4000 vs 8000 shutter speed

Bassat wrote in post #18453030
I'm not sure about Houston; never been there. But in Indiana, I can pretty much shoot 1/4000 at f/2-2.5, even in the harshest bright sun. I'm not spending big money for a 5D3 just for the 3 shots a year I can't get wide open. F/2.5 is not killing me.

I have used the 85L here in Indiana with my kids at the playground, and needed 1/8000th at f1.2. I didn't want to shut it down, and didn't have to worry about it, because the body I had did it.

My basic rule for Canon is never to buy one of their restricted units as a primary body, because I don't want to compromise my shots simply due to their marketing decisions. Others don't care, and therefore are fine with the restrictions. I have an SL2 that is deficient with AF and shutter speed, but I would never use it for sports or wide open f1.2 shooting either.

James Crockett wrote in post #18453038
That's the thing I look at, the 6d has 4000 shutter speed but better low light performance then the 5d3. 5d3 costs 1k+ but with 8000 shutter speed.. both big upgrade from 5d2 of course. just seeing if 4000 shutter speed is a big deal or not. Thanks everybody!

I wouldn't even give seconds to the thought of spending $1k just for one more stop of shutter speed. What is it that you primarily shoot?

James Crockett wrote in post #18453044
true. I just hate the low light performance isn't that great but it's an older camera though. thanks!

The ISO performance between the 6D and 5D3 is basically splitting hairs in my opinion. I've shot both back to back on a few occasions and you'd have to go over each part of the image at 1:1 to really see any difference.

can we turn this discussion to whether the overhead sun is brighter in one place or another given only a couple of thousand miles latitudinal distance?

lol

I can't seem to wrap my head around this idea. All atmospheric and environmental variables equal, if the sun is overhead in Florida, or if the sun is overhead in North Carolina, I just cannot believe there is a difference. Maybe with the most sensitive equipment, but no way this amounts to even a tenth of a stop in camera.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18453086
I wouldn't even give seconds to the thought of spending $1k just for one more stop of shutter speed. What is it that you primarily shoot?


The ISO performance between the 6D and 5D3 is basically splitting hairs in my opinion. I've shot both back to back on a few occasions and you'd have to go over each part of the image at 1:1 to really see any difference.

I enjoy portrait photography, abandoned buildings, ruins and landscape. thanks man!

James Crockett wrote in post #18453100
I enjoy portrait photography, abandoned buildings, ruins and landscape. thanks man!

You probably will never be using 1/4000s if this is the case for now.

But in a year?

That's the choice you'd have to make.

Look at it like this:

Used 6D is around $800~900 these days.
Used 5D3 is around $1300~1400 here and there.

There's more to the 5D3 than the extra stop of shutter speed. So for a few hundred more, you get everything short of a 1D body.

For what you're looking to shoot, honestly, neither camera is going to do much more than a 5D2 already does. Most of what you're shooting doesn't move. And none of these bodies have significantly better dynamic range. So you're paying for a bunch of features that really won't be stressed for what you're wanting to shoot. Maybe it's something to consider such as other features that matter to you.

Very best,

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18453087
can we turn this discussion to whether the overhead sun is brighter in one place or another given only a couple of thousand miles latitudinal distance?

lol

I can't seem to wrap my head around this idea. All atmospheric and environmental variables equal, if the sun is overhead in Florida, or if the sun is overhead in North Carolina, I just cannot believe there is a difference. Maybe with the most sensitive equipment, but no way this amounts to even a tenth of a stop in camera.

Having lived a significant part of my life in the Chicago area and now in TX, there really is a difference. If you look at the angle of the sun, in Dallas, May 21 is equal to June 21st in Illinois. From May 21st through July 21st, the sun is more vertical than it ever gets in Chicago thus, it is a whole lot brighter. This site offers the math behind the effect.

I rarely ever venture over 1/2000 shutter speed. If I'm in bright sun and want a shallow DOF, I would generally use a 4 stop ND filter. This allows me to use flash without having to go to HSS as well as using a wide aperture (and if I'm shooting in the bright sun, I'd almost certainly use a flash for what I shoot to balance the harsh shadows).

If I went through my database, I think the small number of shots taken over 1/4000 would be kind of amazing.

I am so used to being shutter speed starved, that I can;t imagine that there are too many shots taken that get that high. I am sure I have some, but would not consider it a deal breaker.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18453083
I have used the 85L here in Indiana with my kids at the playground, and needed 1/8000th at f1.2. I didn't want to shut it down, and didn't have to worry about it, because the body I had did it.

My basic rule for Canon is never to buy one of their restricted units as a primary body, because I don't want to compromise my shots simply due to their marketing decisions. Others don't care, and therefore are fine with the restrictions. I have an SL2 that is deficient with AF and shutter speed, but I would never use it for sports or wide open f1.2 shooting either.

Very good point! I'd overlooked that aspect of things. I am perfectly happy shooting my $300 85 1.8 @ 2-2.5. Had I paid 5 to 6 times as much for f/1.2, I certainly want to USE f/1.2!

Same topic. Different aspect. My 1D had an electronic 1/16,000 shutter speed. Why (why not?) is that no longer an option on any Canon body? Does anyone else offer such a critter?

Bassat wrote in post #18453148
Very good point! I'd overlooked that aspect of things. I am perfectly happy shooting my $300 85 1.8 @ 2-2.5. Had I paid 5 to 6 times as much for f/1.2, I certainly want to USE f/1.2!

Same topic. Different aspect. My 1D had an electronic 1/16,000 shutter speed. Why (why not?) is that no longer an option on any Canon body? Does anyone else offer such a critter?

1D had a CCD (charge coupled device) sensor that allowed it to be used as an electronic shutter. The way these were made lent itself to speed that is harder to achieve in a CMOS.

After the 1D, the EOS D30 ushered in Canon's dedication to it's own CMOS design, which was better in most other ways, and far more scalable, but lacked the speed to allow it to do the same trick.

So the 1D was a "Concorde moment".

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18453150
1D had a CCD (charge coupled device) sensor that allowed it to be used as an electronic shutter. The way these were made lent itself to speed that is harder to achieve in a CMOS.

After the 1D, the EOS D30 ushered in Canon's dedication to it's own CMOS design, which was better in most other ways, and far more scalable, but lacked the speed to allow it to do the same trick.

So the 1D was a "Concorde moment".

Thanks for the info, Jake. I get it, now. But aren't most P&S cameras equipped with ONLY electronic shutters? If that is true, is it just the scale-ability of the technology? 1/1.7" to full frame is a pretty big leap. While I'm off in weirdville, aren't most high-speed cameras (10k-20k+ FPS) based on CCD? Wow! Think of the culling job from a football game shot at 20k fps. What a challenge for AF!

Another way to look at it, the difference in shutter speed is the easiest of camera shortcomings to work around. Sensor noise, pixel count, dynamic range can be worked around as well but takes way more effort

James Crockett wrote in post #18453100
I enjoy portrait photography, abandoned buildings, ruins and landscape. thanks man!

No problem.

Have you considered other brands? If I was shooting all that type of stuff and a need for good high ISO performance I would look at the a7Rii.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18453233
No problem.

Have you considered other brands? If I was shooting all that type of stuff and a need for good high ISO performance I would look at the a7Rii.

It's rating is higher than the 5div but what about the Sony lenses? Yes I'm a rookie. I enjoy this site, alot of knowledge here. I like the canon skin tones and the lens selection they have.. thanks!

James Crockett wrote in post #18453236
It's rating is higher than the 5div but what about the Sony lenses? Yes I'm a rookie. I enjoy this site, alot of knowledge here. I like the canon skin tones and the lens selection they have.. thanks!

I shoot an A7RII with Canon glass. Works great.