That makes no senseYou call the physics simple, but clearly you don’t understand the physics involved in determining sensor noise. The irrelevant convo here is yours.
Upvote
0
That makes no senseYou call the physics simple, but clearly you don’t understand the physics involved in determining sensor noise. The irrelevant convo here is yours.
If you’re referring to your own posts, congratulations you’ve finally make a correct statement.That makes no sense
I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.That is sheer nonsense: photocells, whatever their size, are designed to being as close together on the sensor so there are minimal gaps between them otherwise light is lost. Spacing cells further apart in the same area would lower light gathering power, make poorer iso response and lower DR.
Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.
The Canon EOS R line of mirrorless cameras performs well at high ISO.ok.. not the right forum to ask this but how can the RF800 a f11 lens get so good reviews? even in broad day light it would be impossible to shot BIF and other wildlife where you need a shutter speed of 1:1000 or even 1:2000.....
According to Olympus, the OM 1's pixel shift works even hand-held.I have a Lumix S1R and the high-res pixel shift works really well. I use a tripod but haven't had a problem with vibration.
The readout time for the R5 is 15.5ms, and that for the R7, which has fewer pixels, 31.3ms. The readout time for the R3 is quicker still at 5.5ms. Canon has recycled an older, slower sensor, which is still fine for resolution and IQ but appears to have slower response for AF.Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.
You would make it much clearer still by simply writing that the amount of light gathered by a pixel (sensel) depends on its area. To relate center-to-center spacing to the area of a pixel in that way assumes that the pixels abut each other. That assumption is contradicted by the second part " before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor." which implies there are gaps between pixels in lower Mpx sensors.I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement.
Anyway, as pointed out by @neuroanatomist, and by many others and me here, the overall noise in an image depends on the size of the sensor and not on the size of of the pixels.Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor.
I have R3 and R5, have CFe cards but also SD. My Macbook has an SD slot, which in a hurry (as a sports photographer and journalist) helps a lot to not have to play around with CFe card reader and cable etc. It is just SO convenient.I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.
Yes, what I mean is raw from the video side, you can see the raw dng color quality in this video that was shot with canon 5d mark iii which was filmed 7 years agoWhich RAW converter are you using? If it's something else than DPP4, you need to address that complaint to the people that wrote your RAW converter.
Also, isn't c-log a video only thing?
Having dealt with (micro)SD sockets in product we made at $previousjob: the springs are a major cause of failure, especially with humans involved. "I Tried to insert it real gently (with a hammer)"[...] In the past notebooks at least had SD card slots with enough space for the whole card. At modern notebooks the SD cards usually stick out, which is very annoying, at that makes it much more likely to break the card.
But that's a Magic Lantern thing, not a Canon thing, right?Yes, what I mean is raw from the video side, you can see the raw dng color quality in this video that was shot with canon 5d mark iii which was filmed 7 years ago
I mainly use my SD card slot for a backup of my most important files. I back them up four times per day on a Samsung "Pro Endurance" Micro SD card, which is made to last very long. That card has saved me very often. The adapter sticks out though and that is a problem.Having dealt with (micro)SD sockets in product we made at $previousjob: the springs are a major cause of failure, especially with humans involved. "I Tried to insert it real gently (with a hammer)"
For 'permanent' media, a flush, spring loaded socket is recommended. But for things like readers where the card only spends a few minutes in the reader, a stick out, non spring loaded socket has my preference. And steel backed cards like Sony Tough and Hoodman Steel
The Canon GP-E2 should work with Canon EOS R5.GPS
How likely is it so see this camera coming with a built-in GPS? I'm okay with buying an extra battery if need be.
On a more personal level, I'd very much like to see the overall size going up. Coming from a 5D and having bigger hands, the R5 camera is too small.
He had a point, but not a correct one.I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly.
First off, he said nothing about AF speed, but regardless that red herring has already been pickled with readout speed brine by @koenkooi and @AlanF.Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.
Yes, it was actually an unofficial hack of Canon's operating system, however the results are amazing, Canon can now use the same format in a better, and more professional way, but unfortunately they chose the ineffective raw format ( c-log raw )But that's a Magic Lantern thing, not a Canon thing, right?
I came from 5D series to R5, and despite having large hands I quickly got used to the smaller body - the grip is fine and the controls are all well-spaced.On a more personal level, I'd very much like to see the overall size going up. Coming from a 5D and having bigger hands, the R5 camera is too small.
Absolutely. Basic control theory tells us that the higher the sample frequency, the faster the loop response can be. The catch is that an R7 with a stacked sensor would be at a price point that would be a hard sell for the masses. At the current price, it will sell very well.Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.
Me too ! Even if it could be just a subjective feeling...I came from 5D series to R5, and despite having large hands I quickly got used to the smaller body - the grip is fine and the controls are all well-spaced.
It does feel less sturdy to me though, compared to the indestructible feel of 5D and 7D models. I've had no issues (apart from occasional freezes) with the R5, but if I was going to be in a really tough environment where my gear was going to get a real bashing, I'd have more faith in my 5DMkiv.