It can be useful to have a crop in video mode and some cameras do offer an option for this but the problem with the Canon is that you can't shoot using the full sensor so that's no wide angle with native lenses (you'd need to use an adapted EF-S lens instead) and you lose some of the benefit for having a large sensor.
Yes, I understood that. But was looking at the glass half full position...
For my speciific possible requirements I see this 4K video 1.7x crop as a bonus for telephoto use photographing wildlife and anyway have an EF-S 15-85mm if I needed wideish angle video (25.5-144mm equivalent if I understand this correctly) which would give this lens a new lease of life (and could possibly improve it's 2nd hand value too ).
I don't follow however why a very wide angle lens can't also be used as even with the 4K 1.7x crop they can still be fairly wide. If so, my EF 16-35mm F4 L (27.2-59.5mm after the crop?) would give similar wide angle but higher quality results to an EF-S lens.And both have IS so lack of IBIS is not really such an issue for them.
@snerkler re the R slow fps there seems a possible workaround albeit producing small images. If it is anything like the 5DIV shooting 4K video "effectively provides a way to shoot 30fps 8.8MP stills with full autofocus" Striding Forth: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Review by grabbing frames from a 4K video for stills "The files, equivalent to captures from an 8.8 MP camera and in the form of a JPEG file that is approximately 25 MB in size, can be printed with excellent results up to 13” x 19” and 17” x 20.” In my comparative tests, prints in the 19-20” range made from the 25 MB frame-capture files cannot be distinguished from prints derived from larger files.". Canon DLC: Article: Stills from Video: 4K Video Frame Grabs
Taking all this together, on the R a 500mm lens due to the 4K video crop factor is effectively 850mm and photos can be taken (albeit only 4K ones) at 30fps. Which is nice...
Taking all this together, on the R a 500mm lens due to the 4K video crop factor is effectively 850mm and photos can be taken (albeit only 4K ones) at 30fps. Which is nice...
But still behind the competition. With the A7III you can choose whether you want that 500mm lens to do 4K at 500mm or at 750mm. You can actually use your 16-35 as a super wide angle. The 8mp 30 FPS stills will also be better in some cases as a result of over sampling.
More to the point if you want to get a shallow depth of field for artistic reasons you can use that L glass the way it was intended rather than ending up with something closer to micro four thirds. On anything other than autofocus - a GH5 with the choice of a straight adaptor or speed booster spanks this for video with better light gathering / depth of field control and the ability to do those 8mp images at 60fps or to do 18mp at 30fps.
Don’t get me wrong the EOS R is a perfectly competent camera that used right will give great results - it’s just that it is under spec’d and / or overpriced compared to the competition.
Aye, there's the rub...
I've looked at Panasonic in the past and the most used criticism against them is the auto focus. Add to that the 2x multiplier with everything, both wide and long, for stills. I've also doubts on the wisdom of hanging heavy lenses on a mount which was never designed for that weight. Which perhaps indicates native lenses are a better bet. But M4/3 lacks cheapish good wide angle choice and has a limited choice at the long end where I would want the 2X multiplier with only the 100-400 lens adding anything over my Tamron 150-600mm. But going native lenses adds considerably to the price and I'm already getting a 1.6X multiplier with my APS-C Canon.
Sony would have been my choice on paper specs if the R hadn't been announced. But now it has, its put the cat amongst the pigeons. However with both Sony and M4/3 bodies there is also the issue of ergonomics @snerkler mentioned previously. Personally I find small bodies (with big lenses) uncomfortable to the extent I've always used battery grips on Canon 600D, 750D, and 6D so I can get all fingers folded onto the grip rather than have one sticking out at the bottom with nothing to hold on to.
And all of those models are larger in the first place without a grip than the Sony and Panasonic alternatives. I got a Sony A6000 a few years back to put my toe in the mirrorless world but auto focus on Canon lenses proved disappointing and manual focusing them (which was my initial thoughts) just didn't work out either really due to the low res EVF. Ergonomics drawbacks too.
Under spec'd possibly as with overpriced, but add in the cost of decent lens adaptors the prices for just the bodies using adapted lenses get very close as I mentioned above. And going to native lenses for the alternatives adds a huge amount into the equation. Around 2X-3X or more to the cost of an R body and keeping Canon lenses. I've been waiting years for a mirrorless 6D with a better sensor and AF to come along and now it has, just like buses, a lot of other alternative rides have pulled into the bus stop...
I don't really need anything until next year but with Brexit there is uncertainty to the exchange rate and how prices will go, so maybe best to get something by Christmas.
So £2.3K for an R vs £5K-£6K for an alternative setup using native lenses. It's a difficult choice to justify. But for those without existing Canon lenses a much easier one.If I was starting out from scratch I'd probably go with Sony A7III/A7RIII and native lenses (but there is the ergonomics issue) or Nikon Z6/Z7. At the moment though I'm swaying more to better the devil you know, than the grass is greener...:image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
The problem is rival cameras can do all this and they can also do high quality full frame capture as well, buying a full frame camera to use with APS-C lenses for reduced video quality doesn't really make any sense particularly when the camera is weak at other video aspects as well.There's simply no getting around the fact that Canon intentionally crippled the camera for video.
John
Seems OK for 1080p video so they haven't 'crippled' everything....
As I noted previously APS-C lens aren't a requirement for 4K video, far from it. Any EF FF lens like a 16-35mmor 24-70mm etc will do as well AFAIK. The only reason this is being raised as an issue is perhaps because vloggers don't want to shell out the $$$$ for decent super wide lenses or can't sit a little bit further away from the camera...
Perhaps orangutans should take up vlogging as with their extra long arms they could hold a 1.7X crop RF 24-105mm lens far enough away to nicely frame their faces 
Maybe this fellow is the ultimate evolutionary form of vloggers...
https://www.avforums.com/data/attachments/986/986957-531f0a855b5ad5af58291b081a5bbcac.jpg
However, is a 4K crop of the sensor in a FF camera any worse than a camera which just uses a 4K sized sensor in the first place? The Canon EOS Cinema C200 4K video camera has a similar sized pixel dimension sensor ("Approx. 8.85 megapixels (4096 x 2160) to the R crop. Is that crippled for video too...
Is there really such a difference between the 1.5X crop of the common Super 35 size in the C200 (16-35mm FF lens then being 24mm equivalent at 16mm) to the R's 1.7X crop? (27mm equivalent at 16mm).
Take a look at the 'lenses used' section of this C200 review. All L EF (not APS-C, EF-S) lenses. "Overall, the best fit for the C200 was the combo of the 16-35mm and the 24-70mm" Review: Canon EOS C200 Gives Videographers What They Need - Videomaker
What the R lacks is the full sensor pixel oversampling and then downscaling to 4K size some of the competition offers. But rather than it being intentionally crippled, I think it's more likely due to sensor readout technicalities and perhaps trying to avoid overheating than anything else. As far as I remember sensor overheating has been an issue with 4K on Sony in the past.
The R is no more crippled than the 5DIV was (less so as it has C-Log out of the box, vs $100 dollar upgrade in the 5DIV) and can do 4K 10bit HDMI out vs the 5DIV and iDXIII which can't. Unlike the 5DIV, which also has a 1.7X crop, the R can mount cheaper legacy APS-C EF-S lenses too (via the adaptors) as opposed to just FF EF lenses. It is the only Canon FF body which can do this.
Rather than look at it as a downside, think of the potential appeal to those who are coming from APS-C bodies and may have a collection of EF-S lenses which can now be used if/when upgrading to FF. In this regard it matches the ability of the Sony alphas to mount APS-C E lenses to their FF FE bodies. I don't recall howls of protest about Sony giving that capability when the A7/A7R first came out.
The EOS R gains the ability to capture C-Log footage internally (as 8-bit 4:2:0 MP4 files) or stream 10-bit 4:2:2 C-Log over HDMI. This is a positive step. The Canon EOS R isn't a mirrorless 5D IV, but it's a start
The R seems to be the best DSLR Canon has produced for 4K video so far imo. And it is £900 less than the 5DIV... 
If you mean though that Canon has crippled their video capable DSLRs to protect their Cinema EOS cameras what else can be expected? The capabilites of their £31K EOS C700 FF for £2K? That's like complaining a Ford Ka doesn't have the 0-60mph performance of a Ford Mustang... 
Its no use making price performance comparisons with Canon's own models.They don't operate in a monopoly, but they act like they do.
I think I know what's going to happen though...
I think Canon maybe positioning the EOS R as a way to soften the price blow when they unleash their big weapon.... an EOS RX.A mirrorless replacement to the 1DX Mark II, priced at around £6000.
The 1DX Mark II already does 120fps at 1080 with full DPAF, and it does 4K 60fps... albeit with a less drastic 1.3 x crop in motion JPG.
I think they'll put CLOG in the 1DX II replacement, add an H264 codec in for 4K with the same 1.3x crop, and finally throw in electronic stabilisation (not optical) and a flippy screen.
All existing technologies and an easy few days work for Canon.. probably all comfortably built into a 1DX II style chassis that also houses a battery grip.
Although the pricing would be rediculous in the face of Sony A7iii competition, I think it would at least have 'some' appeal. Maybe even for me.
The regular R camera offers nothing of interest in 2018.
To youit seems, but not to the (tens of) thousands who will buy it. I'm interested, so what does that do to your statement...
Unless you are willing to buy a new set of lenses to go with a different brand camera, Canon has a 'virtual' monopoly. Which is why price/performance comparisons against their other models is valid. I can spend £2K for the R or £6Kto get the same lenses but in a Sony mount (if available, Sony doesn't have a pancake lens like Canon offers, the 500mmteles, or have the 150-600mm zooms from Sigma and Tamron available in native FE mounts).
From looking at some tests with EF lenses and various converters all is not rosy with EF-->FE adaption. OK for AF-C stills, OKish for AF-S stills, not so good for AF-S video, Eye-AF, or long lenses. Then there are the likes of this Anyone try Canon EF 70-200 2.8 on A7RII?: Sony Alpha Full Frame E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
The Canon adaptor acts merely in effect as a passthough device like teleconverters or extention tubes. The R body, from what I've read I've read (although this could be wrong), switches to EF protocols when an EF lens is mounted (C-->C native). Putting an EF lens on a Sony alpha requires two way conversion of Sony and Canon protocols by the adaptor (C-->S and S-->C conversion). The Canon protocols are not released to 3rd party manufacturers and have been reverse engineered but not, it seems, without issues.
I don't follow why releasing a £2K R body softens the price blow for a £6K RX body. Also if willing to spend £6K on a RX mainly for video use, wouldn't a £6.9K C200 be a better option? Only 15% or so more...
Dynamic Range performance comparision of 5DIV, 6DII and A7III. Is it worth spending another £6K plus to get an extra 0.25/ https://www.avforums.com/attachments/dxo-jpg.1059376/
Now there's a classic Canon user statement for you  
(Just banter )
No, I mean Canon intentionally crippled video on the EOS R - nothing more to it.Since I guess you must have missed it, I'll post Snerkler's link again from EOSHD:
Dishonest. Misleading. Unnecessary. EOS R and cropped 4K - EOSHD
You seem to completely forget or omit that there are other manufacturers who aren't intentionally crippling their cameras to protect their own product range but your long and rather pointless post is certainly a good indication of how brand loyalty trumps all for some people.I didn't think it was possible for anyone to defend a FF mirrorless camera already being released behind its rivals to not actually shoot full frame video but strangely here we are.
John