Three Sensors Being Tested for Canon Full Frame Mirrorless? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
neuroanatomist said:
Yes, but in-camera HDR is a 'gimmick for amateurs' (discuss if you wish!) whereas focus peaking is pretty much an essential tool on a mirrorless camera.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Even with threee on the go for testing at the same time, we still know very little about where in the cycle they are. They could be for the same model, and we are very early in the development cycle, or it could be that they are beta testing for three different models.....
We can speculate, but it’s all guesswork....
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
That's funny. When I tried focus peaking on both M-series and Sony, I thought, why would anyone want to use this?
Many times, it doesn't highlight the areas that are in focus. And sometimes, when it thinks something is in focus, it might be slightly off, for example, in comparison with focus magnified.
I am not an HDR fan either, generally speaking. However, I have seen some very nice shots taken with it.
Upvote
0
Talys said:
I want to try large aperture manual focus lenses handheld with the camera held up to my eye. That means focus screens or peaking, and since Canon took interchangeable screens away, all my chips are on mirrorless delivering the goods.
I'm not all in on Canon FF mirrorless on day one, but I will be keenly looking at reviews for how the peaking works. This is potentially huge upside over (say) a 5D4 or 6D2.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I think the focus magnification is WAY better (because you can just see what's in focus). In my opinion, all the red or yellow crap just gets in the way of seeing what's in focus, and what's not
On the Sony, the low setting is fairly unobtrusive, but a lot of contrast edges don't "peak" when they're in focus. And, it can be deceptively inaccurate when manual focusing on things like flowers with a wide lens. By that, I mean that because of a shallow depth of field, if you go by what's peaked, you might think you have a an in-focus image, when in fact, a lot of what you wanted to be in focus isn't.
Incidentally, with tools like focus peaking and focus magnification, I spent a lot more time "guaranteeing" my photos were perfectly in focus. Unfortunately, that's cost me some great shots, too, when autofocus would have probably done the job just fine.
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:melgross said:
If you say something naughty you will be relegated to Nikon D850.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jolyonralph said:
An essential tool? Seriously? It seems you've decided to leave reality behind and move to the AvTvM Universe, where features you like are critically important for vast multitudes of photographers. Out here in the real world, all MILCs and nearly all lenses designed for them have this feature called autofocus. Are you suggesting that focus peaking is an essential tool for using autofocus successfully? Or are you saying that most users in most cases are using manual focus lenses on their MILCs? Or are you saying that in the niche cases where manual focus is used, digitally magnified manual focusing is so poor that it's useless for manual focusing? (Personally, like Talys, I find magnified focus superior to focus peaking.)
Meanwhile, enjoy your break from reality. If you want to return to the real world, we'd welcome you back.
Upvote
0
glness said:
Believing that more MPs is "ahead" and less MPs is "behind" is the usual spec baloney that we are constantly being fed on forums and review sites. Want more resolution - yes, than you want more MPs. Want less noise and better low light performance - than you want less MPs. I would rather Canon be "ahead" with a nice 24 or 28 Mp FF camera. Anything over 36 MPs and I would be out. I don't want a camera where I need a tripod to get the benefit of those higher MP numbers - or where I need to raise my shutter speed. In my experience with both FF and crop cameras over the past 13 years, I still prefer the look of larger pixels. That is "ahead" in my book.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Yes, I've had mirrorless cameras since 2014 and have used focus peaking twice - in both cases shooting sunsets where the inferior AF of the mirrorless cameras couldn't lock onto anything to get AF. I do understand that some folks - especially the type of folks who visit these types of forums - have older non AF lenses, and that there are some folks with vision issues that benefit from focus peaking, but it is far from essential, in my opinion.
Upvote
0
dak723 said:
while i personally am also happy with moderate MP counts, i should like to point out that the "former trade-off between resolution and noise" is pretty much a thing of the past. Current Hi-Res sensors deliver excellent IQ with low noise and good DR. Sony sensors are still ahead, but Canon sensors have made good progress to close the gap (eg 50MP 5Ds).
Higher requirements re. "proper shooting technique" are a reality, but should not be exaggerated. Even 50 MP cameras can be used handheld in many situations.
Upvote
0
dak723 said:
For me 36mpx is the absolute minimum. I'd rather have a 50 or 60mpx sensor and downsample when a lower resolution image is appropriate which will mask any softness or camera shake.
But not everyone wants the same. Some people want low(er) resolution sensors for faster recording, higher frame rates and easier workflow. Others want higher resolution for maximum detail, for cropping down, for downsampling to increase colour quality (bayer filter issues) etc etc.
Neither is wrong. Both camps are totally justified in their reasons. This is why Sony do both the normal and the R versions of their cameras, and I think that Canon would be foolish not to do the same and release two models.
Upvote
0
Talys said:ahsanford said:
I think the focus magnification is WAY better (because you can just see what's in focus). In my opinion, all the red or yellow crap just gets in the way of seeing what's in focus, and what's not
On the Sony, the low setting is fairly unobtrusive, but a lot of contrast edges don't "peak" when they're in focus. And, it can be deceptively inaccurate when manual focusing on things like flowers with a wide lens. By that, I mean that because of a shallow depth of field, if you go by what's peaked, you might think you have a an in-focus image, when in fact, a lot of what you wanted to be in focus isn't.
Incidentally, with tools like focus peaking and focus magnification, I spent a lot more time "guaranteeing" my photos were perfectly in focus. Unfortunately, that's cost me some great shots, too, when autofocus would have probably done the job just fine.
focus peaking works quite well for me on my M5, even with the Kamlan 55 1.1
admitedly, at close to MFD it's tricky and simply moving a bit changes the focus but at normal working distances it's quite good
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
jolyonralph said:
That's perfectly fine. But to call it, "...an essential tool on a mirrorless camera," is ridiculous. Given that the definition of ridiculous is 'deserving or inviting derision or mockery' my comments were completely appropriate.
Please feel free to support your argument by sharing some exciting and unpredictable images from your portfolio that absolutely required the use of focus peaking to achieve (since after all, that's the definition of 'essential'). Just a few images please...since focus peaking is such an essential tool for you, no doubt such images constitute the bulk of your portfolio, but we wouldn't want to overwhelm the internet's bandwidth with your plethora of such images.
Incidentally, I'd bet good money that far more people use in-camera HDR than have even heard of focus peaking.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
The whole discussion is meaningless because the new camera will almost certainly support focus peaking because all previous EOS M models do (even prior to the Powershot-type firmware models).
So whether you think it's necessary or not it'll come. And I'm sure it'll have in-camera HDR too, which I still think is a toy compared to bracketing some photos manually and merging them with more professional HDR software tools. But that hasn't stopped me using it from time to time because sometimes you just want to have fun.
And I'd much rather have fun and enjoy photography, and have positive conversations here with you and everyone else, than to extend a silly spat.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Calling any feature essential is a bit of an overstatement. Even things like AF are not essential.... what they do is to make a particular task(s) easier... it is all about convenience and personally, I see nothing wrong with that.
I do not use focus peaking, but if I was into macro photography that feature would be very high on the list of things to look for in a new camera, and just because I don't use it, there is zero reason for me to deny others the use. Likewise in-camera HDR... I prefer to set my camera to bracket 3 or 5 shots and do the processing later where I have more control, but I recognize that many (most?) people are not so dedicated (anal?) about these things and that for them the convenience of the in-camera HDR outweighs the pain of external processing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
