I think all of the dual-slot cameras have it. My 1D X does.“Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.
[All images] > [Skip image and continue]
Upvote
0
I think all of the dual-slot cameras have it. My 1D X does.“Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.
Count me out. I have an R3 on order but will almost certainly cancel. I'm waiting to see what the Z9 brings to the table. I'm looking at some of my recent R5 wildlife shots, how much cropping was required to get the image I want, and how much detail I maintained. I crave the R3's improved performance but not the lost detail. I hope that I can get both detailed cropping and high performance in a 45MP Z9 with R3/A1 speed and AF performance.Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.
A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.These are more about thumbnails for quick running through the files.
Jeff wrote on his blog that he was shooting RAW+JPEG to the same or both cards. The SD slot is so slow that he yanked the SD card for the water polo finals to avoid risking key images.I think the embedded jpeg is more compressed and presumably the jpegs he was writing to the second card were at the highest quality settings.
I always write RAW images to both cards when I am shooting (for redundancy), and since the SD card is so much slower than the CFexpress card, I have numerous times when I filled the camera buffer and missed some great shots. For the USA Water Polo women's gold medal game, I decided to pull the SD card and shoot to just the CFexpress card. I could not risk having buffer issues during this key game!
I should mention that I shot the entire Olympics in RAW+JPEG mode, since I could not easily open a Canon R3 RAW file and had to work with the JPEGs for the whole Games. I wanted to capture the RAW files, since I plan on re-editing the best photos from the RAW files in the weeks to come, once Adobe has added the R3 to Adobe Camera RAW. Shooting RAW+JPEG really slows things down, and I don't plan on shooting that way in the future.
A .CR3 file from the EOS R includes a 1620x1080 jpg file. That’s 1.8 MP and is smaller than the smallest in-camera jpg setting (Small 2, 2400x1600).A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.
Perhaps, but I don’t think Canon is targeting the R3 for R5 owners. There are a lot more 5DIII/IV shooters out there, and a smaller number of 1D X (II/III) shooters, that are the more likely targets."Once you've done 45, you can't go back!"
Absolutely agreeBet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.
Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.When there is an SDexpress card used the speed will change dramatically. Canon is an Executive Board member of the SD Association.
Executive Members | SD Association
www.sdcard.org
No disagreement here. I've come to term with the clear fact that the R3 was not designed for me. Rather, my previous post was a response to your implication that the only wildlife photogs who wouldn't want the R3 were those who couldn't afford. On the contrary, there are quite a few of us wildlife photogs who are taking a hard pass on the R3 not due to the high price--I think that it's worth the price for many--but because the tradeoff between performance and resolution is not acceptable for our shooting.Perhaps, but I don’t think Canon is targeting the R3 for R5 owners. There are a lot more 5DIII/IV shooters out there, and a smaller number of 1D X (II/III) shooters, that are the more likely targets.
It’s a common refrain on this forum that, “Mark N of a camera isn’t much of an improvement over Mark N-1 in terms of [my favorite feature], so I’ll pass.” What people fail to grasp is that Canon is targeting owners of the Mark N-2 and earlier versions, as well as owners of ‘lower’ camera lines (xxD to xD, etc.). As I have often stated, Canon has data on who buys what and when, so for example they know how many 5DIV cameras were bought by 5DIII owners vs. those with a 5DII, 7D, 80D, etc. I suspect the latter group is much larger than the former.
I’m not sure there’s really a trade-off between performance and resolution. The performance is high, the resolution is lower but that was a declarative choice by Canon since the R5 clearly shows at least 30 MP was possible at 30 fps.On the contrary, there are quite a few of us wildlife photogs who are taking a hard pass on the R3 not due to the high price--I think that it's worth the price for many--but because the tradeoff between performance and resolution is not acceptable for our shooting.
I can’t speak for “most” wildlife shooters, but:Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.
It’s a jpeg. You can’t really pixel peep a jpeg. I’ve never seen embedded jpegs being of any really usable quality. You can use them to go through a large batch of photos to see what they are without having to open the far larger file. You can get some idea about color and exposure. But you can’t rely on them for much else. That’s their main use.A thumbnail you can zoom into to pixel peep, or are you suggesting it reprocesses the RAW file when you zoom in, if you look at the size of your RAW files I think you will see they differ largely by the size of a jpg version.
I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).It’s a jpeg. You can’t really pixel peep a jpeg. I’ve never seen embedded jpegs being of any really usable quality. You can use them to go through a large batch of photos to see what they are without having to open the far larger file. You can get some idea about color and exposure. But you can’t rely on them for much else. That’s their main use.
Waiting for R5C with eye AF and new improved flash hot shoe."Once you've done 45, you can't go back!"
I\ve come to teach myself that a little bit of clipping due to over-exposure (blinkies) in the jpeg thumbnaail is usually OK, but not a lot. But it's definitely a judgement call, depending on the subject and what you want to achieve. A solid "Your Milage May Vary"I suspect the question was about pixel peeping on-camera (aka ‘chimping’). If you shoot RAW only, what is shown on the LCD/EVF image review? The jpg thumbnail in the RAW container. That jpg is also used to generate the histogram and 'blinkies' (which is why judging exposure/clipping based on an 8-bit version conversion of the 14-bit RAW file can be a challenge).
Funnily enough, I was only thinking about this a couple of days ago.
Has Canon mentioned anything about R3 and SDexpress compatibility does anyone know?
It's on the R5 and I also used it on the 5DIV. I started using it to replace taking a laptop on trips to backup my photos to save on weight. It also makes it easy to backup in the field. I have a couple on large capacity SD cards I write dual backups to, then clear my main card if I need to. The copy function works very much the same as the file copy feature in Windows so you can elect to replace or ignore.“Image copy command”!? Somehow I’ve never noticed that before. Is tha feature in all Canon pro and prosumer bodies? I have the R5.
Bet wildlife shooters that can afford the R3 will buy one. But I agree that most wildlife shooters will pass – because of the price tag not the MP count.