These are two very different things.I don’t know about R5. But on eosr Most EF glass is not as sharp as the R glass at the corner. The performance is similar to me.
Upvote
0
These are two very different things.I don’t know about R5. But on eosr Most EF glass is not as sharp as the R glass at the corner. The performance is similar to me.
I can think of at least one Korean and one Chinese company that makes lenses that might be working on cloning Canon DSLRs even as we speak.
What if that one product causes people to stop buying, delay purchases or switch brands? What if it prompts a new competitor to develop a less expensive, better spec'd clone? This all seems like a risky strategy to me.
...
One area I am hoping the early reviews will look at is powering the R5/R6 with PD powerbanks from companies like Anker. While I do not have same requirement to look through a OVF/EVF for hours I do want to be able to run some extreme time-lapses and my EOS R just never was able to because of battery life. The 2 Anker PD powerbanks I have charge the EOS R just fine but will not power the R. I hope this has been changed for the R5/R6.
The 5DSR works fine for me for BIF, not as good as the D850, admittedly, and it locks on very fast. What AF settings are you using. I use the central 9 points. It even works reasonably well with the 100-400mm II +1.4xTC using the centre and helper points at f/8. Here is a selection taken on 6 Aug last year with the 5DSR + 100-400mm II on Darwins Bay and Genovese in the Galapagos, with different types of shots from a tiny Storm Petrel, a diving pelican, boobies, frigate bird and a tropical bird belting across the sky. These aren't rare keepers, most of my shots were keepers. I have posted loads more in the BIF thread here.I too shoot birds and astro with the 5DSR and it is not ideal for either. Too slow for BIF and rarely locks focus (much less acquires focus) when I shoot birds. When it hits it is awesome. Great detail and ability to crop without significant loss of resolution. But it is frustrating for moving subjects. As for astro, I just used it last night on comet and MW. Too much noise and inability to handle higher ISO. As a result, I have to pair it with super fast UWA Sigma lenses to get decent shots.
I will happily replace my 5DSR for all the improvements the R5 promises for my style of shooting. I might also add the high MP body for landscape work when it is introduced but will likely give that one some time to understand what tradeoffs come with so many MP and if it is more of a studio beast or will work well in the wild.
Bob
Another note - thanks for that link. Interesting quick read and some good points. Never been a fan of Pentax myself, but I know a couple folks back in the day that did and swore by them. I do hope things work out for them.Why Pentax is Making the Right Call in Sticking with DSLRs
As the majority of camera manufacturers move away from the SLR type cameras and start producing mirrorless systems, one company continues to hold on topetapixel.com
And I don't know medium format platforms at all, but I would imagine they, too have some folks that are harumph-ing at the death of the mirror.
SLRs will become niche over time, I agree, but not every manufacturer wants to make the massive investment just to climb into now piranha-filled waters of a mirrorless marketplace. Only the largest companies will survive that winnowing process.
- A
its not just that if you check the dxo figures then a lot of lenses do not resolve enough pixels even on a dslr, the new rf lenses should have more resolving power for the new sensors
What success? It's still on preorder ?Well, I guess no surprise with the success of the R5 but I know there will be a lot of folks who are disappointed.
Yes. I believe when I get my R5, I will probably get the control ring adapter for it and assign the aperture to it.
Why do not provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras so that we can compare, use both and decide how to make the transition (if ever so).
EVF lag at 120fps is 0.0083s. It's 10-20 times less than typical human reaction time. At 120fps it makes the reaction worse by 5-10%. But if you shoot in bursts it doesn't matter, you just need to start a burst upfront.
Partially. Buyers decide what they want today based on what is available today and and a host of other factors (like opinions and measurements discussed on this forum). Manufacturers have to look into the future and plan for what they think buyers will want in the future based on the factors I mentioned and others. Sometimes they get it right and succeed and sometimes not.Isn't that the same thing as letting buyers (the market) decide?
Most people seem to use it for ISO, but to me it seems intuitive to put the aperture there--after all you're adjusting something physically in the lens.
its not just that if you check the dxo figures then a lot of lenses do not resolve enough pixels even on a dslr, the new rf lenses should have more resolving power for the new sensors
Yes it is inevitable that some photographers will be put off by this (so far rumoured) decision. If true, Canon must have done a cost benefit analysis and decided that the benefits of moving more quickly to RF outweighed the negatives.This is really a sad move from Canon. And stupid too. And somehow so careless towards their DSLR users. I understand mirrorless cameras are the future, but why making a switch like this? Why do not provide us with an overlap between similarly spec'd DSLR and mirrorless cameras so that we can compare, use both and decide how to make the transition (if ever so).
Comparing the R5 against the 5D Mark IV isn't fair imo. We needed a 5D Mark V.
And FFS Canon, can't you care about your customers who prefer an OVF?
And for those of you who prefer mirrorless cameras, good for you. But too many of you try to explain to those who prefer OVF why they're wrong. Just don't.