Vehicle AF and more coming to the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 in December firmware update
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Here‘s my experience. I‘ve shot perched birds and BIF extensively with a Nikon D850 and D500. Using spot focus, Canon is possibly slightly faster to lock on. For BIF, the Nikons really scored with group focus, which was the setting recommended by Arbitrage. The group focus uses a block of points, which is best for tracking BIF in most circumstances, and is really "sticky". The D850 is so good, I gave up on the 5DSR and 5DIV as is beat both for IQ and AF. After having the R5 and Nikons at the same time for over a year together, I sold all the Nikon bodies and lenses this month as for me the R5 is better all round and I prefer the Canon zoom lenses. One of my CR friends still prefers the D850 over the R5 so different styles of shooting lead to different choices.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Is it possible to get the over-exposure blinking in the EVF, or is it just in the post-capture review? (I have been looking for this option since getting my R5, but not found it in the menus.)
Upvote
0
Thank you Canon for adding these enhancements to the R5 & R6. Great to have the manual focusing feature whilst in AF for the RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM in low light portraits this will be great for nailing the eye you want in focus. Only positives and no negatives to this firmware upgrade.
Upvote
0
You can't get blinkies pre-capture (stills) on the R5, but you can set the camera to display the post-capture shot instantly, so it's pretty quick to check and take another shot if needed. Much quicker, is to simply shoot a high speed bracketed burst of 3 shots in half-stop increments (or 1 stop increments in trickier lighting conditions), which will guarantee a correct exposure and make it far less likely that you'll "miss the moment" by reshooting. That was my practice with DSLRs and I still find it the best method with the R5. Despite the opinions/experiences of some others here, I personally find using the histogram is better for assessing exposure than relying on the "WYSIWYG". R5 files have a lot of latitude for correcting exposure in post, but it's easier (and good practice) to get it right at the taking stage.
Upvote
0
The problem is, I hit this the other weekend photographing some flying [while] swans, against a cloudy sky. I did not mind (too much) if some bits of cloud distant from the subject were blown-out, as long as the birds were not. I was using ES (for the highest frame rate - to get some shots with the wings in a good position) which does not allow exposure bracketing (unless I am mistaken). For now I'll use AlanF's suggestion of using the EVF exposure simulation along with the histogram and then deliberately under-expose a little to make sure the highlights are not blown-out and correct in post.
The other advantage I see with the blinking warning is that it is in your face! Recently, I have been using manual exposure for birds-in-flight, as you get the consistent exposure, no matter if the bird flies in front of a dark or light background. The problem is, I am not good enough yet to remember to keep monitoring the histogram, so may not notice the light levels have increased, or the bird has flown into a less shaded area. If there was a black/white flashing area, I would hopefully notice that
Upvote
0
Call me calloused, but if, after several months of actually using the R5, one is still unable to get correct exposures, time to sell it and stick with a smartphone. Or just let other folks take photos.
Upvote
0
I think you are right and I do see it in review - I have to finish writing a lecture and I'll check later.
Upvote
0
Manual exposure for BIF is an absolute must for me. Iso-invariance of sensors is a godsend because there is so much latitude in underexposing and then pushing in post. Back to my lecture...The problem is, I hit this the other weekend photographing some flying [while] swans, against a cloudy sky. I did not mind (too much) if some bits of cloud distant from the subject were blown-out, as long as the birds were not. I was using ES (for the highest frame rate - to get some shots with the wings in a good position) which does not allow exposure bracketing (unless I am mistaken). For now I'll use AlanF's suggestion of using the EVF exposure simulation along with the histogram and then deliberately under-expose a little to make sure the highlights are not blown-out and correct in post.
The other advantage I see with the blinking warning is that it is in your face! Recently, I have been using manual exposure for birds-in-flight, as you get the consistent exposure, no matter if the bird flies in front of a dark or light background. The problem is, I am not good enough yet to remember to keep monitoring the histogram, so may not notice the light levels have increased, or the bird has flown into a less shaded area. If there was a black/white flashing area, I would hopefully notice that
Upvote
0
Well at least you've admitted that your comment was "callous". Perhaps instead of trying to sound "clever", it might have been a better idea to actually suggest a way in which you could help the OP and give them the benefit of your profound knowledge, experience and skill. Some come here to show how smart they think they are, others fortunately come here to share experiences and learn from others...
Upvote
0
Well I learned the hard way, shooting on slide film. With only 36 frames on each film, and with film and processing both being pretty expensive, I very quickly learnt how much exposure compensation to apply in any lighting situation that I encountered. With a DSLR, I can pretty much guarantee getting within half a stop of optimum exposure, and with modern mirrorless cameras there is so much exposure latitude that WYSIWYG is hardly a necessity. If in doubt, err on the side of underexposure to avid burnt out highlights, and then just pull the shadows in post.
I can think of many very good reasons for switching from DSLRs to MILCs, but for me, WSIWYG isn't one of them. The real value of MILC's for me lies in the vastly improved AF, IBIS, reduced vibration and noise, fewer mechanical parts, fast burst speeds, blackout-free viewfinder, greater compactness etc.
Upvote
0
But you can view the live histogram in a WYSIWYG EVF - to me that is one of the big advantages of a ML camera - the basic image in the EVF gives you a very good idea of the exposure, and the histogram sitting in (in my case) the top right corner, confirms any potential issues with clipping. The histogram is (in my experience) not exactly perfect, but again it's pretty good.
Upvote
0
The same when you set your computer monitor brightness very high or low.
Upvote
0
Difference is, a monitor can and should be calibrated, the camera screen can’t.
Upvote
0
You didn't get the nuance: it's pretty obvious that if you set your evf brightness away from normal it's going to give you abnormal brightness.
Upvote
0
I adjust according to histogram, with a very flat picture profile, so when the histogram tells me the whites are clipped I adjusted the EVF and screen so that it shows pretty much the same clipped as the histogram and then double check my editing screen. But, there is really no meaningful difference between a small amount of difference in screen brightness. If it’s THAT important you can’t trust anything but a proper light meter.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
