canon EOS R8 full frame mirrorless camera is one of the more affordable options out there, but it is not so cheap that it does not come with many of the features professionals need. The EOS R8 sits in an intriguing position, offering a nice balance of capabilities and price, and this excellent video review takes a look at the features and performance you can expect from it in practice.
Coming to you from Christopher Frost, this great video review takes a look at the Canon EOS R8 mirrorless camera. At $1,499, the EOS R8 offers photographers a chance to own a full frame camera at a relatively affordable price, along with a range of features, including:
- 24.2-megapixel CMOS sensor
- DIGIC X processor
- Native ISO range of 100-102,400 (expandable to 50-204,800)
- Up to 40 fps continuous burst speed
- Full-width 4K video at 60 FPS, 10-bit oversampled from 6K
- 1080p video at up to 180 fps
- Up to two hours of recording at 29.97 fps
- 0.5 seconds of pre-shooting for ensuring quick action is captured
- Dual Pixel CMOS AF II with 1,053 automatic autofocus points with full sensor coverage and sensitivity down to -6.5 EV
- HDR PQ and Canon Log 3
- Vertical movie mode for social media content creation
- Full HD livestreaming
- Digital IS for video work
- 2.36-million-dot electronic viewfinder with 120 fps refresh rate
- Vari-Angle touchscreen LCD
- USB-C, micro-HDMI, microphone input, and headphone jack
- Bluetooth and Wi-Fi
- Multi-function hotshoe
Altogether, the EOS R8 looks like a nicely balanced camera at a good price. Check out the video above for Frost's full thoughts on the camera.
I've been using the RP for two years. It was a great bargain. Now, I have the R8 and love all the upgrades.
With a similar price, It's better than the Sony A7 II?
And there are similar price lens, as Sony 24-70 F2.8 and Sony 20-70 F4.0?
I love the Canon colours but can't get behind a closed lens ecosystem.
All my EF lenses still work, those from Canon, those from Carl Zeiss, those from Meyeroptik Görlitz, Lomography, Lensbaby. Via adapter I can adapt Leica and Voigtländer lenses, older Canon FD, ...
It's just that new RF alternatives are still missing. After all, older lenses don't keep you from getting fine results. If you depend on having the newest stuff, well, so be it.
The closed ecosystem sucks, no excuses for them.
I haven't bought a single RF lens and I'm hoping the first one will be the decades overdue 50 mm 1.4. If I could find a good deal I'll purchase the old 28 to 70 mkii
The non-L RF lenses look all look like reduced quality versions of the previous EF generation.
The 28 2.8 Is somewhat decent, 85 is only f2 and extending barrel, The 16 2.8 is overall mediocre, I mean Cannon is really batting a thousand with lenses that don't cost $2,000. The 24.. not sure. 35 is supposed to be fine tho.
My point is that Cannon is only putting the effort into their most expensive lenses and we're blocked from third party so.. not a good look at all If you're not already invested.
Yes, I can recommend the 35/1.8 macro lens, it's way good enough. I had the 16/2.8 too, but sold it quite immediately, as it's distortion can't be fixed in RAW easily. Jpeg works pretty well, but RAW ... sucks. Thought it could be a fun lens.
I sold my 24-70 mark ii for a new RF 24-105/4 L, just because it's more versatile and my old EF lens sold rather well for nearly the same price. The RF 24-105/4 L is a workhorse and doesn't disappoint.
Anyway, I do agree with your last statement, but there are so many good EF lenses out there to get the job done if you're a pro. Even the EF 50/1.2 L works better due to better AF on RF cameras, EyeAF and other fancy stuff, as I've seen in a review lately. I'm more into manual lenses, so I'm just looking for AF lenses in case my eyesight get's worse.
Do I want good/better replacements of EF lenses? Of course. The 50/1.4 is overdue, the 35/1.4 also (a 1.2 version should be coming, but ... it will be big, heavy and expensive). The RF 85/2 is imho a good replacement of the EF 85/1.9, has better magnification and IS. Still, the RF 85/1.4 L would be nice and well, Sigma could help out but can't. So I get the point, but still one can work around it.