Thanks....I thought that would be the case.Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer
Thanks....I thought that would be the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlXt7oNCpg
At about 5 minutes...professional sports shooter that gave a raving review of the 1DX III...thought the AF in liveview on the 1DX III was better than PDAF.
That may be the case but I can't see even attempting to use live view for birds in flight ... it just doesn't seem very feasible to me. Maybe I'm in the minority but I still want a viewfinder.
Last edited by Joel Eade; 07-23-2020 at 11:23 AM.
Agreed. I would not want to use a camera in that manner. I was taking it as another indication that DPAF has really advanced in this latest generation of cameras.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Saw a reference that the R6 was up on DPReview's comparison tool. I found this interesting:
Can't wait to see what the R5 can do. But that 20 MP sensor, shared with the 1DX III is giving some great contrast and competing with some higher MP cameras, IMO.
It is impressive ..... I've read before "all pixels are not equal". No doubt that sensor performance characteristics such as fine resolution and contrast has to do with a lot more than just the number and size of pixels. Things like filters and micro-lenses etc....
Bryan providing some actual buffer performance. Gone are the days of 20-23 frames with the 5DIV and, what, as I remember 9-10 frames with the 5DIII (using the SD card).
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...spx?News=34990
Granted, I am using the second fastest fps (7 fps not 14) on my M6 II. It takes a lot longer for the buffer to fill, and AF is better. But, if you want performance, this is what the R5/R6 have.
For years we had to make the choice between a high mp sensor or fast fps. It looks like those days are gone.
Bryan providing some actual buffer performance. Gone are the days of 20-23 frames with the 5DIV and, what, as I remember 9-10 frames with the 5DIII (using the SD card).
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/...spx?News=34990
Granted, I am using the second fastest fps (7 fps not 14) on my M6 II. It takes a lot longer for the buffer to fill, and AF is better. But, if you want performance, this is what the R5/R6 have.
At 180 buffer isn't much of an issue any more.
R5 Specs
Mechanical Shutter
Up to 12 fps at 45 MP for up to 180 Frames (Raw) / 350 Frames (JPEG)
Electronic Shutter
Up to 20 fps at 45 MP for up to 83 Frames (Raw) / 170 Frames (JPEG)
A little more R5 info and some animal eye AF tracking with adapted EF lenses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUe4vsO3HQ8
It's definitely very good for BOAS, quite fantastic really. But it's interesting that they had some trouble with BIFs in some cases, perhaps due to the lag and blackout. With my old fashioned mirrored camera, as long as I can keep the bird in the focus zone it will do quite alright. But I'd like to see more reviews to get a better sense if it's really a camera problem or just something that requires a different technique.
I can see the R5/R6 being absolutely ideal for something like the trip I did to Costa Rica, where you set up your rig at the "bird studio", and blast away when they come in for a quick perch. Having a camera that can grab the eye quickly would be brilliant. Often you only have a couple seconds to shoot before they jump down to the fruit tray (which you normally try to hide from the shot!).
Last edited by Jonathan Huyer; 07-26-2020 at 11:09 PM.
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote