It's mirrorless. What you see is what you get. Not needed.I thought it is a good feature. Why don't you appreciate it? Thx.
The RATE button is a puzzle. Could there be some wiring/hardware limitation preventing further customization?I'm pleased that Canon continues to offer firmware updates for improved performance. But like several other users, I'd like more flexibility in the assignment of button functions. In particular, I do not use any of the features currently assignable to the RATE button. It would be nice to have more flexibility in assigning that button's function.
Untrue. WYSIWYG is a myth. The EVF is a high contrast, highly compressed JPEG preview of an image with reduced colour gamut. Furthermore it cannot reliably be used to judge exposure, because your eyes will compensate for differences in the EVF brightness. So it is no more useful than the image seen on the LCD panel of a DSLR.It's mirrorless. What you see is what you get. Not needed.
When you are shooting RAW on the R5, its sensor is completely iso-invariant above iso 800 to very high values. So as long as you don't clip highlights by overexposing, you can push the exposure through many stops in post processing without any deleterious effects compared with getting it "accurate" in camera. And it's not much worse than that at lower isos. The evf gives you the most important information: not clipping highlights. You can see through the evf how close you are to clipping highlights, and the camera will even indicate that to you as well by the bleached areas flashing black. I, personally, find the evf invaluable for judging exposure, though you might find that over-rated. I've given up using auto-exposure because it's now redundant for the way I use full manual. If I am shooting a brightly reflecting bird or with some bright parts, I scale back exposure. If its the other way round, I can see how much I can increase exposure without bleaching other parts.Untrue. WYSIWYG is a myth. The EVF is a high contrast, highly compressed JPEG preview of an image with reduced colour gamut. Furthermore it cannot reliably be used to judge exposure, because your eyes will compensate for differences in the EVF brightness. So it is no more useful than the image seen on the LCD panel of a DSLR.
If you want "correct" exposure, it's best to regard the EVF image as nothing but a very rough approximation. Referring to the histogram is far more accurate and reliable. And if you really care about exposure accuracy, bracket your exposures.
The real value of an EVF is that you can instantly check that you got the subject sharp and in focus, without removing your eye.
Mirrorless provides many benefits in terms of AF tracking, silent shutter and blackout-free shooting, but "WYSIWYG" is highly overrated hype.
I'm sorry that you simply discredit one of the great benefits of the R5/R6. I have my EVF configured, after months of tweaking, to be very true, far better than a "rough approximation." Yes, the histogram adds to the precision I'm experiencing shot after shot, but, in my opinion, calling the exposure accuracy of what is represented by the EVF "highly overrated hype" suggests you are either dismissive of the tech, or you haven't managed to adjust your EVF properly for your eyes.Untrue. WYSIWYG is a myth. The EVF is a high contrast, highly compressed JPEG preview of an image with reduced colour gamut. Furthermore it cannot reliably be used to judge exposure, because your eyes will compensate for differences in the EVF brightness. So it is no more useful than the image seen on the LCD panel of a DSLR.
If you want "correct" exposure, it's best to regard the EVF image as nothing but a very rough approximation. Referring to the histogram is far more accurate and reliable. And if you really care about exposure accuracy, bracket your exposures.
The real value of an EVF is that you can instantly check that you got the subject sharp and in focus, without removing your eye.
Mirrorless provides many benefits in terms of AF tracking, silent shutter and blackout-free shooting, but "WYSIWYG" is highly overrated hype.
"Correcting" the exposure by significant amounts alters the contrast, saturation and colour balance because the red, blue and green subpixels respond differently to varying light levels, so getting the exposure optimal in the first place saves a lot of work in post.When you are shooting RAW on the R5, its sensor is completely iso-invariant above iso 800 to very high values. So as long as you don't clip highlights by overexposing, you can push the exposure through many stops in post processing without any deleterious effects compared with getting it "accurate" in camera. And it's not much worse than that at lower isos. The evf gives you the most important information: not clipping highlights. You can see through the evf how close you are to clipping highlights, and the camera will even indicate that to you as well by the bleached areas flashing black. I, personally, find the evf invaluable for judging exposure, though you might find that over-rated. I've given up using auto-exposure because it's now redundant for the way I use full manual. If I am shooting a brightly reflecting bird or with some bright parts, I scale back exposure. If its the other way round, I can see how much I can increase exposure without bleaching other parts.
It is possible to configure a single point AF in one shot mode while still in face tracking servo mode and get the best of bothI don't know - adding another modes might be nice, but I still have gripes, with how messy all those modes are.
- The old school servo tracking is exactly that - well, old school. Working against the logic of other modes. I don't want my camera to refocus when I move it, I want it to lock on the subject and track it. So in single point mode, no servo for me.
- Face tracking mode - default setting is useless for most users - no initial point displayed? So you are basically waiting for a camera to choose something from the scene to jump onto? This is a joke. So for face tracking mode, the servo mode feels better, at least to both me and my wife.
So, from focus and recompose, we've got ourselves to focus, track and recompose.
Here are two actual sets of data on the R5 that show above about iso 400-800 there is negligible increase in noise on lifting shadows in post vs setting a higher iso. The first example are actual, real measurements by Bill Claff that show there are negligible changes in noise on lifting shadows, indicated by the red line I have drawn. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Canon EOS R5 And, for those who prefer actual examples, the comparator from dpr https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r5-review/5 (quote: "in low light situations, you can use the shutter speed and aperture settings of a high ISO exposure, but keep the camera set to ISO 400. By the time you brighten up the shot in post, the image won't be noticeably noisier than if you shot natively at a higher ISO, but you've saved several stops of highlight information.") You can see clearly pushing through 4 stops from iso 400 in post processinggives the same noise as directly setting iso to 6400.And while modern sensors such as in the R5 are fairly iso-invariant, lifting shadows will still increase noise levels. So I have to disagree about the usefulness of the "WYSIWYG" aspect of EVFs.
Thanks, that does surprise me.Here are two actual sets of data on the R5 that show above about iso 400-800 there is negligible increase in noise on lifting shadows in post vs setting a higher iso. The first example are actual, real measurements by Bill Claff that show there are negligible changes in noise on lifting shadows, indicated by the red line I have drawn. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Canon EOS R5 And, for those who prefer actual examples, the comparator from dpr https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r5-review/5 (quote: "in low light situations, you can use the shutter speed and aperture settings of a high ISO exposure, but keep the camera set to ISO 400. By the time you brighten up the shot in post, the image won't be noticeably noisier than if you shot natively at a higher ISO, but you've saved several stops of highlight information.") You can see clearly pushing through 4 stops from iso 400 in post processinggives the same noise as directly setting iso to 6400.
View attachment 201345View attachment 201346
Hello? It's my default autofocus mode for the R5.Unfortunately again, despite many requests (on forums) from a large number of people, the plea to have an adjustable AF zone in tracking mode has been ignored again. It really would be useful to be able to set a smaller AF point, place it over any subject, and have the camera track it across the entire frame area (which from what I understand, is how the Sony system works).
Unless I've missed something obvious (which is quite possibleHello? It's my default autofocus mode for the R5.
However, I would like to have the ability to keep this mode as the default, but put "tracking mode with automatic selection of the starting point" on the AF-ON button. As far as I know, it's currently impossible.
Thanks, that does surprise me.
So, no point in having settings higher than ISO 800 on the camera then?(other than having a pretty picture to chimp at the taking stage).
I'll stick with my opinion about the usefulness of "WYSIWYG" for assessing exposure though.
As for EVFs in general, I still use my 5DMkiv occasionally, and while I fully acknowledge and enjoy many of the benefits of my mirrorless R5, I still much prefer the experience of using an optical viewfinder. Overall of course, the R5 is a far better machine, and it's enabled me to get many shots that would have been a lot more difficut to capture, had I been using a DSLR.
Ah, you mean that smaller AF point...Unless I've missed something obvious (which is quite possible...at my age), in "face and tracking" made, you can only use the "standard" fairly large AF spot. What I want to do, for greater precision, is to use the smallest AF spot available, place it over the subject, and then have the camera track it across the frame.
Well, it kinda works, but it is unreliable at tracking eyes.My usual practice is to have "face and tracking" set as default, and case 2.
For BIF, I have AF/ON mapped to zone AF (large square) which works very well, provided that the bird remains within the AF zone, which is usually doable.
I need the * button for AE lock.I have *button mapped for smallest AF point
With 1-series DSLRs, Canon recommended not using Spot AF to initiate AI Servo tracking of fast moving subjects. Perhaps they baked that recommendation into the R-series firmware.What I want to do, for greater precision, is to use the smallest AF spot available, place it over the subject, and then have the camera track it across the frame.
Yep, I often have quite small features of a subject that I'd like to be able to lock onto, e.g. insect eyes. From what I understand, Sony cameras can use even the smallest AF spot with full tracking, so hopefully Canon will be able to improve the usability and put out a firmware update at some stage.Ah, you mean that smaller AF point...
Well, it kinda works, but it is unreliable at tracking eyes.
Most of the BIF guys on youtube etc seem to map the *button to the smallest AF spot, to nail birds half-hidden in bushes and trees. Nikons seem to have a more "intelligent" AF that can lock onto birds in these situations (I've compared Nikon and Canon DSLRs side by side in the field, and Nikons definitely acquire these subjects more readily, and are more "sticky" than Canons.I need the * button for AE lock.
Yes I know, from my experience with 7D and 5D series. But you can use the smallest spot for tracking birds with Sony - and it works extremely well (on safari in Kenya a couple of weeks ago I had the chance to compare Sony a9ii with 200-600mm, with my R5 and 100-400mm). I'd imagine the difference in capability is down to the algorithms and the choice/number of images fed into the AI pre-manufacture.With 1-series DSLRs, Canon recommended not using Spot AF to initiate AI Servo tracking of fast moving subjects. Perhaps they baked that recommendation into the R-series firmware.
View attachment 201347
The problem with AF with the Nikon Z7 and Z6 has been hardware: the Nikon processors have been too slow, and even putting a pair of them into the Z7II and Z6II series hasn’t been fast enough. A new, fast processor is at the heart of the Z9.Yes I know, from my experience with 7D and 5D series. But you can use the smallest spot for tracking birds with Sony - and it works extremely well (on safari in Kenya a couple of weeks ago I had the chance to compare Sony a9ii with 200-600mm, with my R5 and 100-400mm). I'd imagine the difference in capability is down to the algorithms and the choice/number of images fed into the AI pre-manufacture.
In my experience Nikon DSLRs always outperformed Canon DSLRs for acquisition and "stickiness", but with mirrorless, prior to the Z9, Canons have been better than Nikons. If, as I suspect, it's more down to firmware than hardware, it would be nice if Canon would update the firmware.
That's funny, I have been using the "WYSIWYG" approximation on my mirrorless cameras since the first one I bought around 2015. It is the single biggest reason I switched from DSLRs, as it gives me a very good approximation of the exposure compensation needed when I shoot. It sounds to me like you are completely overthinking what occurs when you look thru the EVF. Is it perfect? - no, of course not. But very useful in my opinion. It's another tool that gives you additional information compared to an OVF. It sounds, quite frankly, like you're doing something wrong in your EVF setup if you find that WYSIWYG is hype and a myth.Untrue. WYSIWYG is a myth. The EVF is a high contrast, highly compressed JPEG preview of an image with reduced colour gamut. Furthermore it cannot reliably be used to judge exposure, because your eyes will compensate for differences in the EVF brightness. So it is no more useful than the image seen on the LCD panel of a DSLR.
If you want "correct" exposure, it's best to regard the EVF image as nothing but a very rough approximation. Referring to the histogram is far more accurate and reliable. And if you really care about exposure accuracy, bracket your exposures.
The real value of an EVF is that you can instantly check that you got the subject sharp and in focus, without removing your eye.
Mirrorless provides many benefits in terms of AF tracking, silent shutter and blackout-free shooting, but "WYSIWYG" is highly overrated hype.