Canon EOS R5 Unite and Discuss!

Very close encounter.

Common buzzard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kbA​RKA

John Sheehy wrote in post #19159083
That's one area where crop mode can be useful. Crop mode loses pixel and lens resolution, and gets more image-level noise unless you use a 1.6x lower f-number (or were going to crop in software, anyway), but it prevents or greatly slows buffer filling. Using a smaller vertical area of the sensor for your final image also has another benefit: less rolling shutter time down the final image. For example, if you were shooting the front of three planes that all had the same propellers turning at the same RPM, but were at three very different distances from you, and you cropped out each plane for the same composition, the closer plane would have the absolute worst propeller distortion, and the farthest one the least. It is the diameter of the outside edges of the propeller that determine how distorted the outer parts become. You can see that suggested in a single propeller; the center area may not be distorted much at all, but only the outer edges are.

Thanks for the details.
However I am still not clear as to how the smaller size files will improve it.
Because buffer is buffer, that size does not change. The file size is our logical data division and if that is done in smaller numbers or large, there should be no impact of the buffer.
The only impacting factor is how fast the buffer clears and that depends on how fast the card can write.
So faster the card, faster the buffer clears and lesser issue with the burst. Isn't it?

John Sheehy wrote in post #19159083
That's one area where crop mode can be useful. Crop mode loses pixel and lens resolution, and gets more image-level noise unless you use a 1.6x lower f-number (or were going to crop in software, anyway), but it prevents or greatly slows buffer filling. Using a smaller vertical area of the sensor for your final image also has another benefit: less rolling shutter time down the final image. For example, if you were shooting the front of three planes that all had the same propellers turning at the same RPM, but were at three very different distances from you, and you cropped out each plane for the same composition, the closer plane would have the absolute worst propeller distortion, and the farthest one the least. It is the diameter of the outside edges of the propeller that determine how distorted the outer parts become. You can see that suggested in a single propeller; the center area may not be distorted much at all, but only the outer edges are.

How are you defining noise, and why does the 1.6x lower f-number help?

rndman wrote in post #19159179
Thanks for the details.
However I am still not clear as to how the smaller size files will improve it. Because buffer is buffer, that size does not change. The file size is our logical data division and if that is done in smaller numbers or large, there should be no impact of the buffer.
The only impacting factor is how fast the buffer clears and that depends on how fast the card can write.
So faster the card, faster the buffer clears and lesser issue with the burst. Isn't it?

Smaller files fill the buffer more slowly. There is a higher throughput in terms of number of pictures. Let's imagine you can take 20 images per second. If the cropped images are 1/2 the size as the full-frame, you can take take as many images before filling the buffer. If the camera can take only 20 images per second, you can capture twice as many crop images compared to full-frame before the buffer fills. The smaller image size may allow more images to be moved out of the buffer in a unit of time, too.
Your last still sentence holds, in either case. As long as the buffer and card combination are as fast, or faster, than the camera can image, you won't lose images.

rndman wrote in post #19159179
Thanks for the details.
However I am still not clear as to how the smaller size files will improve it.
Because buffer is buffer, that size does not change. The file size is our logical data division and if that is done in smaller numbers or large, there should be no impact of the buffer.
The only impacting factor is how fast the buffer clears and that depends on how fast the card can write.
So faster the card, faster the buffer clears and lesser issue with the burst. Isn't it?

Once you fill the buffer, then it is pretty much MB/s to the card, and then that is more files to the card per second if the files are smaller.

If the bandwidth is low enough, the buffer doesn't fill, or fills very slowly.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19159220
Once you fill the buffer, then it is pretty much MB/s to the card, and then that is more files to the card per second if the files are smaller.

If the bandwidth is low enough, the buffer doesn't fill, or fills very slowly.

You have that backwards. If the card can accept data more quickly (a higher bandwidth), then the buffer doesn't fill, or fills more slowly.

The bandwidth from the sensor electronics to the buffer is fixed. By sending a fixed number of smaller files, less bandwidth is used.

Weja wrote in post #19159147
Very close encounter.

Common buzzard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kbA​RKA JAN_Common buzzard by Jan Wever, on Flickr


Weja

Sweeet. I like those really tight shots showing the intensity in the eyes.

Like I said, get the V90 and not worry at all. You can shoot whatever size files or speed you want.

Prograde has 25% off of the V90 and V60 cards until midnight Monday.

https://shop.prograded​igital.com …m_campaign=4746​749.e9c964

Sample: V90
128gb is $104
64 gb = $63


The discount should show in the cart, but just in case it doesn't, here's the code.

Code: BFCM20

Methodical wrote in post #19159255
Like I said, get the V90 and not worry at all. You can shoot whatever size files or speed you want.

Yes. Sounds like a plan.

I have Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG teleconverters in both 1.4x and 2x. Does anyone know if they will autofocus on the R5?

Thanks

Spinner wrote in post #19159607
I have Kenko Teleplus Pro 300 DG teleconverters in both 1.4x and 2x. Does anyone know if they will autofocus on the R5?

Thanks

The 1.4 works here as expected, as long as it is the only TC. I have not had it work stacked with anything else (the IS bangs or a communication error is reported). Same for a Tamron SP 2x, which is allegedly the same as the Kenko Pro 300 DG 2x from around 15+ years ago (white/beige).

Weja wrote in post #19159147
Very close encounter.

Common buzzard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2kbA​RKA JAN_Common buzzard by Jan Wever, on Flickr


Weja

Wow, Buteo Beautiful!!!

Anybody interested in a 1Dxiii vs R5 comparison for BIF? I might have an opportunity to have both bodies for a week or so during Christmas break. Depending on the lockdown measures/public health orders in the city, I might be able to do a comprehensive comparison if I can get out for enough days.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19159651
The 1.4 works here as expected, as long as it is the only TC. I have not had it work stacked with anything else (the IS bangs or a communication error is reported). Same for a Tamron SP 2x, which is allegedly the same as the Kenko Pro 300 DG 2x from around 15+ years ago (white/beige).

That's very helpful info, thank you.

rndman wrote in post #19157171
That's the scary part...
Of course we can't do this with articulating screens, but for 7D2 and 5D3 I have the screen covered by protector (with a frame) that hangs from the view finder.

I had to take one off my R and replace it because there was a hair under it that drove me nuts... I just got my finger nail under it and it came right off with no issues... looked as if nothing was ever on there ...