The Canon EOS R6 has shown up for certification

[AEWest]

At which point I'd say learn to take pictures, composition is just about all the camera manufacturers leave to us now and you want a safety net for that too?

Pretty condescending. Many top pros crop photos. I will let them know that they don't how to take photos.

 

[privatebydesign]

Like AEWest, I often decide to crop pictures in post. That in no way means that I need to "learn to take pictures" or "want a safety net for that too". I also grade my pictures, and the good ones are all converted from raw through careful post processing to a nice image - Does that mean I should have taken a better shot in the first place so I didn't need to do that?

If you are taking landscapes and are then relying on 60% more pixels to allow for cropping you are not doing your equipment justice and you are not seeing the shot in front of you. Sure there are always isolated instances where a preconceived image framing or aspect ratio doesn't fit with the format ratio you happen to have, but even so there are few instances where stitching can't work in landscapes to mitigate that kind of thing.

As for post processing, that has got nothing to do with it, digital capture, like negatives, requires processing, just take a look at any of your RAW files with dcraw to confirm that! Our eyes see things in a completely different way to the way digital sensors record scenes and people have always made adjustments to the way the chemistry or electronics record the scene to better present the photographers vision. Would I show you an unprocessed canister of film and ask for your opinion of my images?

I stand by my comment, if you are relying on 60% more pixels to correct your crop in post you are doing something wrong.

Pretty condescending. Many top pros crop photos. I will let them know that they don't how to take photos.

Few professionals regularly crop photos 35% because they didn't compose properly in the first place, but yes they do crop. I've seen sports shooters crop landscape orientation to portrait orientation and still get the cover of SI with 18mp cameras, and the last thing they were talking about was wishing they had more mp.

My reply to your comment stands, if you are getting home and realizing the landscape image in front of you actually needs cropping 40% you are doing something wrong. That's the equivalent of shooting with a medium format digital to get 135 format images, or paying for and carrying ff gear to get crop camera IQ. Why is that considered so condescending? It is factually correct.

 

[padam]

Agreed. Probably not worth engineering IBIS into a camera with mirror at this point.

So they are working on these patents for no reasons at all.

Canon Patent Application: IBIS adjustment - DSLR illustrations

We have seen images that show a "DSLR" incorporating IBIS, but in the past, they haven't really described the DSLR system in detail, it was simply for illustration purposes, never has it been a clear part of the patent application. In this application, Canon still uses a DSLR as the...

www.canonnews.com

People complain about the video improvements. Well, even if they don't care with that at all, they could still upgrade to a camera, that suddenly gains IBIS with all native EF lenses. Although if dual IS is not working as the article assumes, then yes it makes more sense to just keep it for the RF-mount mirrorless cameras.

Either way, this is a Canon representative regarding their 5D line of cameras:

 

[AEWest]

If you are taking landscapes and are then relying on 60% more pixels to allow for cropping you are not doing your equipment justice and you are not seeing the shot in front of you. Sure there are always isolated instances where a preconceived image framing or aspect ratio doesn't fit with the format ratio you happen to have, but even so there are few instances where stitching can't work in landscapes to mitigate that kind of thing.

As for post processing, that has got nothing to do with it, digital capture, like negatives, requires processing, just take a look at any of your RAW files with dcraw to confirm that! Our eyes see things in a completely different way to the way digital sensors record scenes and people have always made adjustments to the way the chemistry or electronics record the scene to better present the photographers vision. Would I show you an unprocessed canister of film and ask for your opinion of my images?

I stand by my comment, if you are relying on 60% more pixels to correct your crop in post you are doing something wrong.


Few professionals regularly crop photos 35% because they didn't compose properly in the first place, but yes they do crop. I've seen sports shooters crop landscape orientation to portrait orientation and still get the cover of SI with 18mp cameras, and the last thing they were talking about was wishing they had more mp.

My reply to your comment stands, if you are getting home and realizing the landscape image in front of you actually needs cropping 40% you are doing something wrong. That's the equivalent of shooting with a medium format digital to get 135 format images, or paying for and carrying ff gear to get crop camera IQ. Why is that considered so condescending? It is factually correct.

At what point did I say 40%?

 

[privatebydesign]

At what point did I say 40%?

You were saying you wanted 32-34mp from the rumored 20mp, 20/32 = 62%, so a 40% crop.

 

[unfocused]

...if you are getting home and realizing the landscape image in front of you actually needs cropping 40% you are doing something wrong,,,Why is that considered so condescending? It is factually correct.

Honestly, what difference does it make? If the final image is good, who are we to criticize if the photographer got there by cropping in camera or cropping on the computer?

Back in the 70s it was all the rage to print your photos showing the film edges so you could prove that the scene was exactly how you cropped in camera. I hope we've matured beyond that.

There are any number of great photographers who like to sit on their exposures for days, weeks or even months to give the initial excitement time to cool down a bit and allow them to look at the images more dispassionately. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with shooting an image and then later on, deciding that you like it cropped differently.

Different people have different ways of seeing. Just because someone sees the composition more clearly when reviewing captures on their computer screen as opposed to in the field, that doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Otara]

Pretty condescending. Many top pros crop photos. I will let them know that they don't how to take photos.

Its just gatekeeping, dont worry about it.

 

[AEWest]

You were saying you wanted 32-34mp from the rumored 20mp, 20/32 = 62%, so a 40% crop.

I said I wanted a 32mp camera. There are many legitimate reasons for cropping beyond not knowing how to compose:

Eg. What if I or a client wants a square image rather than 2x3 format? That is a 33% crop. If you haven't tried this, there are some very good images out there in this format.

What if you are unable to get closer to a subject than your lens or legs will allow, eg birds. Could have major cropping as a necessity in this instance.

My point is that there are many legitimate needs for cropping and having 60% more pixels available in a 32 mp camera over a 20 mp camera allows for far more latitude.

 

[TracerHD]

If you crop a portrait orientation picture from a 44,7 MP landscape orientation picture you still get 19,88 MP.

 

[Czardoom]

If you're doing your shots from a tripod, then IBIS is not a consideration. (and I'm not commenting on the R by itself, by the way)

But once you have a camera with good IBIS (and dual IS) and start handholding shots that look like you used a tripod, you'll (IMHO) never want to settle for a camera without IBIS.

Unless your lenses have IS, in which case IBIS is not of any particular importance. I think forum users sometimes forget that lens IS exists and many folks only own lenses with IS.

 

[AEWest]

There's no substitute for a perfectly stationary camera. Not IS, not IBIS, not both combined. They buy a few stops, but they do not give the same total lack of movement that a solid platform with wired or wireless remote release does.

I agree that for landscapes IBIS is unnecessary in most instances - I do use a tripod and self timer as you describe and get tack sharp images.

But I also sometimes take indoor event photos where a tripod is impractical and flash not wanted so IBIS can help especially with shorter non IS lenses.

Unfortunately I can only afford to buy one camera (for marital bliss) so it has to tick as many boxes as possible.

 

[usern4cr]

Unless your lenses have IS, in which case IBIS is not of any particular importance. I think forum users sometimes forget that lens IS exists and many folks only own lenses with IS.

If all your lenses have IS, then yes - you will always enjoy lens IS which might be as high as 5.0 as claimed by Canon. That is indeed very good. But I disagree in your saying that you will then not get any "particular importance" from a body with IBIS in that case. The dual IS will indeed give you more stops of IS than lens IS alone, even though it may only be an extra stop or two (it will depend on the lens IS and IBIS combination).

To be clear, in your case I'm not saying that you have to get a body with IBIS, and yes - you can indeed enjoy the body(without IBIS) you already have since all your lenses have IS. But I will say that if you also get a body with IBIS that supports dual IS (which Canon says they do) then your dual IS will be even better. And one or two extra stops of IS is indeed something of "particular importance".

 

[SteveC]

If all your lenses have IS, then yes - you will always enjoy lens IS which might be as high as 5.0 as claimed by Canon. That is indeed very good. But I disagree in your saying that you will then not get any "particular importance" from a body with IBIS in that case. The dual IS will indeed give you more stops of IS than lens IS alone, even though it may only be an extra stop or two (it will depend on the lens IS and IBIS combination).

To be clear, in your case I'm not saying that you have to get a body with IBIS, and yes - you can indeed enjoy the body(without IBIS) you already have since all your lenses have IS. But I will say that if you also get a body with IBIS that supports dual IS (which Canon says they do) then your dual IS will be even better. And one or two extra stops of IS is indeed something of "particular importance".

If I can't take 30 second milky way pictures from the camera while it's tumbling and bouncing down a rocky slope, then the IS is just inadequate.

 

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

The tiny info display that one can see looking down onto the top of the camera.

Not to confuse with the large back-forward screen!

Thank you. I tried searching the term online and came up dry a month ago when I first heard the term.

 

[H. Jones]

In this whole discussion of the crop, one of the more exciting things to me is that the R5 can shoot almost as many megapixels as the 5DS while maintaining 12-20 FPS. The 5DS' crop mode already turned the 50 megapixels into a roughly 20 megapixel crop camera, but that was far too slow for bird and wildlife photography.

With the R5, in one camera I'll be able to both have the full frame sensor that I need for my professional work, along with a crop mode for my birding hobby that beats the FPS of the 7D Mark II while nearing the same resolution.

That said, the 20 megapixels of my 1DX Mark II is way more than enough in my professional work. Everything I send to the newspaper ends up downsized to 2 megapixels for print and web, so I've never been stressed about needing more pixels to crop. Honestly though it will be nice that the R5 could give me a bit more reach when I'm held back by the police at breaking news and have to bring out the long glass, but that's not a large portion of the job.

 

[privatebydesign]

I said I wanted a 32mp camera. There are many legitimate reasons for cropping beyond not knowing how to compose:

Eg. What if I or a client wants a square image rather than 2x3 format? That is a 33% crop. If you haven't tried this, there are some very good images out there in this format.

What if you are unable to get closer to a subject than your lens or legs will allow, eg birds. Could have major cropping as a necessity in this instance.

My point is that there are many legitimate needs for cropping and having 60% more pixels available in a 32 mp camera over a 20 mp camera allows for far more latitude.

I wasn't addressing any other reasons, I was addressing the original one you made "Sometimes when composing a landscape image in the viewfinder then taking image back to computer I find that what looked good in viewfinder had too much sky or foreground etc on the big screen."

Of course there are many 'legitimate' reasons to crop, I don't think bad composition is one, but it seems I am in the minority.

 

[privatebydesign]

Honestly, what difference does it make?

None.

But what is the harm in telling somebody if they are relying on a 60% crop due to mis-seeing the landscape composition in front of them, are they better advised buying a higher mp camera and cropping or learning how to see the scene in front of them?

Of course it is all subjective and there is no 'right or wrong' but we can all learn and we can all shoot better.

 

[Joules]

Of course it is all subjective and there is no 'right or wrong' but we can all learn and we can all shoot better.

We can also enjoy the freedom to make mistakes that better technology affords us. As you say, there's no right or wrong. But you also said if you require cropping landscape shot, you're doing something wrong. I sure hope your in the minority there. I take pictures when I'm about alone but often also when I'm out with a friend. And it is more enjoyable to do a bit of photography on the side, casually, without obsessing over every thing when I have company, just as it is enjoyable to think a thing through when there is the time. To each their own.

 

[privatebydesign]

But you also said if you require cropping landscape shot, you're doing something wrong. I sure hope your in the minority there.

No I didn't, what I said was if you feel you can't get by with a 20mp camera and believe you need a 34mp camera because "[When I get] back to computer I find that what looked good in viewfinder had too much sky or foreground etc" then it probably isn't the mp at fault here. I then went on to say of course there are many 'legitimate' reasons to crop and further it is all subjective so there is no standard of legitimacy, people can do whatever they want!

But I believe we owe more than that to our fellow forum dwellers, I believe we can all benefit from our combined knowledge and I'd rather say something unpopular that makes a difference than nod approvingly whilst telling somebody they need to spend x thousand dollars on some piece of gear when they don't. People can buy whatever they want and do whatever they want with it, but if the goal of learning about this equipment is to actually take pictures rather than own the gear as an exercise in and of itself then we should help each other towards that end.

 

[Aussie shooter]

If the subject is not moving, dual OIS & IBIS of (tested & verified) 6.5 stops can and will stop motion to look just like a tripod for all "reasonable intents and purposes". That reduces shake by a factor of 90 to 1! My EM1mk2 with 12-100 f4 and 300mm f4 pro lenses do exactly that. I also have a tripod, and use it when I do panoramas to get perfect repeatable position registration between pictures. But I also can take the same panoramas handheld with 6.5 stop dual IS and they still are as sharp and stitch together fine. If you have never seen real (tested & verified) 6.5 stop dual IS then you should. And a few makers have even gone beyond that now.

I'm looking forward to the R6, R5 & R5s IBIS with optical IS at the same time. It's harder to stabilize a FF sensor than a MFT sensor due to the increased mass, but if they can get it above 6 stops (verified) then it'll be spectacular.

My only comment about IS claims, is that they have to be tested & verified to be believed. I have seen some makers exaggerate them or say "up to" so many stops. If it's not verified, including on the particular lens you use, then "buyer beware".

When you are talking 6 stops of IBIS it means going from 1/64sec to 1 sec. Not from 1sec to 64sec. 6 stops ain't 6stops. So for landscapes it really does not come close to a tripod.