Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: R5- Longer term thoughts

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Glass View Post

    That's just me.
    Nope, it is not just you. It is many of us.
    I thought Digital Cameras would have gotten to the point that one body can do it all. The 1Ds IV never came and will we ever see a high MP sensor in a 1 body?
    I have lost hope for such a camera.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,191
    It's obviously feasible to make a high MP camera in a 1-series body, but then it becomes something that it probably wasn't intended to be. The "problem" with high MP is that sports photographers would generally prefer to have unlimited buffer and more reasonable file sizes, rather than a crazy-high resolution that they don't need for their media format (on line or magazine). If you're wanting high MP to make 8' wide landscape photos, I am guessing that you are probably content with the R5-type of body that has lower fps and a smaller battery.

    If it's possible to have some kind of selectable resolution (other than digital cropping), then maybe it could be the best of both worlds. For example, have an 80 MP sensor but use a super-compressed RAW option to make it perform like a 40 MP sensor when you want it to. Is that even feasible? If so, then you would suddenly have half the file size and twice the buffer when you didn't need the full resolution.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,546
    Sony A1 does pretty well for a high res high end camera.....I might have switched but for my Canon lenses

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,094
    What is possible, without a doubt and has been done before, is a high resolution sensor in a 1 body with the build quality and superior AF system to go along with it.
    They have shown with the R1 they can get a decent frame rate.

    @Johnathan the downsized file idea is a concept I would think Canon still explores this to tie the body all in to one. I would imagine speed and processing power would be the limitations to make it happen. Most likely you would have more noise but they do keep getting better.

    The real question, are we ready of a $9,000 camera that can do all this.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Joel Eade View Post
    Sony A1 does pretty well for a high res high end camera.....I might have switched but for my Canon lenses
    Yes I think that Sony has scored a bit of a coup with that camera. The guy that I go out for owls with switched from Nikon to the A1 (before the Nikon Z9 came out), and he's delighted with it. Plus his owl flight shots are absolute killer, which speaks volumes.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,191
    Answering my own question about super-compressed RAW, I see that Nikon has already done that with the Z9. It drops the 45 MP image down to 22 MB, and gives over 1800 continuous shots at 20 fps (which is a buffer size that even I would be happy with). They also have a 'regular' compressed RAW that gives similar performance to the Canon CRAW at 33 MB per image, but with a smaller buffer of course. I didn't look into the impact on image quality from the super-compressed version, but it's bound to take a bit of a hit. I'm quite encouraged by this --- it makes a dual purpose camera quite feasible, where you can have a super-high MP mode for the pixel peepers, and a fast-shooting movie making machine for the blasters like me

  7. #17
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,171
    @JH

    Thats what I was saying earlier. Yes Sports people and many other types of work can use less resolution to keep files small. But with S-RAW you can have a smaller file size option and have high resolution when it is beneficial like cropping in a bird or wildlife shot. Or maybe even a photogernalist who might be reach limited. It be very convenient to be able to hit a custom function button and shoot full resolution if the shot called for it.

    As far as those that say a 5-series is gonna make people happy because you are probably not shooting speed. I think that is not really even the intended market of a 1-series in the first place. The 1-series is definitely for a niche market and in that niche market I think a high resolution option would be welcomed by at least a good number of people. Are they the majority or minority I can't say. But enough where it be worth while to my thinking.

    I am not a fan of the 5Ds R AF after being spoiled with the consistency and accuracy of the 1-series. It's alright, but doesn't blow me away. It is just so much more accurate, sensitive and consistent a 1-series AF that it is nice to have even for a landscape shot. Knowing it is infocus basically 100% of the time regardless of how challenging the situation is really nice. I don't have to over shoot and constantly pixel peep on the back of my camera. It is so nice.

    And I say basically 100%, but in practice it is 100%. I rarely have to double check if a landscape shot is in perfect focus. It works extremely well.

    But as much as I adored the 1Dx III, which gave me everything I ever wanted in a body and more. Besides having a lack of resolution. With an aging mount system and it costing 7k after tax, I had two of them. It just was too much of investment too keep. Hence I really REALLY hope the R1 has a 45/50mp sensor. It would be a dream camera for me.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 05-12-2022 at 08:15 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Jonathan Huyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canmore, Alberta
    Posts
    1,191
    I'm back from a wildlife trip to Jasper National Park, where I put about 9,000 shots on the R5 (along with the 100-500 RF lens). I also had my 1DXIII attached to the 500 f/4 with 1.4 extender, for the times when I needed more reach. Here are some observations:

    R5 pros:

    The 12 fps frame rate and buffer length were quite adequate (even for me), thanks largely to operating in C-RAW mode. I carried a couple spare batteries but the charge lasted more than long enough to keep the frame rate in the fast mode.

    Ridiculously sharp. When the focus is on target, the images are crazy good. The high MP sensor is incredible, and you can crop to your heart's delight when you need to.

    Good to 10,000 ISO, and beyond. Really! Sure, if you zoom in to 100%, it looks a bit harsh, but that's because you have so many pixels. When you're looking at it 'normal' size, it is fantastic. The tree hugger shot that I entered in the IOTW contest is ISO 10,000 and I only cleaned it up with a touch of luminance smoothing in Lightroom.

    Quick switching from full to crop mode. I believe it was Joel who gave me the hot tip to program the DOF preview button to switch to crop mode --- what a super benefit that is. If the target is small in the frame, crop mode makes it easier to put the focus dot on it.

    Super light and easy to hand hold (with the RF 100-500 zoom). Both the other guys I went with had 400 mm f/2.8 lenses, which gave them great shots and low light performance, but they just couldn't swing their rigs around as quickly or hand-hold them as long as me. So I didn't miss much when the action was underway.

    R5 cons:

    Okay I officially don't like the single-point focus. The focus point is way too big. We were photographing bear cubs, and even when I put the focus box right on a cub it would often miss and grab something else like adjacent grass. I tried switching to spot AF to make the box smaller, but the performance diminished noticeably in the low-light conditions we were often in (the lens would hunt back and forth). By comparison, the regular-sized focus box on the 1DXIII is much smaller, and when I put it on an animal, it grabs the focus right away and never ever loses it. The focusing area is smaller of course, but as long as the box is on the animal, it will always (always!) be in focus. Not so with the R5.

    The 2-second startup time when the camera is in standby mode. This drove me utterly nuts, even though I trained myself to half-press the shutter while I was bringing the camera up to my eye to speed up the process. When the action starts up, you need to be able to respond quickly. And holding a blacked-out viewfinder up to your eye when cubs are running around in front of you is incredibly frustrating. I sure hope the mythical R1 has an instant start up. Or else I'll just disable the auto-idle timer and let the battery drain down.

    The EVF. When I would grab the 1DXIII to take shots, I just adored being able to see the animals in 'real life', rather than on an EVF screen. It really is a huge difference. For this reason alone I know that I will always have a 1DXIII in my bag.

    I'd be interested in hearing from those who have the R3, if these issues are also present in that camera. But overall, I'm super pleased with how the whole system worked.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer View Post

    R5 cons:

    Okay I officially don't like the single-point focus. The focus point is way too big. We were photographing bear cubs, and even when I put the focus box right on a cub it would often miss and grab something else like adjacent grass. I tried switching to spot AF to make the box smaller, but the performance diminished noticeably in the low-light conditions we were often in (the lens would hunt back and forth). By comparison, the regular-sized focus box on the 1DXIII is much smaller, and when I put it on an animal, it grabs the focus right away and never ever loses it. The focusing area is smaller of course, but as long as the box is on the animal, it will always (always!) be in focus. Not so with the R5.


    I'd be interested in hearing from those who have the R3, if these issues are also present in that camera. But overall, I'm super pleased with how the whole system worked.

    That is the reason I went ahead and ordered the R3. I do hope the R3 doesn't have this problem.

    One thing I noticed about the big point, it seems that it actually focuses toward the bottom of the point. For instance focusing on a Doe behind a log. If I raised the top above her head and the lower on her face it would hit.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,171
    At Jonathan.

    I have to agree with your results with the R5 after I have also shot a lot with it. It's a great camera, but definitely has it's weak points and the 1Dx III has been the finest body I have ever used and love that thing to death. I really do. It's aging mount and the impressive RF primes is the only reason I couldn't justify it.

    But I have to see how the R1 performs. If they still struggle. I may do what you do and keep a 1Dx III in the bag as well, when the application calls for it.

    It really is a fantastic camera from a user standpoint and it's consistency and confidence it brings. And I have little doubt the R1 won't do the same. But Mirrorless is new tech and there could be some technological teething happening with it as well. So who knows, but I'm sure as a whole the R1 will rock the house in a very big way.

    But with used 1Dx III prices dropping, there could be a value aspect the 1Dx III could bring to the table.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 06-20-2022 at 08:40 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •