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

Pondrader wrote in post #18774353
Its a fun camera to shoot Joe.. Af is quite good although I wish I could have the small group of points with servo.. I was always a centre spot guy..

I enjoy it ....

I don't think a guy could go wrong if you shoot a wide variety of stuff and like to dabble in video...

BUT you will have to listen to the negativity... I dont think I have ever seen anything like the hate people bestow on the lonely little R.

For most of the year I do 10k a day walking and I found myself leaving the camera at home a bunch... so the smaller package is welcome on long walks.

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​74353&i=i41693075
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

to be honest I have not seen a lot of hate for the R, pretty much do see a lot of hate for canon as a brand and unsure why. I do think the Nikon Z and canon R got some unfavourable press, the only thing they deserved a slap for was the one card slot for the price they charge. Other than that Im not sure people have reason to spew hate on either of them, if you dont like them buy something else I say. Its not like theres not a heap of new camera gear been released over the last few months

Pondrader wrote in post #18773895
This fella said it way better than I ever could ....

One point he conveys relates to why I've written more than once that the JPGs from the EOS R are so good when shots are taken right, that the Wifi transfer to a mobile device is a save option for backup in case of the rare one-in-ten year card malfunction.

The point about working around disadvantages was worth interjecting because every brand has disadvantages. In many ways it boils down to if the shoe fits wear it, and if the shoe is comfortable all the better.

I had the X1.4 extender but i dont remember if i was shooting in crop mode

Another from the Brisbane City Centre Xmas Parade. I'm impressed with the crop-ability at relatively high ISO. I was able to crop fairly tightly to remove arms, iPhones and other peripheral distractions that protruded into the scene.

Cheers

Dennis

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

mdvaden wrote in post #18774486
One point he conveys relates to why I've written more than once that the JPGs from the EOS R are so good when shots are taken right, that the Wifi transfer to a mobile device is a save option for backup in case of the rare one-in-ten year card malfunction.

The point about working around disadvantages was worth interjecting because every brand has disadvantages. In many ways it boils down to if the shoe fits wear it, and if the shoe is comfortable all the better.

When I first shot the R I set the camera to Raw + Jpeg... with the EVF being what it is I said to me buds that it was the first camera I've ever owned that I could say Jpeg was a viable option as the wizardry in the R was so good. Its hard to get the exposer wrong.. seeing every shot before you take it changes everything.
Honestly I think the AF almost never misses if the user gets their job done. The one thing I do find is the 143 points for the centre af point is a bit to big at times.
Although letting go and trusting the camera with their advantages in AF modes is the trick I think. Images quality aside if you can add enough iso and slow the shutter, this camera will focus in a completely black room with next to nothing for light like its the middle of a sunny day. I've never seen it hunt for focus... It's either able to focus or it just stops because it can't for what ever reason. I don't think it can " hunt" like the phase detect of a Dsl... it has nothing to compare so it just stops, and I guess thats ok because in any light at all it works really amazingly. It is completely opposite to the AF in the 7DII where it looks for focus so much you need the 10 frames to get a infocus image as it rocks back and forth to find the sweet spot.. the R seems to jump right to a much closer sweet spot and stays closer in its attempts to be accurate.

Hopefully I can get out over the christmas break and find something more interesting to shoot. until then I'm shooting what ever comes by

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

John Sheehy wrote in post #18773941
It isn't bad, if the display uses the same timing. That's why TV back in PAL/NTSC days often had very fluid motion not possible in converted film movies; the TV was updated exactly as the videotube captured it, 31 thousand lines per second, interlaced, at 50/60 fields per second. A problem occurs when you use a slow rolling shutter and then try to display the capture as a series of solid time-slices; you are showing what happened over time down the frame as if it happened all at the same time.

We are in a strange era of video, where we watch a lot of damaged timing. A VCR tape or DVD converted to progressive solid frames is a tragedy! Same for 24p movies converted to 30i. Don't throw away the originals; future monitors may be able to play back the lines or progressive frames in the order and timing that they were intended to be shown at. Sometime new technology is not ready to handle old technology very well.

It's been compared (EOS R rolling shutter) to the Sony A7S which is often used as an example of bad rolling shutter.
I'd like to see some real examples where it has had a negative impact on a moving subject (other than aircraft propellers).
Reviewers pan the camera to demonstrate it, not very useful IMHO.

Here's an interesting R example:
https://1.img-dpreview.com …ec1674885b0ba3a​d055394e75

From:
https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/42806​56

Here's one too

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

Choderboy wrote in post #18774573
It's been compared (EOS R rolling shutter) to the Sony A7S which is often used as an example of bad rolling shutter.
I'd like to see some real examples where it has had a negative impact on a moving subject (other than aircraft propellers).
Reviewers pan the camera to demonstrate it, not very useful IMHO.

Here's an interesting R example:
https://1.img-dpreview.com …ec1674885b0ba3a​d055394e75

From:
https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/42806​56

That one is easy to overlook, unless you're trained to look for it. If that baseball shot were taken from overhead, the bat may have looked curved, like a propeller.

In my experience, one of the most obvious effects of a slow rolling shutter is seen when using high magnification (200mm real glass with a 1/13s rolling shutter on a 1/2.3" sensor), handheld. Even on a tripod, vibrations and wind can stretch or compress objects vertically, even when they are otherwise very sharp. It's a lot easier to see when watching a slideshow of stills, and the same subject is taller or shorter in successive frames, without moving. You might not even notice in a single shot, but compared to the one after or before it, you may see a difference. It would be nice if there were an EF->Q adapter with a builtin leaf shutter using the Q protocol, but that is only available for FF Pentax lenses, AFAIK.

Which brings a question to mind: has Canon allowed for R-protocol lenses and adapters to use a leaf shutter? That would be awesome, I think, especially for people who use fill flash in sunlight. Or, maybe they know fast global shutters are just around the corner?

nqjudo wrote in post #18774109
I think the only thing he is going to prove with this series is that every camera is capable of taking fantastic shots and every photographer is going to respond differently to different gear. I only gave it a glance but I noticed he grabbed the same crop from each image for the print test and it seemed pretty small. He doesn't talk about the technical details of the print but I wonder if there was some upscaling going on there that may have give the D850 an advantage as the crop would have had more pixels to begin with. I may be mistaken but the whole affair seemed pretty anecdotal.

That said, there is no question in my mind that the D850 will have more detail than the 5D4, MP still = more detail no matter how you slice it. The D850 does have 15 more MP (15MP! That's more MP than the vast majority of images I have taken on digital,. the bulk of which were taken on 8 and 10 MP 1D2 and 1D3)

More importantly, the AA filter advantage on the D850.

That said, if we need to worry about brands, Canon can still match or beat the D850 in this regard, with the 5DS-r, which also has the less aggressive AA filter, and even more MP.

Can someone please explain what the AA filter does? It seems to be a hindrance rather then a benefit.

lijoec wrote in post #18774710
Can someone please explain what the AA filter does? It seems to be a hindrance rather then a benefit.

Check this page, look at the man's jacket. NOT having an anti aliasing filter can often be really bad... it's called "moire"

https://improvephotogr​aphy.com …-an-anti-aliasing-filter/

The problem was much worse with lower MP,. more detail can = less aliasing.. so you can find weaker or no filter at all in higher MP bodies.

Has it been determined if the R has an AA filter? I can't remember, though I'm sure in my mind given Canon's history that it certainly would.

Edit: Never mind. I got my answer. Yes it does (of course).

RF50 @1.4 - No sharpening.

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

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18774711
Check this page, look at the man's jacket. NOT having an anti aliasing filter can often be really bad... it's called "moire"

https://improvephotogr​aphy.com …-an-anti-aliasing-filter/

The problem was much worse with lower MP,. more detail can = less aliasing.. so you can find weaker or no filter at all in higher MP bodies.

Thank you, that was very helpful.

Pondrader wrote in post #18774564
When I first shot the R I set the camera to Raw + Jpeg... with the EVF being what it is I said to me buds that it was the first camera I've ever owned that I could say Jpeg was a viable option as the wizardry in the R was so good. Its hard to get the exposer wrong.. seeing every shot before you take it changes everything.
Honestly I think the AF almost never misses if the user gets their job done. The one thing I do find is the 143 points for the centre af point is a bit to big at times.
Although letting go and trusting the camera with their advantages in AF modes is the trick I think. Images quality aside if you can add enough iso and slow the shutter, this camera will focus in a completely black room with next to nothing for light like its the middle of a sunny day. I've never seen it hunt for focus... It's either able to focus or it just stops because it can't for what ever reason. I don't think it can " hunt" like the phase detect of a Dsl... it has nothing to compare so it just stops, and I guess thats ok because in any light at all it works really amazingly. It is completely opposite to the AF in the 7DII where it looks for focus so much you need the 10 frames to get a infocus image as it rocks back and forth to find the sweet spot.. the R seems to jump right to a much closer sweet spot and stays closer in its attempts to be accurate.

Hopefully I can get out over the christmas break and find something more interesting to shoot. until then I'm shooting what ever comes by

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​74564&i=i79627015
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

Those deer look lovely, must be great to have a snowy Christmas, I've never even seen snow and Christmas is usually a beach picnic here. I can fully relate to the pros of the EVF, I went mirrorless in 2011 when I got the Fuji X100 and to be honest the jpegs come out near perfect and I adjust exposure as Im looking at the scene, so yeah that EVF on the R and 7 years on from the X100 is amazing