-= Canon EOS R owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

RodS57 wrote in post #18771602
Stop it! -5C here is a really warm day and I have a macro lens that I haven't had a chance to use yet.

Just kidding. Don't stop. Love the macro shots from you and others.

Rod

Hah, temps of -5C should slow the insects down a little for some nice, sharp shots.

Cheers

Dennis

John Sheehy wrote in post #18771250
It seems to have the best Canon AF for things that aren't jumping around, and a quality EVF and superimposed aids help with manual focus when AF is too hard in confusing scenes, or very dark places. WYSIWYG default JPEG/conversion brightness in the EVF is a big plus, too. The new series of R lenses look exciting, for people shooting short and wide, who want good corner resolution with FF.

A high-ISO upgrade from other recent FF cameras, however, it does not seem to be. Canon is spinning its wheels and sliding back sometimes with high-ISO read noise.

Ok so here is my take on it for the very brief time I looked at it. I was comparing it to my full frame 5D3 because I dont believe in comparing with the 7D2 being a crop sensor and I cant see it replacing my crop sensor for what I do, it may do for others but not me.

anyway, shot at ISO 200 800 and 6400, it was a quick go with someone elses camera card and settings so may be different if Id had more time. This is my unbiased opinion and i understand others will probably see things differently

comparing to 5D3 image quality only slightly better, sharpness similar although the R seemed to pick up more detail in fabric, better noise control at higher ISO but not by a lot, mostly noticeable in shadowed areas

I never got a chance to check frames per second but 5D3 does about 6 I think so I guess similar.

Colours on R, the skin tones seemed warmer, not sure if its a thing or not but appeared that way to me

did not like the lack of joy stick or the swipe thing on the back top

R is a fair bit lighter but thats not an issue either way for me

auto focus seems really good, although the eye detect thing seems to go out when I moved further away a bit. Video was great, no complaints there.

EVF on R is bright, really good, much better than my old Fuji X100

reasons I would get it, video, EVF , typical nice canon files, newer technology.

reasons I would not get it, 5D3 still an awesome sharp camera produces amazing images and I dont use it for what I photograph the most (nature wildlife) wondering if canon will bring out a mirror-less 7D3 (can only live in hope)

who do I think should get it. anyone who wants nice images, shoots a bit of video, is upgrading from a crop but wants an all rounder and does not already have a full frame camera...those who really want a good EVF over an optical viewfinder, those who need silent shooting.

the comparometre site is very good for checking image quality between cameras and the R is on there https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

C Scott IV wrote in post #18771422
Thanks for the info in silent shutter. It makes sense.

Yes, -2 1/3 EC was to protect highlights in RAW. They like to use yellow lights at that venue and that was overexposing the faces and blond hair. For some reason I thought HTP only applied to JPG. Losing ISO 100 isn't a problem for this type of stuff. Will have to learn more about it.

HTP debuted at a time when Canon DSLRs had significantly more practical base-ISO shadow noise, often with banding, so it got a bad name, and I am partly responsible for that, because I broadcast the issue on Usenet and some of the earlier digital photography forums, and many people probably thought that there was something wrong with HTP itself, rather than specific historic cameras not being ready for HTP at lower ISOs. HTP is never a problem at high ISOs, unless you push *really* hard. IOW, you'd rather use straight ISO 16000 with -5EC than 16000HTP with -5EC. If you're just tweaking conversions a stop or so, it is pretty much irrelevant, noise-wise, at higher ISOs.

Where it can be problematic is with a camera like the 5D2 or 50D, with significant banding noise in base-ISO shadows, where those noisy bands get pushed up a stop closer to middle gray, which can be visible in the lower ISO range of 200 to 800 or so. It gets even worse when the camera pushes for other reasons: firmware-based 1/3-stop ISO pushes such as 125, 250, and 500, raise that metaphorical "noise floor" up 1/3 stop more; corrections to the RAW files for lossy low f-numbers below 2.8 to 2.0, depending on pixel size, can push another 2/3 stop, for a total of 2 stops of push. Then, take the WB needs of the situation into account, and then either the red or blue channel boosts for shade or incandescent lights can boost those channels another two stops. In a perfect storm, all this can add up, especially on a camera like the 5D2.

The R has less base-ISO shadow noise than these more problematic cameras, so HTP should probably be fine, even at ISO 200, unless you are still going to do a lot of pushing. Of course, HTP with -1.33 EC is only a little risky with shadow noise compared to O EC; it is no worse than -2.33 EC without HTP; it is the same, under the RAW hood. The HTP simply makes the review/Jpeg image easier to look at, closer to normal brightness by a stop. One could say that ISO 200 with HTP is exactly the same thing, RAW-quality-wise, as shooting ISO 100 at -1 EC without HTP, but that -1 EC does not darken the JPEG. In your context, where you are just using the HTP for a brighter JPEG/review image, there is no penalty to HTP, even with a camera like the 5D2, because you were going to do that extra stop of push, anyway, without HTP doing it implicitly.

nardes wrote in post #18771527
I sneaked outdoors in-between showers to grab these with the 1:2 RF 35mm F1.8 macro lens which performed rather nicely.


I don't know what Canon have done to the IS on the EOS R, but I am noticing more and more that in marginal situations, my keeper rate has increased (i.e. reduction in camera shake).

That's a major benefit of not having a mirror - more marginal shutter speeds for your intended magnification blur less, on average. This is especially true for short shutter speeds. When you use 1/800 because your subject is jumping around or are using very highoptical magnification, then the benefit is not going to be as strong, because your subject has much more potential blur than the mirror shock could, and you use a shutter speed for the subject.

aladyforty wrote in post #18771726
Ok so here is my take on it for the very brief time I looked at it. I was comparing it to my full frame 5D3 because I dont believe in comparing with the 7D2 being a crop sensor and I cant see it replacing my crop sensor for what I do, it may do for others but not me.

The idea that a FF sensor is automatically at another higher level than an APS-C sensor is based on the assumption that if a larger sensor has the highest potential (which it does, AOTBE), that the higher potential is always there in every use, pervades photographic culture, but it is only conditionally true. The main condition is that you are willing to have shallower DOF, with a bigger lens, and without that, the FF sensor does not "gather more light", unless you are shooting in Av mode at base ISO in ample light, where no matter what DOF you have, you can give the full larger sensor a full ISO 100 exposure over a larger sensor area.

When deep DOF is actually needed, and dictating the f-numbers, then FF superiority disappears, and results can actually be worse for the FF, depending on the models. The 7D2 is better than the R, noisewise, when the 7D2 is at ISO 1600 and the R at 4000, and the 7D2 at 1600 (same image DOF, FOV, diffraction, and shutter speed) is much better than the 5D3 at ISO 4000, too. Of course, in equivalence, the R always has more pixel resolution than the 7D2 and 60D.

I noticed a long time ago that I was as happy or happier with the noise on my 7D2 with the 17-55/2.8 as I was with the 6D and the 24-105/4L. It got to the point where I rarely took the 6D out except when I wanted the FF for the potential wide FOV with my 12-24 Sigma and the full image circle of my fisheye lens. The fact is, the character of read noise in the 7D2 is one of the finest and most random in any current camera, something not reflected in noise charts. The R, of course, would fail to be any more impressive, either, noise-wise with a 24-105/L, but at least the R would have oodles of new shooting-time tools that the aging 6D doesn't have and 50% more pixels.

That sounds about what I see in equal-exposure comparison images. An R improvement over the 5D3, but not huge, except in the shadows of very low ISOs.

I never got a chance to check frames per second but 5D3 does about 6 I think so I guess similar.

Colours on R, the skin tones seemed warmer, not sure if its a thing or not but appeared that way to me

did not like the lack of joy stick or the swipe thing on the back top

R is a fair bit lighter but thats not an issue either way for me

auto focus seems really good, although the eye detect thing seems to go out when I moved further away a bit. Video was great, no complaints there.

EVF on R is bright, really good, much better than my old Fuji X100

reasons I would get it, video, EVF , typical nice canon files, newer technology.

reasons I would not get it, 5D3 still an awesome sharp camera produces amazing images and I dont use it for what I photograph the most (nature wildlife) wondering if canon will bring out a mirror-less 7D3 (can only live in hope)

who do I think should get it. anyone who wants nice images, shoots a bit of video, is upgrading from a crop but wants an all rounder and does not already have a full frame camera...those who really want a good EVF over an optical viewfinder, those who need silent shooting.

That sounds like a very balanced and nuanced assessment; refreshing on a forum that tends toward monolithic hyperbole.

The R is tempting, for many of it's special features, but I will wait for an R that has more resolution than the 5Ds, and high-ISO noise at least a little better than the 5D4. I could easily see myself going R-like for full-frame, and staying with APS-C DSLRs until there is some revolution in electronic shutters that does not cause sheering and jello in the EVF, and with less lag.

the comparometre site is very good for checking image quality between cameras and the R is on there https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CO​MPS01.HTM

Just keep in mind that the comparator does not normalize image size, so you are looking at 100% pixel views, which will favor larger pixels. A bit more work, but you could do a screen grab and then crop out each camera and upsample so that both have the same image size or object size. It would be nice to have a tool on your computer that allows multiple "magnifying glasses", so you can upsample both to the same subject scale.

Getting back to the title of the thread, OWNERS unite! I think the first shot was the first day I had the camera so I was still learning my way around. The last 2 in line running are my youngest 2. I was trying to focus on my son and I think it did pretty well.

As for discussion, if I have to say 1 bad thing, its battery life. It probably lands somewhere between the A7R2 and A7R3 battery life wise. Also on the topic of "EOS R is the 6D3, 5D5" etc, that's all garbage. Maybe sensor wise, but beyond that you can't compare this camera to any of the "D" series cameras. The 5D and even 1D had 61 focus points. This thing can focus the entire sensor almost with a virtually infinite number of points. No cross type, horizontal, vertical. I can focus in a scene that is ISO 12800, f/5.6 and 1/40 sec. Pretty sure I never touched that before. The sensor is a slight evolution of the 5D4. The body and controls are all new. Size wise, it is like a Rebel. The controls are familiar, but all new. The joystick has been very effectively removed. I don't miss it at all. Between a few buttons and 2 dials, I can control almost every function without moving the camera from my eye.

Oh never mind. Not sure why I'm bothering defending it to a bunch of people who have already made up their minds, many of whom never have and never will actually give one a chance. Back to sharing images.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18771827
HTP debuted at a time when Canon DSLRs had significantly more practical base-ISO shadow noise, often with banding, so it got a bad name, and I am partly responsible for that, because I broadcast the issue on Usenet and some of the earlier digital photography forums, and many people probably thought that there was something wrong with HTP itself, rather than specific historic cameras not being ready for HTP at lower ISOs. HTP is never a problem at high ISOs, unless you push *really* hard. IOW, you'd rather use straight ISO 16000 with -5EC than 16000HTP with -5EC. If you're just tweaking conversions a stop or so, it is pretty much irrelevant, noise-wise, at higher ISOs.

Where it can be problematic is with a camera like the 5D2 or 50D, with significant banding noise in base-ISO shadows, where those noisy bands get pushed up a stop closer to middle gray, which can be visible in the lower ISO range of 200 to 800 or so. It gets even worse when the camera pushes for other reasons: firmware-based 1/3-stop ISO pushes such as 125, 250, and 500, raise that metaphorical "noise floor" up 1/3 stop more; corrections to the RAW files for lossy low f-numbers below 2.8 to 2.0, depending on pixel size, can push another 2/3 stop, for a total of 2 stops of push. Then, take the WB needs of the situation into account, and then either the red or blue channel boosts for shade or incandescent lights can boost those channels another two stops. In a perfect storm, all this can add up, especially on a camera like the 5D2.

The R has less base-ISO shadow noise than these more problematic cameras, so HTP should probably be fine, even at ISO 200, unless you are still going to do a lot of pushing. Of course, HTP with -1.33 EC is only a little risky with shadow noise compared to O EC; it is no worse than -2.33 EC without HTP; it is the same, under the RAW hood. The HTP simply makes the review/Jpeg image easier to look at, closer to normal brightness by a stop. One could say that ISO 200 with HTP is exactly the same thing, RAW-quality-wise, as shooting ISO 100 at -1 EC without HTP, but that -1 EC does not darken the JPEG. In your context, where you are just using the HTP for a brighter JPEG/review image, there is no penalty to HTP, even with a camera like the 5D2, because you were going to do that extra stop of push, anyway, without HTP doing it implicitly.

I followed it until the the portion in bold. I interpreted it that HTP only affects the JPEG/review image. I didn't really need a brighter review image, I just didn't want to overexpose.

Here are the histograms for test images in Lightroom.

ISO 100

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

randy98mtu wrote in post #18771868
Getting back to the title of the thread, OWNERS unite!...

Novel idea!

Did I mention I have deer that love me..... OK maybe I did.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

For those who may be curious about the crop circles. Not that kind of crop circle! The image circle of a third party APS-C lens on the R. These are with the Tamron 18-400.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

C Scott IV wrote in post #18771871
So apparently Lightroom sees the affects of HTP for RAW files. It is interesting that HTP actually increased the highlights/whites at the same Tv/Fv values. There were no noticeable differences other than exposure. This could be beneficial for high contrast scenes.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but you're looking at the histogram of the conversion, not the RAW, so the HTP version has a stop more to the right of the histogram than the -1EC ISO 100 version does.

The 200/HTP RAW should be able to handle ISO 50 exposure as well as ISO 50, which is the same thing under the hood, other than the metering. 50, 100, and 200/HTP use the same gain and digitization, in recent cameras.

[Edit:] Sorry, i forgot to mention that even though the RAW can handle it, the JPEG would be washed out.

Loving the ability to shoot in B+W in the viewfinder (as it helps you to visualise layers of contrast) and in 4:3 aspect ratio (which is the medium format 6x4.5 aspect).

Not loving the lack of thumbstick for af selection. current methods are 'ok' but not at a professional level which is to be expected as it's not a pro body. Before I lift the camera to my eye, I need to be able to start moving that AF point.

It breathes life in to my 50L again. If it had dual card slots I'd be running two of these side by side.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Gel wrote in post #18771990
Loving the ability to shoot in B+W in the viewfinder (as it helps you to visualise layers of contrast) and in 4:3 aspect ratio (which is the medium format 6x4.5 aspect).

Not loving the lack of thumbstick for af selection. current methods are 'ok' but not at a professional level which is to be expected as it's not a pro body. Before I lift the camera to my eye, I need to be able to start moving that AF point.

Interesting tip about the B&W ...

As for focus points, Jared Polin may have expressed it best when he said its better if the body never return to a joystick.

mdvaden wrote in post #18772022
Interesting tip about the B&W ...

As for focus points, Jared Polin may have expressed it best when he said its better if the body never return to a joystick.

I don't understand his thinking. Maybe, if there was more control over the speed at which they move. But as it stands, if I use absolute mode I can easily move the position on the points, at speed with the tip of my thumb, but I screw up the positioning when I take my thumb away as the base of my thumb touches the screen.

The relative mode takes 2-3 swipes to move the point from one side of the screen to the other and it means taking my finger away from the shutter button and also isn't a sure thing my thumb will hit the correct spot on the screen to start the movement. It's not as 'guaranteed' as the joystick was, (even with one area selected to the upper right quadrant).

mdvaden wrote in post #18772022
Interesting tip about the B&W ...

As for focus points, Jared Polin may have expressed it best when he said its better if the body never return to a joystick.

That’s because Fro only knows his own photo and has no idea about mine or anyone else’s.