L
Loswr
Guest
I used that routinely with my 1DX. With the greater post-processing exposure latitude of current sensors, I don’t really miss it on the R3. If I shot JPEG, I’d probably feel differently.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R1 prototypes are in the wild [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I've always wanted a 1 series camera, but I've always wanted higher resolution more. This has been my dilemma since I chose the original 5D (though cost was a bigger concern then too, at the beginning of my career).
I'm happy with the 45 mpx of the R5, so I'd jump to an R1 that has at least that, with more customization, hopefully more DR, even better AF (and hopefully a much faster flash sync speed). I shoot equine sports, and about 1/4 of my shots are at the far end of the arena and need heaving cropping, which the R5 handles nicely.
I wish Canon would stick with the 1 vs 1S choice - more speed vs higher resolution body, otherwise identical. Granted, the R5 is a fantastic camera, it's not quite a high-res R1 or R3.
Upvote
0
Was that with full RAW or with cRAW? In use cRAW almost exclusively, except in situations where I need to lift shadows a lot, mostly when ISO25600 isn’t quite enough.
Upvote
0
I'm curious when you tested the Sony camera with QPAF- how noticeable the difference in QPAF was? I have not heard too many people complain about the current Canon AF system, saying its as good or better than Sony, and comfortably ahead of Nikon. And the niche market cameras with QPAF don't seem to get much press. The rumor says R1 will have a notable improvement in AF performance, so it has me wondering if the effective difference between the technologies at the moment is not as big as the difference on paper. BSI vs FSI sensors (non stacked) went through this phase as well...where everyone was worked up about it on paper but the technology evolved such that the performance gap became nil.
Do you also know when it will be released? A1 is getting a bit old now.
Brian
Upvote
0
I always acquire photos in RAW not cRAW. I do realize the advantages of cRAW, but I prefer to keep alll the information / data that the sensor detects. With cRAW it likely would not have been an issue.
Upvote
1
L
Loswr
Guest
He has not, since Sony does not have it. His point (as usual for him) was to troll CR by implying Canon could give us QPAF but won't, but Sony will with their next camera because Sony is just so awesome and loves their customers so much they give them all the newest tech all the time. Go Sony!
I will say that my R3 misses focus sometimes because DPAF is single-orientation for phase detection. The solution is to select another feature at the same distance or to rotate the camera a bit to AF then rotate it back, but those are not optimal solutions. For me, QPAF was the main addition I was expecting from an R1. Without it, it's just a maybe-buy. QPAF would be great, but that alone is not enough to induce me to consider a m4/3 camera (the OM-1 has it).
Upvote
0
As did I with my 1DX-series cameras. In addition to the greater post-processing latitude of the current sensors, I've also found that the electronic viewfinder exposure simulation further mitigates my needs for spot metering link to the AF points; now I simply adjust my exposure compensation, which allows me to see on the fly how over or under exposed my subject is.
Upvote
0
Would be cool, but I think this is another spec sheet vs. reality discussion. Once read speed is reduced beyond a point, its effectively as good as global shutter (with respect to rolling shutter). I don't know what other advantages global shutter would bring, maybe sync speed or something. Have to wait to judge the performance I suppose.
Brian
Upvote
0
I'm admittedly biased towards Olympus and now OM Systems, as it was the original OM-1 that was my first camera which I used from 1979 to the mid 90's, when I bought my first Canon rebel. Bought my first digital Olympus in 2014 and especially after buying the E-M1 mark II in late 2016, kept waiting and hoping for Canon (or really any brand making FF cameras) to make a camera that I felt was as good and versatile. Took a few years for other brands to get focus bracketing and in-camera focus stacking, which I use often. Still waiting for Canon to add in-camera AF limiter functionality. I don't know if anyone else has that, and that, to me, is a game changer for Bird photography, especially Birds in Flight. It really annoys me that the internet has so much anti-Micro Four Thirds bias. The OM-1 and the Olympus digital cameras I have owned prior, have all been my most used cameras, despite owning both FF and APS-C cameras from Canon and for a brief time, from Nikon as well. ( Also owned - very briefly - the A7 and A7 II from Sony, but they barely count as being cameras!). I hope OM Systems can survive.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If time isn't a concern I prefer manual focusing with the magnifying glass for improving accuracy. Of course, nobody can accept using manual focus.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Well, my R works great, but I'm going to need a faster burst rate in the next couple of years. I'd be interested in an R5 II or possibly an R1 to finish out my life. Lol. I want the high resolution for cropping my grandson's(s) sports, etc., since a fast super-tele will not be in the cards for me.
That's the advantage of high mpix for my use.
That's the advantage of high mpix for my use.
Upvote
0
The people I know using micro four thirds are happy. I'm not well versed in the bias against the mount / sensor size. is it related to the limitations regarding noise and depth of field?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
