Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R5 C

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
2,020
1,990
I heard a theory, don't know how much truth there is in it, that it's impossible to get more than 8 stops of stabilisation - something to do with the rotation of the Earth, although it does sound a bit far-fetched.[..]
The earth rotation thing comes from an interview with an Olympus exec who was asked why their IS tops out at 5 stops and he responded with the rotation argument. Personally, I read it as "LOL, I'm not going to tell you, on the record, that our engineers suck or that that CIPA test methodolgy is bogus, so: the earth rotates too fast!"

And like the battery tests, the CIPA IS tests don't look anything like "we" use a camera. Canon figured out how to beat that specific test to get 8 stops.

The new Canon ILIS and IBIS systems are still very impressive and a huge real-life improvement, but not 8 stops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
Too much of anything is unhealthy. For example, skepticism of the COVID-19 vaccines based on the belief they contain government-linked nanotrackers.
I completely agree, and you give a good example, but your comment is not contradictory to mine. Acceptance without questioning, is also unhealthy. I question many things, listen to others, and draw my own conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
Perhaps you have difficulty holding a camera steady (which is partly innate and partly technique), just as you apparently find it too difficult to compose shots without an eye-level viewfinder.
I've stated here several times that I have quite shaky hands, although a couple of years ago, in side by side rough tests with friends (using each others DSLRs as well as our own), I sometimes found my hand-holding ability (with eye-level viewing, and using 100-400mm zooms on subjects a few feet away) was greater than theirs. So I'm probably about average. I'm over 70, so obviously not as steady as some!

Yes, I've made it clear already that I find it much harder to compose via a screen compared to an eye-level viewfinder. I've never said that it's *impossible* for me or you or anyone else to get sharp and well composed shots that way, but I absolutely maintain that using a camera braced against the face will dramatically increase anyone's chances of getting a sharp image at slower shutter speeds, or with long or heavy lenses. Holding a camera at arms length is far less steady, and I'm sure this could easily be proven in a side by side test.

I also maintain that if a camera is held at arms length, it's much harder to compose, judge depth of field, bokeh, sharpness or notice distracting background elements etc, because the image on the screen is small and distant, whereas that in an EVF is magnified and (if you shut the other eye) and surrounded by a dark field which concentrates one's eye and mind on the image. A screen can of course still be used with the camera held against the waist, which makes it a little steadier, but the image still appears small compared to using a camera at the eye.

Why some people get so defensive about this and take mock offence, is beyond me. I suspect it's due to them being unable to concede that they have a weak argument.

You (and others) can argue against this until you're blue in the face, but you all know the truth - which is that an eye-level viewfinder allows a steadier camera and better conditions for analysing the image prior to capture.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,180
I've stated here several times that I have quite shaky hands, although a couple of years ago, in side by side rough tests with friends (using each others DSLRs as well as our own), I sometimes found my hand-holding ability (with eye-level viewing, and using 100-400mm zooms on subjects a few feet away) was greater than theirs. So I'm probably about average. I'm over 70, so obviously not as steady as some!

Yes, I've made it clear already that I find it much harder to compose via a screen compared to an eye-level viewfinder. I've never said that it's *impossible* for me or you or anyone else to get sharp and well composed shots that way, but I absolutely maintain that using a camera braced against the face will dramatically increase anyone's chances of getting a sharp image at slower shutter speeds, or with long or heavy lenses. Holding a camera at arms length is far less steady, and I'm sure this could easily be proven in a side by side test.

I also maintain that if a camera is held at arms length, it's much harder to compose, judge depth of field, bokeh, sharpness or notice distracting background elements etc, because the image on the screen is small and distant, whereas that in an EVF is magnified and (if you shut the other eye) and surrounded by a dark field which concentrates one's eye and mind on the image. A screen can of course still be used with the camera held against the waist, which makes it a little steadier, but the image still appears small compared to using a camera at the eye.

Why some people get so defensive about this and take mock offence, is beyong me. I suspect it's due to them being unable to concede that they have a waek argument.

You (and others) can argue against this until you're blue in the face, but you all know the truth - which is that an eye-level viewfinder allows a steadier camera and better conditions for analysing the image prior to capture.
Perhaps I have steadier hands than average (excess coffee consumption notwithstanding). For the EF-M 55-200mm, I was able to handhold at a full stop above Canon's 3.5-stop rating. That was on an M6, so no pressing the eyecup to my brow ridge for additional stabilization. Certainly the light weight is another factor.

You can maintain using an LCD makes composition more difficult until you're blue in the face, it remains your opinion and arguably your personal failing. You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but calling it 'the truth' is not an accurate statement.

Having the viewfinder mask out the surrounding elements of the scene makes it easier to see what is included, yes. But conversely, it makes it harder to see what elements of the scene you're excluding. The whole point of composition is to decide what to include and what not to include, and if you can only see one of those your composition may suffer. Practically, you can zoom out and/or move the camera around to see what you'd be missing, but using the LCD with a bit of distance between you and the camera means you can immediately see what the viewfinder isn't showing you.

Particularly when shooting on a tripod, I find the LCD much easier to use than the eye-level viewfinder. Have you ever composed and focused a shot with a tilt-shift lens using the viewfinder? Not to mention that with an OVF, you have to meter separately because the lens movements muck up the TTL metering.

Speaking of being unable to admit a having weak argument, do you still claim that cameras without an eye-level viewfinder are fit only for the purpose of making technically poor, badly composed images? Maybe you conceded you were wrong, and I missed it.
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,710
655
People still play vinyl records. Honestly, I don't get it. I'm not going to buy a horse and buggy to take my kids to school. To each their own, though.
OH of course, the name of the game is....whatever floats your boat.

I've just really become enamored lately, with shooting some of the old Helios Russian lenses. That swirly bokeh in the back is just amazing to me....and not something you can readily recreate any other way, not really even with PS and modern lenses.

There's some lenses with a painterly look....and this not only goes for stills, but also are becoming quite popular with video.

Lots of creating folks are looking for ways to get 'looks'.

And while I love a LOT of the modern lenses, in many ways, they can be described as looking, well..."clinical".

Shooting portraits of women especially, seeing every pore isn't really what you want, and a good vintage lens can remedy that and give some interesting looks.

Having IBIS on these manual lenses (also modern ones from Laowa, their macro stuff is fun)....is a HUGE plus. It really does open up a lot of new worlds to you, often for not a high price.

But as you said, whatever floats your boat....but I would suggest that this isn't an insignificant number of folks, especially with the younger set believe it or not.

cayenne
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
884
1,010
UK
Having the viewfinder mask out the surrounding elements of the scene makes it easier to see what is included, yes. But conversely, it makes it harder to see what elements of the scene you're excluding. The whole point of composition is to decide what to include and what not to include, and if you can only see one of those your composition may suffer. Practically, you can zoom out and/or move the camera around to see what you'd be missing, but using the LCD with a bit of distance between you and the camera means you can immediately see what the viewfinder isn't showing you.
It isn't necessary to zoom back to see what's outside the field of view (and isn't possible with a prime). All you need to do is open the other eye.

For landscapes and several other subjects, I normally have both eyes open when making the initial framing, but then close the other eye so that I can concentrate on the resulting image.

For BIF, and other action subjects that are difficult to frame accurately, I zoom back to locate the subject, and then zoom in for the shot.

I also find it highly beneficial to have lots of megapixels, so that I can allow space around the subject - not only to compensate for inaccurate framing of erratically moving subjects, but also so that I can choose between various cropping options in post.

Using the "LCD at a bit of distance" means that it only occupies a very small area of your eye's field of view, so you can't see much in the way of detail, and can't judge focus, depth of field, bokeh remotely as well as with an EVF, which is part of the reason I use the latter and encourage others to do the same.

Particularly when shooting on a tripod, I find the LCD much easier to use than the eye-level viewfinder.
I have 4 tripods, and in the past used them frequently for landscapes, botany, fungi etc, but I rarely use them these days due to better noise and DR preformance with modern sensors, and the fact that I don't like to encumber myself with extra gear. If I was using a tripod, then yes I might use the screen, and use my hand to shade it from sunlight, and use the maginification feature to check details. But in practice I do most of my landscape shots handheld and use the EVF, crouching or kneeling if necessary - I don't mind getting muddy for the sake of a good photo!

Have you ever composed and focused a shot with a tilt-shift lens using the viewfinder? Not to mention that with an OVF, you have to meter separately because the lens movements muck up the TTL metering.
I have no difficulty at all in composing and focusing using my TS-E 24mm hand-held, and do so very frequently. Manual focusing is easy and quick, using peaking and/or the R5 focus indicator "thingy". It does take a few seconds, but that's not as long as it would take to set up a tripod, although landscape and botanical photography is rarely a hurried experience. Don't misinterpret this as me criticising tripod use - I used them regularly when I was younger, but no longer want the encumbrance on long hikes.

Not to mention that with an OVF, you have to meter separately because the lens movements muck up the TTL metering.
With an OVF that's true, although I habitually bracket my exposures anyway, so I've never found it a problem with my DSLRs. With an EVF, the metering issue with tilt/shift lenses doesn't exist, I use the histogram and bracket 2/3rds stop either side in high contrast conditions.
Speaking of being unable to admit a having weak argument, do you still claim that cameras without an eye-level viewfinder are fit only for the purpose of making technically poor, badly composed images? Maybe you conceded you were wrong, and I missed it.
I was, of course, exaggerating the point in my original post, in order to stimulate a debate :giggle:.

I think I've made it very clear in the posts that followed that my view is that it is perfectly *possible* to get sharp and well composed shots (under certain conditions) when composing on a screen, but that in most circumstances an EVF or OVF is a much *better* way to compose, and a steadier way to execute a photograph, when using a camera hand-held. The latter could almost certainly be proven by testing, and I've explained my reasoning for the former.

As an aside, my ideal viewfinder would be a *tilting* EVF, but I do find the rear screen much better for making menu and "quick screen" adjustments, as I don't like cycling through icons in the EVF. So the view through my EVF is usually completely unobscured, except when I activate the histogram.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,180
OH of course, the name of the game is....whatever floats your boat.

I've just really become enamored lately, with shooting some of the old Helios Russian lenses. That swirly bokeh in the back is just amazing to me....and not something you can readily recreate any other way, not really even with PS and modern lenses.

There's some lenses with a painterly look....and this not only goes for stills, but also are becoming quite popular with video.

Lots of creating folks are looking for ways to get 'looks'.

And while I love a LOT of the modern lenses, in many ways, they can be described as looking, well..."clinical".

Shooting portraits of women especially, seeing every pore isn't really what you want, and a good vintage lens can remedy that and give some interesting looks.

Having IBIS on these manual lenses (also modern ones from Laowa, their macro stuff is fun)....is a HUGE plus. It really does open up a lot of new worlds to you, often for not a high price.

But as you said, whatever floats your boat....but I would suggest that this isn't an insignificant number of folks, especially with the younger set believe it or not.

cayenne
Agree! Lomo, etc., aren't unpopular. RE portraits, I haven't tried gauze or smearing vaseline on a front filter ;) but I have had to apply small amounts of blur in post, so I definitely get what you mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,374
1,059
Yorkshire, England
You (and others) can argue against this until you're blue in the face, but you all know the truth - which is that an eye-level viewfinder allows a steadier camera and better conditions for analysing the image prior to capture.
Personally I disagree with the last part of that sentence. When digital cameras began to get decent LV I often found, having set the picture up through the viewfinder, that when I viewed it on the rear screen in LV it was a crap picture and not worth taking. I think that the best viewfinder ‘for analysing the image prior to capture’ was probably for me the waist level finders. When composting a landscape picture, if the camera has a tilt / flippy screen I much prefer to look down on it. This is rather unfortunate as I mostly use a 5DS.
However I am short sighted and can look at the screens from very close. If someone has become long sighted through age I can imagine the rear LCD view is unsatisfactory.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,904
6,180
It sounds like some people see a rear screen as equivalent to a viewfinder and others don't.
I prefer to discuss that equivalence only in terms of brightness. Many so-called experts on this forum bring in technical terms like viewing magnification and refresh rate, but I think most people find those things confusing.