After reading this reply, and then rereading it, and then taking some time to think before rereading it again, all I can do is shake my head. In the face of such overwhelming self-importance, I surrender!
Last edited:
Canon EOS R5 10 Days Later: REALITY CHECK
- Thread starter SwissFrank
- Start date
My impression it takes a while for a movie to go from camera choice to the point it sells for home display, like a couple of years. So resolution choice isn't made based on today's market share, but rather on estimates of how large it would be between 3-5 years from now till it starts phasing out of the market.
If you crop in post and then view it at the same size the shake is the same as if you just shot it at 2X.
Maybe it would be prudent to wait until one actually had an R5 in one's personal possession to do an R5 "reality" check using a real camera, rather than what one imagines it will be?
I’m bored in isolation, so here goes the novel;
Apart from the fact the intro is about 5 minutes long, the pacing and pseudo-intellectual phrasing, the problem with this video is that it is not a reality check as titled, but someone explaining why the 8K video is not relevant to THEIR OWN workflow. Everything is "we", "I", "us", "me", etc. But never does he imagine how that can be useful for someone else’s. Never mind the 4k120, which he does mention in passing as if to protect himself from criticism. It’s also not understanding that filming in 8K doesn’t mean delivery in 8K. Most shoots I’ve been on, the highest resolution possible is used regardless of delivery, unless we had to shoot slowmo and had to go down in resolution to do so. That means, yes, I’ve worked and edited 8K footage for the deliverables to be in 1080p. Now is 8K useful for everyone? No, far from it, but Canon would be remiss if they had a camera with a sensor big enough for 8K and a processor that already does 4K120, but didn’t include 8K. “Cripple hammer” they would say.
“You simply have to ignore that signature 8K spec, and when you do that, the only interesting thing about the R5 is that it finally brings Canon to parity with — and in some real but far less dramatic ways beats — the current roaster of 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid cameras.” So you can rephrase that to “if you forget what makes it different from 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid cameras, it is just another 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid camera, but marginally better on some aspects.” What a waste of a sentence.
Then he does the same “me” thing, saying it is “silly” to want more than the rumored 20mp in the R6. It almost sounds like he’s stating that cameras do what we need them to right now, so we don’t need new cameras ever — unless they have an internal variable ND filter.
I’m also tired of people who clearly don’t really know what they’re talking about saying “how will you edit 8K raw files? On what system?” Using proxies, I’ve been editing 8K footage on a consumer computer since 2014. Given, I’m not viewing a 8K feed nor can I color correct the proxies with the latitude of raw footage, but you just edit with the proxies (you don’t need 8K in your NLE anyway) then send it over to be corrected with the raw video, if you even need that.
Apart from the fact the intro is about 5 minutes long, the pacing and pseudo-intellectual phrasing, the problem with this video is that it is not a reality check as titled, but someone explaining why the 8K video is not relevant to THEIR OWN workflow. Everything is "we", "I", "us", "me", etc. But never does he imagine how that can be useful for someone else’s. Never mind the 4k120, which he does mention in passing as if to protect himself from criticism. It’s also not understanding that filming in 8K doesn’t mean delivery in 8K. Most shoots I’ve been on, the highest resolution possible is used regardless of delivery, unless we had to shoot slowmo and had to go down in resolution to do so. That means, yes, I’ve worked and edited 8K footage for the deliverables to be in 1080p. Now is 8K useful for everyone? No, far from it, but Canon would be remiss if they had a camera with a sensor big enough for 8K and a processor that already does 4K120, but didn’t include 8K. “Cripple hammer” they would say.
“You simply have to ignore that signature 8K spec, and when you do that, the only interesting thing about the R5 is that it finally brings Canon to parity with — and in some real but far less dramatic ways beats — the current roaster of 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid cameras.” So you can rephrase that to “if you forget what makes it different from 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid cameras, it is just another 4K-recording full-frame mirrorless hybrid camera, but marginally better on some aspects.” What a waste of a sentence.
Then he does the same “me” thing, saying it is “silly” to want more than the rumored 20mp in the R6. It almost sounds like he’s stating that cameras do what we need them to right now, so we don’t need new cameras ever — unless they have an internal variable ND filter.
I’m also tired of people who clearly don’t really know what they’re talking about saying “how will you edit 8K raw files? On what system?” Using proxies, I’ve been editing 8K footage on a consumer computer since 2014. Given, I’m not viewing a 8K feed nor can I color correct the proxies with the latitude of raw footage, but you just edit with the proxies (you don’t need 8K in your NLE anyway) then send it over to be corrected with the raw video, if you even need that.
That seems like quite a statement ... and I've seen others, such as Viggo, say similar things.
Can I ask - despite the fact that overall you really like the R, do you miss an OVF or the longer battery life of your old DSLR? I get the attraction in the AF accuracy, and the ability to put your AF point just about anywhere in the frame, for shallow DOF work, but I am really not keen on an EVF. Curious to hear how people who have made the move feel about it after having used it for an extended period.
thanks
Currently I don't use the EVF when chasing toddlers around the house, my eyes tend to be at the wrong height, even when crouching down.
For macro I virtually always use the EVF, party to stabilize the camera and all the other good things an eye level viewfinder brings. And it being an EVF I get exposure simulation, instead of a nearly black OVF. On top of that I can use 5x and 10x magnification to really fine tune focus.
And away from home I'd use the EVF with long lenses, the only issue I run into is the EVF+shutter lag on my RP. If I want to catch action, like deer butting antlers I miss the OVF on my 7D. And the fps of my 7D
The EVF lag on the bolt-on EVF or the M6II feels less than the RP, but that might be placebo effect since everything feels a bit faster on that, including scrolling through menus.
jd7, good question, right on target. I echo some of what koenkooi said about the EVF--except I do use it for little kids around home. (What else is there moving around here right now, besides wild life?)
Here's the biggest drawback of the EVF for me--but, in fact, it is not a problem with the EVF itself. I love to shoot early in the morning and late in the afternoon, as do so many photographers who relish slanted light, especially when it's golden light. BUT, the EOS R's eye-cup has no easy way to be replaced with a Hoodman type eye-cup that works so great to shield the EVF from bright sunlight. My workaround is to wear a straw fedora hat, and that helps a lot, but I am hoping, hoping, hoping the 5R will have an eye-cup that can be swapped out for a larger one.
Now, that said, I became enraptured by the EOS R and several of its primes and zooms just as I was getting back into professional portraiture. (Having two kids in four years, and then being the primary caregiver five days a week, and needing to make more money from a business that WAS doing great, I had put the photo biz on hold for several years. But late last year I created a small, pleasant studio for tightly controlled lighting, and I replaced most of my lenses and my 5DIV.) Then Covid-19 hit. In the two months of confinement, I've come to know the EOS R and lenses even better, and I'm very eager to see a faster, more all-around mirrorless.
But being so focused on portraiture, last fall I consciously made the decision to sacrifice, for a time, some performance related to action and nature. In fact, I haven't had the time to get out with nature photography friends in ages, so, I even made the decision to sell my 100-400 and 5DIV so I could afford the RF 70-200. I kind of regret that decision at this point, but, from a business standpoint, it made sense. With all this at-home time, I imagine many of us are second guessing, but it's done, so, fine.
Just yesterday I dusted of my refurbished ef 70-200mm f/4 IS which had been so fun for travel. I still have an 80D. My goodness, was it fun to get out and use for quick, sharp shots, and, I will admit, the OVF just seemed so much more suited to fast action.
So when I said that the R is "the best," I was still thinking in terms of portraiture, landscape, real estate, macro, and product type photography. For action? No way. I should have qualified my assertion, absolutely!
Future purchases are going to be much more strategic. It might be a long time before I can take trips with friends "just" to photograph some birds, and I never did have much interest in sports photography. If in five years or so the kids are into sports, maybe...
But for now, for my purposes, a mirrorless that allows such precise, consistent exposure and AF, with an EVF that is so close to true WYSIWYG, even with DoF preview, and with all the positives koenkooi mentions is what I need. Plus, even though we are speaking a matter of degrees, several of the Rf lenses are better than anything I've ever used--and they work so well on the R.
Maybe the 5R will bring more dSLR performance? We can only hope!
Last edited:
Thoughts? OK, here are my thoughts:
The title is bullshit. The front picture is someone's head. It looks like I can safely assume that the content is not any different.
In my opinion, personal preference regarding whether one favors an EVF or OVF will be the biggest reason to go mirrorless or DSLR. Not liking an EVF is a perfectly reasonable opinion - especially if one is used to a OVF. Each person is allowed to have their personal preferences - and quite frankly, shouldn't have to defend their opinion on the internet.
For myself, the first mirrorless camera I bought was an Olympus E-M5. I subsequently bought the E-M1 and then bought Canon's M5 as my first Canon mirrorless. I bought the R not long after it came out. Right from the start, I enjoyed the WYSIWIG nature of the exposure, and mainly for that reason have switched from DSLR to mirrorless. The EVFs were good enough from my first mirrorless camera so that I did not miss having on OVF. There are drawbacks - depending on the angle of the light, there are times when the image is hard to see, and for those shooting action (which I do not) the EVF is obviously not as good as an OVF.
I would recommend renting a mirrorless camera before purchasing one, so that you can get a feel for the EVF. If you don't like it , be glad you still have the choice between DSLR and mirrorless.
Thanks for your response!
So far I've stayed with DSLR (especially given the price of most of the mirrorless stuff - not so much the R body itself, but most of the lenses), but hearing people such as you and Viggo and CanonFanBoy sing the praises of the R has made me wonder if I should reconsider. However, reading your response just now, I feel like I have a better understanding of why the R works for you and you like it so much. And I have to say it has increased my belief that I would rather stay with DSLR for my photography. For someone shooting portraits professionally, I can see why the R's AF accuracy for shallow DOF work, the ability to put the AF point just about anywhere in the frame, and the high class RF lenses would be huge drawcards. Photography is a hobby for me though, and I tend to do a bit of many things - I guess I'd say I do a mix of portraiture, events, travel, and landscape, with a bit of sports/action as well (eg my nephews playing one thing or another, my wife horse-riding, etc). I can imagine if I was a pro I would target a specific type of photography, or be able to justify different cameras for different purposes. I don't shoot enough to justify having multiple camera bodies, so I think a DSLR still suits me better as an all rounder, at least at this stage, primarily due to the OVF. When I really need the mirrorless AF accuracy or ability to put an AF point just about anywhere, there is always live view, even if I have to use the rear screen. I still miss out on things like the RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but at the price of around A$4000, I wasn't about to rush out and buy it anyway (unfortunately)!
OK, sorry for the ramble, and thanks again for your thoughts! It's so much more useful when people explain what they like and don't like about a camera and why it does or doesn't work for them, instead of just making dogmatic claims like "DSLRs are dead" or "mirroless is the future" which are all too common on the internet.
And nobody should be discouraged from challenging an opinion on the internet. Especially the illogical or outright misleading ones!
Thanks Czardoom, and yes I agree, it seems like EVF versus OVF is likely to be the main deciding factor. At least when you talk about full frame gear, the weight and size differences generally don't seem to be much (although I would like that RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS!).
Unfortunately where I am renting a camera tends to be relatively expensive, otherwise I would. I'd probably be better off buying a camera and trying it out for a couple of months, and selling it second hand if I decided not to keep it.
As for people being allowed to have their personal preferences, and being glad to have a choice between DSLR and mirrorless, I certainly agree. I'm not sure if you were just talking generally, but if you thought my question to YuengLinger was me having a go at him for saying he likes his EOS R, that certainly wasn't my intention. I am glad for YeungLinger that he enjoys his camera, and I was genuinely interested to get a better understanding of what he likes so much about it.
Who is this guy? He does not even know how to white balance or color correct his video.
Have you tried the in-camera vignetting correction? Curious whether all you can do is mock people, or whether you can throw us a bone and teach us what situations the in-camera correction isn't suitable for? And also what shots shooting 15mm f/2.8 is really key for, maybe share some examples, etc.?
Yes, I've used the in-camera corrections, and I've decided to turn them all off. Since I shoot only RAW, I prefer to make the corrections myself in LR Classic.
I was actually praising the 15-35mm, which you'd see if you'd read the post carefully, and I was pointing out the one aspect which keeps it from being "perfect." For those of us who like to compose sometimes with the subject closer to edges and corners, heavy vignettes can be an issue in low light when using higher ISO's. And sometimes its nice for edges and corners, even if just background, to be as clean as the rest of the image. In most cases it is not an issue, and I'm extremely happy with the lens.
Had I praised the lens without reservation, I'm sure you would have attacked that post for not mentioning the vignette, as I suspect you are the person who made the silly video you are promoting in this thread. You seem to enjoy playing devil's advocate for the sake of who knows what.
Regarding shooting at f/2.8, well, that's why I bought a lens that goes as fast as f/2.8. Some basic books would help you understand why big camera companies make them, and why many photographers buy them, perhaps. I highly recommend, for beginners, UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE, by Bryan Peterson. Some knowledge and experience will help you better enjoy whatever gear floats your boat.
Last edited:
That invites two questions though: 1) curious why you decided to turn off the vignette correction if the vignette is annoying? E.g., does it cause some image degradation, if so how, etc.? 2) if LR Classic has a suitable vignette correction facility, does that basically make this a non-issue or does this fix vignetting at some other cost?
Thinking back to the pre R release period, there were endless pages of speculation and philosophy discussions on this forum. That same excitement is here again with pre R5 release. With the R, there was a palpable let down after the release that the camera did not quite live up to our expectations. I think that the community still remembers that feeling and hope the the R5 release is not a repeat. Everything we see here is pointing to the R5 release being a watershed event for Canon and for Canon shooters; but, we still have an uneasy feeling that there are more shoes to drop. I’m optimistic that the R5 will not disappoint and there won’t be a Charlie Brown kick the football moment. Lucy are you listening?
Based on your equipment list I would assume you already know the answer. But shooting raw you really want the raw, and don't let camera do any adjustments on it. Later you can choose to do it on LR (or not), that's an option. If you do it in camera, you also lose that option (of course you can add vignette on post if you want). It's almost non-issue, on some scenes it can add noise on the corners and such.
Has never seen or used the camera... ten days later... still has never seen or used the camera. Makes a video about a camera he's never seen or used. Very informative nothing. I wonder what Billy Preston would think? Nothing-nothing = nothing.
