Dear oh dear Canon what have you done? On the back of perhaps its most underwhelming release this century, things just go from bad to worse for its new mirrorless camera.
Not content with releasing a camera that's barely more than a 5D Mark IV without a mirror, reports out this week seem to indicate that the build quality and the video recording options are not quite up to standard either. Dave Altizer, part of the popular Kinotika YouTube channel, has provided photographic evidence that the top LCD panel on his new EOS R mirrorless camera has cracked for no apparent reason during routine use, which suggests that the cover doesn't seem properly reinforced or the weather-sealing isn't really up to scratch.
Add to that the new finding that the EOS R doesn't allow 1080/60p in crop mode for any EF-S lenses - something not mentioned anywhere in the official Canon specs - and you start to get the feeling that this could be a long, slow slide that you watch painfully through fingers parted ever so slightly across your face (or with utter glee if you're the type who enjoys a mild dose of schadenfreude).
Believe me, I so wanted Canon's new mirrorless camera to be a gamechanger. I am a Canon user. I live in Japan. I speak Japanese. My wife is Japanese and I am friends with many in the camera world of Japan, some of whom work for Canon. I was sure they were going to produce something big. Alas, I was disappointed. And never felt stronger in my conviction that I'd stay loyal to my trusty 5D Mark IV and legacy lens range. News like this doesn't exactly fill me with hope.
Optimistically, this is just teething problems for Canon's first full-frame mirrorless iteration and it only gets better from here. After all, every release of a new i-phone has some kind of problems that are unaccounted for yet users remain loyal. Or am I just being naively sanguine? Do you have any hands-on, real-world experience with the new Canon EOS R, either positive or negative? Please share in the comments below and assuage my ever expanding doubts.
Not the end of the world is it? No one is injured from this despicable blunder. I lost count the number of computer failure. The good thing about failures is, the next one will be better build.
No it isn’t the end of the world, nothing is. But in terms of such a hotly awaited release, it’s been a massive fizzer, which means I have very little confidence in the next release being anywhere near to matching what Sony et al have already got out there
So go and buy the Sony. I am confidence Canon will fix what ever quality control issues they have with their product.
I don't think that was the point of this article. And that would bring another point why should we always be beta testers? And before you say it yes I waited for the eos R was disappointed and yes after 20 years got a metabones, sold my 5d IV and picked up two Sony. I love the canon but they really haven't been listening to the customer base lately. It is what it is. And no not the end of the world.
No offence, I was expressing a view to the author of this article. So don't use me to emphasis your views on this matter. Write this directly to Canon. The best form of customer feedback,don't you think and much more appropriate.
It's a forum. You put your opinions and thoughts out there and others interact. That's how it works. If you'd like a more private conversation direct message the individual.
Thank you for your thoughts. I am a busy person to read or interact with everything people write here. This is how I work..
TBH, the whole idea of the comment thread is to make sure that people can engage in discourse with others. If you feel that you are unable or unwilling to engage with others, then Mr. Lindsay's suggestion seems quite reasonable. It seems that you might have become a bit upset as the way the article has been worded makes it very strongly anti-Canon. Please recognise that we are all here to enjoy the articles that are written, as well as gaining factual information. If you are so busy that you can barely read and respond to comments that are replying to you, maybe you would be better suited with the direct messaging, or maybe not even commenting at all.
Please don't take this as an attack on you as a person, but I've noticed that a large amount of comments on the community have an increasingly discourteous tone. However, if I have misunderstood your intent, I sincerely apologise.
You giving me advice wearing a Darth Vader helmet, nice??? Sorry, just too busy for space cadets as well. Have fun.
Firstly: I enjoy star wars, I feel that my profile picture accurately portrays my interest in the fandom. That being said, I would prefer if you referred to me as "Young Padawan" instead of "Space Cadet". That being said, my nerdy profile picture has no bearing on the quality of my comment.
Secondly: I'm actually surprised you read through all of my comment! It seems very long for someone who has a lot of important stuff to do, and is *incredibly* busy!
Finally, I will actually have fun having constructive discourse with my peers on this website, as not all of them are actually resorting to personal criticisms instead of sticking to the matter at hand.
I hope you have a nice day, and that someone may be able to deal with your somewhat sour mood!
>> That being said, I would prefer if you referred to me as "Young Padawan" instead of "Space Cadet".<<
At least it would have been amusing. (Just as your reply was.)
More relevantly -
- One camera with a cracked screen doesn't mean a damn. Really.
- Sony have a horrible - truly horrible - reputation for build quality problems and poor customer service.
The real story on the cracked screen is "Nothing to see here."
The only reason why this article shocks me is because I used to use Canon's DSLRs and I had hoped that their legendary toughness would have carried on onto the R.
I hope that in the future, they start to beef up the weather sealing to a point where it could almost equal their DSLRs. The general consensus is that there are not enough gaskets and protective measures at the seams, which is exactly the same problem that has plagued Sony's system. These days, Sony is slowly, and begrudgingly, moving to a more weather sealed format, but I would have hoped that Canon had recognized this as very important to their customer base and made sure that the R was the best in its class.
>> The general consensus is that there are not enough gaskets and protective measures at the seams <<
The "general consensus" is meaningless - it's idiot chatter. People don't understand engineering well enough to comment, like when they assume that metal components are necessarily better than plastic. It's a new camera, one particular body had a problem - that's all any reasonable person can say. As the number of gaskets, you really need to look at a design closely - maybe the number of failure points has been reduced?
It's possible. When I say that there aren't enough protective measures, I compare Canon to the rather abysmal sealing on the Sony. If you look closely, the same attention to detail is there, which disappoints me as Canon know's what they're doing. The plastic vs metal doesn't phase me- I'm sure that an industry giant knows better than me, an internet gremlin smashing away at my keyboard, so I'm more than happy to take their word for it. I want to see how Canon addresses this; If they claim it's a fault with the unit, then that's great. However, if they acknowledge some flaw, that leaves them room to improve on it in their Pro model coming out in 2019.
However, I am more than happy- hoping, actually- that this is just a flaw with one camera. It's nice to see Canon finally pursuing this interesting field, and I hope to see the overall mirrorless market develop and innovate with the new competition.
>>It's possible. When I say that there aren't enough protective measures, I compare Canon to the rather abysmal sealing on the Sony. If you look closely, the same attention to detail is there<<
This is complete BS. You can't tell the quality of a seal just by looking it - the type of material used the seal can be critical, and so can eg the stage it's put on at manufacture (eg if it's exposed to solvents.)
At least Canon didn't price this first camera at a professional level (*cough NIKON *cough) so hopefully they'll have these things in order by the time they get around to releasing those. Either way, these companies better get up to speed real quickly because it's not as if the rest of the market is going to wait around for them.
yeah, but Nikon is launching TWO bodies, the other one being 2000$ and blowing Canon R out of the water in every possible way
I guess we'll see when it comes out, won't we? My big gripe with Nikon is the absolute dumb decision to launch a $3000+ body with f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms... What kind of person purchases a body like that to attach low end lenses to it?
You seem very poorly informed about Nikon's S lenses.
I'm sorry... Are we back in the 1950's where we might consider f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms to be high end—particularly on that gigantic mount that can easily support f/1.2 primes (and probably f/2 zooms, if Canon can do it with their smaller mount)?
If the 50mm f1.8 S is a low end lens as far as sharpness is concerned, please show me what a high end lens is as I struggle to find another 50 with better computed MTF figures throughout the frame at f1.8 (and if the Nikon 35mm f1.8 is any indication, there's a pretty good translation from computed MTF to real-world performance with Nikon's S lenses). Actually, it's not a great idea to compare published MTF figures across manufacturers but let's do it anyway : nope, not even the Leica 50mm APO can match the Nikon in the corners.
BTW, the 50mm f1.8 S makes full use of the new mount's width and back focus distance : its rear element is at least as large as the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF's one (which BTW has so much mechanical vignetting that it isn't much of an f1.2 lens. More like an f1.2 lens in the very centre of the frame only). A large mount isn't just there to make fast lenses, it can also benefit slower lenses.
Don't bring up OOF rendering into the equation : the Canon 50mm f1.2 has lots of issues in that area (way too much astigmatism, and an excessively perfect correction of spherical aberration) so even if Nikon screwed up the 50mm S's OOF rendering, it won't be worse than the Canon.
Basically, that Nikon lens is most likely going to be at least as good as the Canon if not better at the equivalent aperture, and costs €1850 less.
The 24-70mm f4 S is sharper across the frame and has less CA than any standard zoom from Nikon before it.
Same goes for the 35mm f1.8 S.
Basically : you will struggle big time to find much better corrected lenses than Nikon's S lenses to put on a Z7.
I like your photos a lot, but trust me : they won't benefit one bit from a 50mm f1.2 or a 28-70mm f2 lens. Mines neither.
You're certainly correct that my photos won't benefit from a 50 f/1.2 for my personal work since I'm mainly shooting at around f/8-f/16 unless it's in low light conditions and even in low light conditions, IBIS now allows me to keep some level of DoF. Even the shallower DoF stuff on my website is shot at f/2 and above since I was mainly using a Helios 44M for those.
For my portrait work or when I go photograph events, f/1.2 would be a helpful option to have and preferable to boosting my already high ISO in the latter case.
Sharpness is not nothing, but it's not everything either. Yes, OOF rendition is a matter of personal taste so I won't bother making that argument, but basic light gathering ability and options with DoF are not—you either have them or you don't. I get that cameras perform at absurdly high ISO's now, but even so, Nikon themselves aren't considering the f/1.8 to be a high end lens. They're releasing an f/1.4 and even an absurdly expensive and impractical f/0.95 because they know that sensor performance isn't a replacement for the physics of gathering more light from the start.
Nikon's current mount allows them to design better f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses so why would they release their more expensive body with their lower end lenses? It would make more sense to either release the expensive body to coincide with their higher end lenses or release the Z6 first (or even better, a $1000-1500 body) with the f/1.8 lenses. In general, people who are spending $3000+ for a camera body are also not the same market that are looking to buy relatively slow lenses (I say "relatively" because both you and I know that an f/1.8 lens is probably fine in the vast majority of scenarios.).
Regardless of the actual performance of the lens, I stand by my assertion that it's just a nonsensical business decision. BTW, I actually preferred Nikon's 50mm f/1.8G over the 58mm f/1.4G for just about everything, but I still wouldn't consider the 50mm to be higher end than the 58. It's just that the 58 was very good in specific situations and weak everywhere else while the 50 was more of a jack-of-all-trades.
I think that it's a misconception that the Z7 and Z6 were launched at a different time. It's rather a staggered release, possibly because of how production is managed, but both bodies were announced on the same day and they start to ship only two months appart or so. So a very different picture than the launches of the A7RIII and A7III, or the R and ??? (insert other Canon R camera here).
The launch S lenses make perfect sense for the Z6 and Z7 : their size and weight is dead on well balanced with the bodies, their resolution largely enough to show off what the Z7's 45mp sensor can do, and the price is low enough to make sense with the Z6. If Nikon had, let's say, launched the 50mm f1.2 for €2500, it's as if the system wouldn't have had a 50mm for Z6 owners (and actually I don't even think that that many Z7 owners would have bought it anyway).
Nikon's roadmap corresponds perfectly to what some online stores here in France keep in stock vs. what they have on "special order" :D. Basically, other than the 0.95 50mm, it's a roadmap that strives to be useful to most photographers and not bother too much for the first few years with niche use cases, unlike what Canon is trying to achieve with RF lenses.
So the smart thing for Nikon to do would have been to start shipping the Z6 first and then the Z7 shortly afterward because then they would catch less flames about sending out the $3000+ both with an f/1.8 lens.
If they were concerned about affordability and being useful to MOST photographers, they should have gone a step further and started out with a body in the $1000-$1500 range, which is where MOST photographers who buy a dedicated camera will shop. It's just the optics of it all...
Yes, a f/1.2 lens is a niche product, but I would argue that so is a 45-megapixel camera.
>> So the smart thing for Nikon to do would have been to start shipping the Z6 first and then the Z7 shortly afterward because then they would catch less flames about sending out the $3000+ both with an f/1.8 lens.<<
This assumes that Nikon's main objective is to avoid negative comments from people who don't understand the technical side of photography but insist on commenting on it. More realistically, they probably don't give a damn. The Z7's debut has been astonishing: it's the first time I'd really consider buying buying one of their cameras.
May I ask what exactly you found so "astonishing" about the Z7 that caused you to finally consider Nikon when a better camera like the D850 failed to do so?
Mr. Jin,
I wanted to ask you about the new R mount 28-70 f/2. I hear people raving about it all the time, but I'm not sure why. I am not downplaying the performance of the lens- I simply don't understand why this is such a large technological innovation over current lenses on the market, such as Canon's own 24-70 f/2.8 L.
I find it to be a "niche product" to quote your own words, but that may simply be because I am not informed enough to understand the practical application of the lens. I feel that Canon's time may have been better spent creating more equivalent to their common lenses (such as the 16-35 f/2.8, or the wonderful 70-200 f/4) on their mirrorless systems.
I would greatly appreciate your reply!
I think the big excitement comes from the fact that traditionally speaking (and still to a degree), buying a zoom lens meant compromising your image quality and light gathering ability for versatility. While the gap in image quality has decreased significantly over time, light gathering ability had hit a wall.
For someone shooting events, for instance, the versatility of a zoom lens is generally preferable to a prime lens. That having been said, lots of events take place in dimly lit spaces where light gathering ability of high end prime lenses shine. Many events also don't allow flash photography, which forces photographers to bump up their ISO's quite high even with wide open apertures.
While an f/2 zoom lens will still not match a prime lens, it's an entire stop of light that you're gaining over the previous professional zoom lenses, which were f/2.8. This brings you a lot closer toward bridging that performance gap, whether it be in the area of light gathering or subject separation. Whereas before you were 2 full stops away from an f/1.4 prime, now you're only 1 stop away. In addition to the benefit to the final image, using a brighter lens will generally also help your focusing performance in low light situations since your camera will have more light to work with.
I'm not going to go so far to say that it's a technological innovation since it's just leveraging our current optical technology to take advantage of a new mount and registration distance, but it's still progress and seeing products that were not available before is always exciting.
The limit at 28mm is a bit rough for those that like to shoot wider, but I'm guessing that it was a necessary compromise to maintain the constant f/2 while keeping the lens to a reasonable size and weight. Personally, I would be fine with it since I'm pretty rarely in a situation where I'm shooting below 28mm, but also need to quickly switch to a normal focal length. I guess this is a personal use thing, though. I won't pretend that a 24-70mm f/2, if possible, would have been more useful for more people.
As for your view that Canon should essentially be re-creating their existing lenses, that's what adapters are for and re-creating existing lenses would not be taking full advantage of the new mount. They're creating an f/2 zoom because they can now do better than an f/2.8 zoom. Without leveraging the full abilities of their new system, there's less differentiation between their MILC line and DSLR line. If you're going to go and devalue several decades worth of lenses by switching up your mount, you'd better at least give a damned good reason for doing so.
A person who wants a relatively compact and lightweight kit. On seeing Canon's R lens roadmap, I asked myself, "What kind of person purchases a compact mirrorless body like that to attach ginormous f1.2 primes and f2 zooms to it?"
All of the people who are left over who haven't jumped ship to Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, or Olympus (all systems which already have compact bodies with excellent optics)?
Canon's mirrorless camera isn't exactly "compact"... at least not by MILC standards. Most of the holdouts are people who have been complaining about how compact MILC cameras are and how the ergonomics of them suck. I think the vast majority of them would have been even happier with a full DSLR sized body sans mirror.
So yeah... I don't think either Canon or Nikon are playing to the "compact" crowd. If small and light were important to you, you'd probably have switched well before Canon or Nikon's debut in the MILC realm.
For full disclosure, I happen to be one of those people who was waiting for a larger MILC body. At this point, I've begrudgingly traded in my D850 for a Sony even despite the inferior ergonomics and some other gripes simply because I thought the Z7 and Nikon's announced lens roadmap was complete garbage, At the same time, however, I did like the idea of being able to adapt my older manual focus glass to a full frame mirrorless camera and take advantage of IBIS and focus peaking as opposed to looking off frame for a green confirmation dot... I'll be the first to admit that I'm not entirely satisfied with the A7RIII, but I'll revisit the issue once Canon and Nikon's product line have matured somewhat. Or maybe by then, Sony will go ahead and address some of the gripes that I have in the course of their own product development.
Seriously, though. All Nikon needed to do was release a D850 without a mirror and they would have had me. How they managed to screw it all up is beyond my understanding.
Out of curiosity, what was your reason for going from D850 to Sony? The D850 is an outstanding camera - what impelled you to switch? Or put another way, why not just go on using the D850?
It was a combination of things. First of all, I was in the process of building out the higher end of my lens collection when this whole DSLR vs. MILC thing really got heated. It's pretty clear that MILC is where the market is going so while I didn't really like the current options, I was also reluctant to start shelling out $2000+ for lenses to go on bodies that are on their way to being phased out at this particular point. I also have a lot of manual focus lenses that I have been using with some aggravation (focus confirmation dots are not fun in moving scenes) on DSLR's and MILC seemed like a great way to make them a lot easier to use. My preference, of course, was to stay with Nikon if possible since I've pretty much only owned Nikon cameras and lenses aside from a Leicaflex SL, which was my first camera and a brief stint with a Canon EOS 1v. So I waited for Nikon's mirrorless announcement.
While the Z mount looks incredibly promising and I love the ergonomics of the Z7, it was pretty clear immediately after that there were some key issues of concern both for an MILC and a camera in general. Despite the whole "slot-gate" pushback, I maintain that a $3000 body should have two card slots. The AF ability, buffer, and battery life were lacking, which was disappointing (again, for a $3000 body). The biggest kick in the teeth, though, was Nikon's announced lens roadmap and the lenses that they released with. While I am confident in the performance of the FTZ adapter, one of the whole reasons that I was looking to make a switch in the first place was that I was building out my high end lenses, but I didn't want to invest in "dying technology". Nikon made the decision to release lower end lenses at absurd prices and their lens roadmap just didn't cut it for me in terms of filling out the higher end of their line in a timely fashion. There's also the development cycle to consider and I don't see Nikon replacing the Z7 for at least a few years, meaning that's where they're stuck for a while unless they really want to piss off their customers like Sony did with their constant refreshing in the early days.
Yes, I could have stuck with my D850 for at least the next 5 years, but frankly speaking, when I traded it in, it was still sold out in stores (I don't know if this is the case) so it wasn't getting any more valuable than at that point. The same goes for my collection of G-series and E-series lenses. It was unlikely that they would be as valuable 5 years down the road as they are now when DSLR's are still the dominant (albeit shrinking) force in the market. The A7RIII is pretty much the MILC equivalent to the D850 in performance (or at least as close as you're going to get at this point) so I chose to buy the A7RIII and wait it out in Sony land for the next generation or two. This way, all of my gear is in a system that's not likely to lose a ton of value—at least not as much as one that's being phased out—while I can still benefit from today's MILC technology for my adapted lenses as well as the fact that Sony pretty much already has their lens line-up built out at this point so that nothing is lacking in terms of prime lenses. It's the best compromise that I could think of. Add in the fact that Sony was having a promotion for trading in cameras for a discount and that made the pill easier to swallow.
So it wasn't really a lack of love for the D850 or DSLR's in general that compelled me to switch. It was mainly a business/investment decision combined with my own opinions of what's currently going on in the camera industry. If digital photography was a static technology, then that would probably change things and I might have just hung onto the D850 and continued to buy lenses for it. The problem is that we're not talking about a mechanical film camera like the F2 here. A DSLR will eventually stop working and you won't be able to repair it. Frankly, the same goes for modern lenses, which are driven so much by their electronics. Once the support dies down and parts become unavailable, you're just sitting on garbage. I'd rather refresh and keep up to date when possible (for digital) just because of that.
When I switched, I spoke pretty openly about it and I freely admit that I might look back on that day and completely regret the decision because I DO think that Nikon's Z-mount has a lot more promise than the E-mount despite the fact that Sony is leading in sensor design. Nikon also has far better ergonomics and weather sealing. It's really only a matter of time before Nikon MILC's become a really desirable option for me—especially so with my personal Nikon bias. I'm not a freaking prophet or an expert in this stuff. I'm just trying to navigate an extremely awkward time in the photo industry as best as I can while getting flamed from all sides along the way. LOL
Have you seen the size of many of Sony's lenses? Big.
I know. And the Sigmas are generally adapted DSLR designs, so bigger than necessary. Sony's new 24/1.4 is a step in the right direction. I also noted that Sigma has said it will develop new mirrorless-specific designs for L-mount. I imagine they'll produce Z, E and R-mount versions as well.
Ryan Stone- No matter how much you rag on the Nikon Z7, lots of people have already bought it and are enjoying using them. The autofocus is not bad as you think. I doubt you even tried it. Here's a youtube video about Z7 and shooting birds-in-flight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQFPjvIBQfE&t=1s
The autofocus works and BIF shooting is one of the most difficult form of photography, even more demanding than shooting people in a wedding. He got lots of keepers. And the keeper rate is high. While its not as good as the D850 for BIF, the Z7 can definitely get the job done. Mark Smith said the people complaining abput the autofocus are probably using the wrong setting or combination of settings. I often visit dpreview and fredmiranda.com and some people even say the Z7 is even better than the D850 in some types of photography except sports/BIF where the EOS-R also struggles. I've watched lots of videos about Nikon Z7, EOS-R and most of the people complaining are the youtubers or those who don't know what they are doing. However, we can't deny the fact that both the EOS-R and Z7 are underwhelming releases considering the fact that the Sony A7iii and the Fuji XT-3 give you more bang for your buck. Of course I know you'll say 'whatever, the EOS-R is better and the Z7 is half-baked' BUT the truth is that the EOS-R is also half-baked no matter how much you deny it. Its selling for 300 more than the Sony A7iii and Nikon Z6 but with less features (No the Z7 is the equivalent of the A7Riii). But then again the fanboys will buy their brand of choice regardless of other people's opinion. And you don't need all the features found on the new Sonys anyway. That being said, The Fuji XT-3 is the camera of the year for me.
If the Z7 was the equivalent of the A7RIII, I'd have traded in my D850 for a Z7 instead of an A7RIII. I can tell you for a fact that it most certainly is not the equivalent of an A7RIII nor is it the equivalent of the D850. It's a worse camera in just about every way than either of those two despite being priced higher than both.
This is coming from someone who's been extremely loyal to Nikon up until this point and who still shoots Nikon for film photography. I would have loved it if Nikon stepped up and delivered. They didn't. Now the question is how long we have to wait until the successor of the Z7 appears.
Specs and performance yes the Z7 is not the same as the A7Riii/D850.. Its more on the resolution.
Agree, but I don’t get the “need to get up to speed” they’ve had years to prepare for this first release and years of watching Sony shoot up from under them. How much time do they need?
I think this is one of those instances where you run into the fact that theory is different from practice. Sony got lots of practical experience (and a lot of crap) by putting products out into the wild to undergo all sorts of different use cases and to their credit, they did it well before the technology was really ready for prime time.
Canon and Nikon have tons of experience and the benefit of watching, but no matter how well you design a product, the tests that you do inside of a lab and the results that you get from the handful of people that you put development versions into the hands of is only going to give you so much data for what kind of issues are liable to crop up. When I say "get up to speed", I mean that they are going to have to iterate and learn from their mistakes much quicker than Sony did because now the competition is real. Now that these cameras are out in the real world and in the hands of real users, they're going to be going through a lot that these companies could not have foreseen. The hope that Canon and Nikon would simply learn from Sony and knock it out of the park right away was far fetched. The best they could have hoped for was products that reasonably compete with the current-generation Sony offerings with the promise that there's a higher ceiling in the capability of their mounts than what Sony is capable of.
It's pretty rare that the first generation of a product really knocks it out of the park so for me, the big question is going to be what kind of development cycle Canon and Nikon are planning for these bodies because if it's a 4-5 year wait for the next version as it is for their DSLR's, they're pretty screwed. In Canon's case, since they released the lower end version first, it might give them some last minute opportunities to pivot for their high end camera. For Nikon, they made the unfortunate decision to release their higher end camera first (with lower end glass in some nonsensical decision) so I'm not really sure what they're going to do—especially since they have less available resources than Canon. Hopefully the Z6 will improve meaningfully over the Z7, which has been rather lackluster.
The “get up to speed” was not specifically directed at you, though it appears so by the way I wrote it. It was more an exasperated evacuation of frustration. But your response is true. Cheers
Not to mention making the number 1 selling mirrorless system with the eos m
So one top panel LCD cracked and it's the end of the world? You guys must be desperate for content.
As for the other issue, hopefully Canon will have a response and it's just a software bug they can fix with a firmware update. How it got through testing I don't know but I wouldn't lose hope yet.
Surely they also tested how rugged it was and how stong the LCD panel was in its fitting....?
Probably 90% of my college students in Japan have cracked smartphone screens. 99.9999% of them got them from misuse and abuse. The issue in question here is that the user who reported his LCD crack on his EOS R said no misuse, abuse or handling errors had occurred. Big difference.
Aside from that, thanks for your input. I’m glad your experiences have been positive. A quick glance around the internet and others don’t quite share your enthusiasm. I hope this camera is the first in a line of wonderful developments and I’m happy to hear a few people like yourself giving greater balance to real world use with the EOS R.
the first youtuber who cracked their smartphone screen never admits abuse. they always try to blame the manufacturer.
that said, just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true. average people don't make youtube videos claiming how "meh" they are about something. one anecdote from a fanboy a trend it does not make.
Ryan Stone - I own the "R". Either you don't own it, or I own a different camera than you. For almost every positive thing thing you say about the EOS R, I would rate it as medium to mediocre. I also own 5D4 and A7R3, both of these cameras are substantially better cameras than the poor focusing, low framerate, video hobbled EOS R