Rp is a bokeh killer

[Arseni]

We all know, that EFCS ( Electronic first curtain shutter ) is great for reducing shutter shake, but affects bokeh at high shutter speeds.
Below is my example of how it looks like. Pretty big hit on bokeh. So You're getting roghly f2.0 blur out of f1.4 lens at 1/4000. And at iso 100 and f1.4 - most of daytime shots outside would require 1/3200-1/4000.
Even worse if you're lucky and have 1.2 lens - you'll be stuck with 1/4000

I admit - that is the price we pay for the luxury of EFCS, and mirrorles, but EVERY Full Frame mirrorless out there EXCEPT for Rp allows some form of workaround. For example - full electronic shutter does not affect bokeh in any way.
But the Rp only allows full e-shutter in scene modes + in focus stacking mode. So if you're shooting AV - there is no way to save your bokeh.

This is especially sad, because Canon has that great new RF glass with f1.2

Canon, plaease enable full electronic shutter in firmware update for Rp. We know it's technically there - just make it available in PASM modes.

I'm not asking for 1/8000. I know Rp is not a pro body by any means. And frankly 1/4000 is a huge limitation in using f1.2-f1.4 glass outdoors. But please allow 1/4000 with full electronic shutter.

 

[Viggo]

Or just use the mechanical shutter

 

[koenkooi]

Or just use the mechanical shutter

There’s no mechanical first curtain in the RP, it’s EFCS or fully electronic.

 

[Viggo]

There’s no mechanical first curtain in the RP, it’s EFCS or fully electronic.

Say what? Really?

 

[Pape]

why not use gray filter?

 

[Arseni]

why not use gray filter?

That is exactly what I do. 3-stop ND8x.

What I like: It turns 1/16000 into 1/2000, which, in theory, gives even more flexibility, than having a 1/8000 shutter.
What I do not like: Swapping it multiple times a day really is inconvenient. + I have to carry it with me. It's just a filter, but Rp for me is all about portability and even a filter makes a difference.

So I consider an ND workaround to be a Pain unless you really need 1/8000 and above.

I'm wondering - if the upcoming R6 is going to be the same way...

 

[Pape]

Rp isnt really meaned to PRO work ,just for new full frame shooters ,maybe R6 will do better

 

[Sporgon]

This takes splitting hairs to a new level

 

[Arseni]

Rp isnt really meaned to PRO work

Totally agree. And I'm not a pro. Not even close. That is why I'm ok with 1/4000 and bigger EOS R is just too big for me.
But even pure enthusiast level lenses like RF 35 1.8 are affected.
I'm not asking for full mechanical shutter - let's leave that for semi-pro bodies. But at least full e-shutter should be available with a limitation of rolling shutter effect.

 

[jd7]

This takes splitting hairs to a new level

Spoken like a true landscape photographer

 

[Arseni]

This takes splitting hairs to a new level

Well, the effect is fairly obvious. If the example is post #1 is not bad enough - here is what it looks like when there are sharp highlights out of focus.
Would you still consider that acceptable for a FF camera? Even at $999

 

[Joules]

Would you still consider that acceptable for a FF camera? Even at $999
View attachment 188591

That honestly looks less offensive than the mirror box cutting off the bokeh balls, which is a phenomenon present on all DSLR, even the ones above 999.

The annoying thing here is clearly that the camera has an option to avoid such defects but doesn't allow the user to make use of it in their preferred modes. A pure software thing, and yes, it is differentiation - but in an annoying way.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]

I'm not asking for 1/8000. I know Rp is not a pro body by any means. And frankly 1/4000 is a huge limitation in using f1.2-f1.4 glass outdoors. But please allow 1/4000 with full electronic shutter.[..]

For static scenes you can use the focus stacking mode for that, set it to 2 shots, set your shutter, aperture, iso, focus and then start the sequence.
It's annoying and tedious, but it does give you full control with the electronic shutter.

 

[Sporgon]

Well, the effect is fairly obvious. If the example is post #1 is not bad enough - here is what it looks like when there are sharp highlights out of focus.
Would you still consider that acceptable for a FF camera? Even at $999
View attachment 188591

OK that's more obvious than your first example