Canon EOS R Review

2018 was a big year for mirrorless cameras with Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic all announcing their first full-frame mirrorless systems. Nikon struck first when it released the Nikon Z-series cameras in the summer, but Canon wasn’t too far behind when they introduced the EOS R a couple of months later. Over the years, Canon has gotten the reputation of a company that likes to sit on its eggs a little too long and certainly an argument can be made that their first entry into the full-frame mirrorless market has come comparatively late. After-all, it usually takes two or three generations of cameras to finally get things right and with other camera companies like Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Leica already having years of experience in mirrorless technology, Canon doesn’t have the privilege of a head start.

Therefore, it was vital for them to not only develop a reliable, ready-to-go camera system right from the start but to also allow existing EF mount lenses full compatibility without any serious drawbacks and limitations. With the EOS R, Canon avoided the trend of introducing separate pro and entry-level bodies (Like the Sony A7 / A7R or Nikon Z6 / Z7) and has instead chosen to go with just one entry-level full-frame model.

The EOS R is based around the familiar 30.3-megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor which it shares with the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR. The sensor is integrated with Canon’s impressive Dual Pixel CMOS AF system, which has a whopping 5655 selectable AF points covering 88% frame horizontally and 100% vertically. Notably, the focus is said to work down to -6 EV when used with an f/1.2 lens and -3 EV with an f/2.8 lens. The camera also has 5 fps burst shooting with continuous AF, a 3.69 Million dot electronic viewfinder with 0.76x magnification alongside a fully-articulated 3.15″ touchscreen, one SD card slot, and 4k video with 10-bit output externally over HDMI.

With mirrorless technology being the future, it was critical for Canon to put enough time and resources into making a highly desirable, future-proof camera system that will one day replace their EOS DSLRs. Canon has always understood that high-performance lenses must accompany a strong camera system, and it put many resources into designing the new RF lens mount. With a large 54mm inner diameter and a short flange-back distance of just 20mm, the new RF mount allows Canon’s engineers to construct optics with larger rear elements and better performance than their EF counterparts, such as the superb RF 50mm f/1.2L USM. Canon is clearly placing much emphasis on building a robust lens ecosystem, with four RF lenses already released and six more on the way in 2019.

With just a handful of RF lenses available upon launch, it was imperative for Canon to find a way to integrate existing EF lens kits alongside their first full-frame mirrorless camera. Using a mount adapter was the obvious choice, as it allowed Canon to design the entirely new and more advantageous RF lens mount while still maintaining complete functionality with existing EF lenses.

Unsurprisingly, when the Canon EOS R was first released, the first accessory available was the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R. The Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R is a simple adapter which allows you to use all Canon EF, EF-S and TS-E lenses on RF-mount cameras. It provides full autofocus and autoexposure support along with a weather-sealed design. The second adapter is the EF-EOS R Control Ring Mount Adapter which offers similar functionality as the EF-EOS R, but adds a Lens Control Ring. Lastly, there is the EF-EOS R Drop-In Filter Adapters which remove the need to fit an ND or Polarizing filter on the front of the lens mounted onto the adapter. This makes it especially useful for using wide-angle EF lenses that traditionally don’t accept filters due to their bulbous front elements.

Canon EOS R Specifications

To see the complete specifications of the Canon EOS R, please see this page on Canon.com.

Canon EOS R vs Canon 5D Mark IV

On paper, the EOS R seems like a mirrorless version of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV and the two cameras have quite a few similarities, but there are also some critical differences between the two. The most obvious difference is in their unique underlying technologies – the Canon EOS R is a mirrorless camera that feeds the image directly from the image sensor into an electronic viewfinder (EVF), whereas the Canon 5D Mark IV is a DSLR camera that reflects the image through a pentaprism to an optical viewfinder (OVF). This not only affects the overall size and weight, with the 5D Mark IV being both bigger and heavier, but it also completely changes how the two operate in the field.

A second notable difference is that the two cameras have entirely different mounts. The EOS R has the new Canon RF mount, whereas the 5D Mark IV has the older Canon EF mount. This has a big effect on what lenses you can use with the two cameras. The EOS 5D Mark IV relies on a vast selection of Canon EF lens, whereas the EOS R can only natively mount new Canon RF lenses, which are limited to a total of four at the moment (Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L USM IS, Canon 28-70mm f/2L USM, Canon 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro and the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L) and six upcoming lenses set for release in 2019. To use EF-mount lenses on the EOS R, you need to use the Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R which allows you to use all Canon EF, EF-S and TS-E lenses on RF-mount cameras.

Third, the mirrorless design and electronic viewfinder have the distinct advantage of showing you a live feed of your exposure and camera settings at all times. This “what you see is what you get” approach allows for much greater control over your exposure and final image. For this reason, the EOS R offers some distinct advantages over the 5D Mark IV for landscape, travel, interior and street photography.

On the other hand, there are some serious drawbacks to this design which mostly affect the EOS R’s performance for sports and action photography. The EVF suffers from a minor lag in the video feed when an image is taken, and this significantly handicaps your ability to keep track of a fast-paced subject as it moves across the frame. When it comes to their autofocus characteristics, the EOS R’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF system which features 5655 AF points covering 88% frame horizontally and 100% vertically allows for much greater reach across the entirety of the frame compared to the 5D Mark IV whose AF points are mostly clustered around the center of the frame.

This extreme coverage makes focusing techniques like Back-Button Focus almost superfluous on the EOS R and allows for greater compositional freedom. Nevertheless, when it comes to which camera is best able to track a moving subject across the frame consistently, the nod goes to the 5D Mark IV whose excellent autofocus system is better able to keep up with erratic subjects.

The 5D Mark IV advantage for sports photography also extends to its burst speeds of 7 fps, which while not groundbreaking, is still better than the EOS R’s 5 fps (without live view) and 3 fps (with live view). In the EOS R’s benefit is a deeper buffer depth of 60+ RAW images with a UHS-II SD card compared to just 21 images on the 5D Mark IV with a CF card. Overall, you’ll find the 5D Mark IV’s optical viewfinder / AF system to be more effective than the EVF / Dual Pixel CMOS AF combination of the EOS R for sports and action photography.

Fourth, the two cameras feature different controls and ergonomics. The 5D Mark IV makes full use of its larger size and traditional controls to offer an almost seamless handling experience. Comparatively, the EOS R features an experimental control layout with no Mode dial but rather a Mode button on the right-hand side. It also forgoes the dedicated AF joystick and Canon’s rear thumbwheel.

The EOS R does, however, feature the Multi-Function Touch Bar. It is an innovative button that offers a high degree of customization, but an impractical one that feels awkward in use. Overall, the EOS R feels a lot less intuitive to use compared to the 5D Mark IV. The 5D Mark IV also benefits from having twin card slots, a longer battery life (even though the two share the same battery) and a more robust weather sealing.

Fifth, the EOS R has improved video specifications compared to the 5D Mark IV, with a more efficient codec, C-log recording options and the option to output 10-bit Log footage to an external recorder over HDMI. The EOS R also has a fully-articulated flip screen whereas the 5D IV’s screen is fixed in place.

Canon EOS R vs Sony A7 III Comparison

Comparing the Sony A7 III, now in its third-generation, to the EOS R is a relatively one-sided affair as Sony has had a lot of time to refine the A7 III and we recently ranked it as overall the best mirrorless camera on the market.

Ergonomically, the two cameras offer some distinct advantages but the nod goes to the A7 III. The A7 series suffered from poor ergonomics and handling during its first two iterations but the A7 III rectified most of those problems. Sony’s inclusion of a dedicated AF joystick and improved button placement goes a long way in making the A7 III a relatively easy camera to use. The Sony camera also benefits from deeper button customization options compared to the EOS R whose customization potential has been heavily handicapped by Canon. In some respects, Canon could learn a lot from Sony here and would do well to add a dedicated AF joystick, dual SD card slots, better button placement and less limited button customization on future releases.

Not everything is perfect with the A7 III’s ergonomics, with its relatively mushy button feedback, weak touchscreen implementation, and poor menus all coming to mind. These specific issues are much better on the EOS R, which has excellent touchscreen implementation, good button feedback, and Canon’s intuitive menu. The EOS R also benefits from having a larger and more detailed EVF (3.68 million dots compared to the A7 III’s 2.36 million dots). A feature sorely missing from the EOS R compared to the A7 III is in-body image stabilization. This is an essential feature that makes the A7 III much better suited for shooting in low light environments.

When it comes to their autofocus performance, the A7 III provides some definite advantages. The 693-point phase-detection autofocus system used on the A7 III offers an excellent subject tracking performance that is more reliable than that of the EOS R. The Canon EOS R does quite well in many respects, but its performance can be quite erratic at times. The frame rate of the Sony camera is also better than the Canon, with the A7 III capable of shooting at 10 fps (8 fps with live view) compared to the EOS R’s 5 fps (3 fps with live view).

An essential aspect of both the camera’s autofocus is Face Detection AF. Here, Sony’s push-button implementation is excellent, and its ability to identify and consistently follow your subjects’ eye while in Continuous AF is hugely impressive. In comparison, Canon’s Pupil Detection only works in Single Shot AF, and it doesn’t manage to perform with the same consistency as the Sony. That said, when it does work, it’s capable of nailing the eye of your subjects’ eyes even when you’re using an f/1.2 max aperture lens which is very nice.

Resolution-wise, the Canon EOS R features a 30.3-megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor compared to the Sony A7 III’s 24.2-megapixel full-frame BSI CMOS sensor. The Canon EOS R relies on the older CMOS sensor technology, which means that the Sony A7 III is technically superior. That said, both cameras are capable of excellent image quality. When comparing their video specifications, the Sony is the clear winner, as it can shot 4K video with no crop while the Canon derives its video from a 1.83x cropped region of its sensor. Both cameras can shoot 8-bit Log footage internally, and the Canon EOS R will also output 10-bit Log footage through an external recorder. In 1080p, the A7 III can record up to 120 fps with sound while on the EOS R you need to go down to 720p to get the similar slow-motion recording. Overall, for video recording, the A7 III wins hands down.

Overall, the Sony A7 III is the clear winner, as it beats the EOS R in almost every category. If you have a lot of EF lenses and desire to stay within the Canon ecosystem, there is a case to be made for the EOS R; otherwise, the A7 III is the way to go.

Canon EOS R vs Nikon Z6 Comparison

Another relevant comparison is between the Canon EOS R and the Nikon Z6 (see our in-depth Nikon Z6 review). Both cameras feature brand new lens mounts though Nikon decided to go for a much larger 55mm inner diameter and a very short flange distance of 16mm for its Z mirrorless system, while Canon decided to keep its mount size identical to the EF mount at 54mm. However, Canon also changed the flange distance to 20mm to be closer to the image sensor and reduce the overall size of the camera. You can argue that the Nikon has an advantage with a more substantial mount and a shorter flange distance, but I doubt this difference will prove meaningful in terms of potential lens design possibilities for either mount.

Ergonomically, the two cameras share some similarities though the two differ in how they handle. Both cameras feature one storage card slot though the EOS R takes SD cards while the Nikon Z6 uses the potentially faster XQD cards. A major difference between the two cameras is that the Nikon Z6 offers in-body image stabilization while Canon chose to forgo this on the EOS R. This gives the Nikon a major advantage when shooting in low light environments and even on a windy day when using a tripod. Some of the Canon RF lenses have in-lens image stabilization but currently of the four released RF lenses only two have this feature. This also plays a major role for video making where the lack of image stabilization on the EOS R places it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Z6.

Where the EOS R outclasses the Z6 is in its impressive implementation of Dual Pixel AF technology. With a whopping 5,655 autofocus points and face detection AF (albeit only in Single-Shot AF), the EOS R has good autofocus capabilities. It can struggle at times in continuous autofocus and its Face Detection AF is still a work in progress but there’s certainly quite a bit to work with here.

In comparison, our assessment of the Z6 indicates that Nikon also struggles in continuous AF tracking, and its Face Detection also needs to be refined quite a bit to bring it up to modern standards we have come accustomed to with some cameras from Sony and Fuji. Just a quick side note, Nikon recently announced that it is actively working on new firmware for the Z6 / Z7 cameras that will introduce eye tracking.

Resolution-wise, the Canon EOS R’s features a 30.3-megapixel full-frame CMOS sensor compared to the Nikon Z6’s 24.5-megapixels full-frame BSI CMOS sensor. The Canon relies on the older CMOS sensor technology, which means that the Nikon camera is able to capture more dynamic range and better high ISO images. That said, the differences between CMOS and BSI CMOS in terms of overall performance in the real world are not all that great and both cameras are capable of excellent image quality.

When comparing their video specifications, the Nikon is the clear winner as it can shot 4K video with no crop while the Canon derives its video from a 1.83x cropped region of its sensor. At the same time, vloggers will certainly appreciate the fully-articulating flip screen of the EOS R over the Nikon’s tilting screen. Both cameras will output 10-bit Log footage to an external recorder via HDMI.