That's true, I never thought about that....the iso noise is negating any detail advantage the higher mp sensor might have...
Only lens I ever had issues with on my EOS R was an older Sigma. I bought the Firmware dock and that solved my issues after applying an updated firmware.He really did a solid here making this video quickly. A lot of folks wanted to see how these would perform.
I'm REALLY interested in seeing how adapting the Sigma 150-600mm will perform.
I didn't have any real issues with the lenses I did use, but it's still something I want to see. This certainly makes me feel better about it. I have the R5 preordered and there is a guy selling a 150-600mm sport very fairly nearby that I might have to scoop up. I was always happy with how the 150-600mm ran on the GH5 but I also never relied on AF. This animal AF is just nutty.Only lens I ever had issues with on my EOS R was an older Sigma. I bought the Firmware dock and that solved my issues after applying an updated firmware.
I was thinking, if I was interested in a budget wildlife option then the R6 and 600 and 800 lenses together cost less than the R5 with 600 or 800. Given the AF advantages for most people with the new MILC's and the compromises in iso due to lens speed I'd think not being focal length limited is more advantageous than being short on focal length and cropping.That's true, I never thought about that.
45MP of noise is the price to pay for those f11 lenses.
On the other hand, the Big Whites are expensive and heavy so I guess these are the options we have: less money, less weight, more mobility and more noise vs more money, more weight and possibly awesome (noise-free) files.
Well, if you do have the 5D Mark IV and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens + 2.x TC you're at f/11, 800mm and 30MP, without spending any extra money.I am thinking current 5D IV and 5DS users with the 100-400 II who crop, they now have the option of animal eye AF with budget 800mm lenses and a reasonably priced 20mp (1DX III) sensor in the R6.
You've obviously not been voraciously consuming all the animal eye-AF YouTube examples out there – it locks onto fast moving BIF like superglue.Well, if you do have the 5D Mark IV and the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens + 2.x TC you're at f/11, 800mm and 30MP, without spending any extra money.
Is the animal eye AF worth it in the end?
I guess it depends and we'll only find out when real tests are out. So far we had the turtle, the sloth, the sleepy cheetah and the mellow eagle. The slug had a day off, I guess
Camera NR? Judging quality on JPEG or HEIF files, or what?
Did you download and look at Fro's DNGs? Looks way better than my R does at those ISOs.Camera NR? Judging quality on JPEG or HEIF files, or what?
Not saying that there are no improvements. Especially over the R / 5D IV. We already know that the 90D / M6 II / 1DX III generation of sensors has even less read noise than previous Canon's and no banding, so why would the R5 be worse?
But there's no room for earth shattering improvements in low light performance without turning to computational photography and post processing techniques. I'd image that if Canon managed to break the boundaries of physics they would have made a big lger deal out of it.
The other problem is that f/11 is way above the diffraction limit of the R5 sensor. You are right that the f/11 lenses are really for the R6. The R5 can take advantage of wider aperture shorter focal length lenses to achieve reach. The 600 and 800 lenses are so specialised you would need the 100-700 as well.Having downloaded them and put them in LR the first thing I'd say is f11 lenses force you into such high iso for most images it is a big compromise! The cheetah at 4,000iso just isn't good and for that the R6 would be every bit as good a camera, the iso noise is negating any detail advantage the higher mp sensor might have, if I was looking to do budget wildlife I'd take an R6 and the 600 or 800 because most of the time that extra resolution from the R5 won't get me any more detail, and I could get the 800mm for the money I'd saved getting the R6 instead of the R5.
Zero banding in shadow lifts on the R5 at 4,000iso though, which is impressive.
No I did not, yet. I think you mean the zoo pictures?Did you download and look at Fro's DNGs? Looks way better than my R does at those ISOs.
Yes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.No I did not, yet. I think you mean the zoo pictures?
As I said, I'm not disputing that there are improvements. But there is a limit set by the shot noise in the light itself. You seemed to imply that comments pointing this out were about to be proven wrong. Unless I misunderstood you, I want to point out that this is still true. There's obviously differences in what people see as big improvements though, so that's to be kept in mind as well.
But the images are taken in broad daylight anyway, right? A high ISO value in itself is not enough to make a good comparison. I would wait for opportunities to compare side by side before getting too hyped. As I shoot my Sigma 150-600mm at f/7.1 frequently (960 mm f/11 equivalent) I'm not directly shocked that the f/11 primes are usable.
Just downloaded and had a play. R6 is awesome at 1000ISO(especially considering I am comparing to my 7d2). R5 at 4000 looks about the same as 800 on my camera although tbh the cheetah shot was underexposed by over 1.5 stops so it needed a lot of pushing. Which kind of highlights the limitations of those f11 lenses more than the camera. I would have preferred to see an R5 shot at 4000ISO but correctly exposedYes, the zoo shots. Just saying the ISO 1000 looks more like it does on my GFX than it does on my R. Seems like a meaningful improvement of several stops over the R. Will have to wait for true testing of course.