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

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18749279
It should not crop to 1.6x with an EF lens.
Something is not right, or were miscommunicating something.

Not automatically jake but intentionally..

nardes wrote in post #18749293
Wedge Tail Eagle and Peregrine Falcon, taken at the birds of prey flight show today, Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary, Brisbane.

Canon EOS R with RF 24-105mm F4L lens. Did I mention that this lens is sharp.

Cheers

Dennis

Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=187​49293&i=i91186369
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by nardes in
./showthread.php?p=187​49293&i=i224526111
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Outstanding

Please Do me a favor and post these pics in this thread in the lens forum. I would like a few people to see these files. They really dont understand how good the R optics are and why people are going to migrate to R glass. This is a perfect example as to how much superior the R glass is. Try to compare a 24-105 L to this 24-105 R mount optics.....There is no comparison

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18749168

It's an optional crop guys.... Selectable from the Q menu while shooting. Helpful to get quick extra reach (at the expense of going to 12MP).

EF-S lenses automatically crop down, EF lenses (and 3rd party APS-C lenses) don't.

Nismode wrote in post #18749568
It's an optional crop guys.... Selectable from the Q menu while shooting. Helpful to get quick extra reach (at the expense of going to 12MP).

EF-S lenses automatically crop down, EF lenses (and 3rd party APS-C lenses) don't.

I do not see how this gives you extra reach. The reason it gives extra reach on a crop body is because you are getting a the same optics on a larger sensor. In this case, you are just discarding information from around the "crop" and not giving you additional pixels. You are better off just capturing the whole frame and cropping in post - you will get the same result. Just by hitting "Crop" in the menus doesn't change the optics of your glass to give you "quick extra reach"

randy98mtu wrote in post #18749585
I do not see how this gives you extra reach. The reason it gives extra reach on a crop body is because you are getting a the same optics on a larger sensor. In this case, you are just discarding information from around the "crop" and not giving you additional pixels. You are better off just capturing the whole frame and cropping in post - you will get the same result. Just by hitting "Crop" in the menus doesn't change the optics of your glass to give you "quick extra reach"

You are correct! Especially since all 3rd party lenses will vignette to some degree. It behooves one to save as many pixels as possible by doing the crop in post.

As an example, my Sigma 8-16. At 8 mm you get significant vignetting. You pretty much crop everything outside the APS-C form.

But at 16 mm you get no vignetting. You get a 16 mm FF photo!

If you opt for the 'automatic' crop, you loose all the pixels beyond the APS-C form.

For the in-between focal lengths, you get in-between results...

The only time I would see that being useful would be like in other brand/models where the crop factor gives you more FPS...
Does the R give you the same FPS with/without cropping in camera?
If the same, no benefit

Pixels aside this kind of crop feature can be useful. Sometimes I prefer crop bodies over FF because with equivalent glass they just let me see the subject a lot better. Very useful to have the extra magnification sometimes when birding and if you've got more of your subject in frame it's easier if you want selective focus. If you've got 12Mp and they're quality you can still get an excellent and sizeable print from it.

Need to get these files in the computer but I’m waiting for my kids and fooling around between the R and the Sony R3. Looking like Canon brought out something people underestimated. Shooting the black floor mats in my car. iSO 12800, f4 at 1/8 second the Canon locks faster and holds better. And the final result looks like it has less noise. Have to see if the preview has noise reduction applied though.

randy98mtu wrote in post #18749713
Need to get these files in the computer but I’m waiting for my kids and fooling around between the R and the Sony R3. Looking like Canon brought out something people underestimated. Shooting the black floor mats in my car. iSO 12800, f4 at 1/8 second the Canon locks faster and holds better. And the final result looks like it has less noise. Have to see if the preview has noise reduction applied though.

Interesting.... I found this sensor super good at incredible iso's as well. I shot a a7rIII in sept for a few days and found the EVF to be 1/2 as good as this R for clarity in seeing just where focus was on the subjects and the highlights to be much nicer in the R... all around better EVF

I know some of you guys have both a 7/III and an R now. I'd love to hear thoughts instead of just watching Youtube videos.

These are my very non-scientific comparisons. And the differences are pretty minor in my opinion. I was sitting in the car waiting to pick up my kids from school. I found that shooting at the footwell on the passenger side was pretty low light and a good low light test comparison. Both are 35mm, ISO 12,800. The EOS R was the RF 24-105, so it's at f/4. The A7R3 had the FE 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss. So the Canon shot is at f/4, 1/8th of a second (hand held) and the Sony was at f/2.8, 1/13th. I tried one with the Sony at f/4, metering put it at 1/6th of a second and it was horribly blurry. I should have tried again maybe. The first comparison is at 2:1, the second is at 1:1. These captures are pretty close to the center of the frame. Out at the edges the Sony images have more detail, but remember we are comparing a prime with a zoom.

randy98mtu wrote in post #18749713
Need to get these files in the computer but I’m waiting for my kids and fooling around between the R and the Sony R3. Looking like Canon brought out something people underestimated.

I think Canon brought out something that even scares a couple other brands and users. For the USA I'm not certain, but an interesting article I stumbled upon noted Canon already gained 22% of Full Frame market in Japan. And aside from these numbers, the EOS R shoots gorgeous photos regardless. I still think it is worth every dime of the price tag. I can capture better photos with the EOS R than the 5D mk iii I bought for almost $2800 refurbished a couple years ago.

October 2018 Full Frame Marketshare in Japan

67% Sony (early 2018 was 99.5%)

22.1% Canon

10.4% Nikon

Meanwhile ... one more amidst a vine maple in the redwood forest.

Dustin Abbott Finally Chimes In !!

A video I sort of expected to see weeks ago.

Well fur is fur.... what I liked about the files is I have to do very little with them compared to say the 7DII

Pondrader wrote in post #18749885
Well fur is fur.... what I liked about the files is I have to do very little with them compared to say the 7DII

Hosted photo: posted by Pondrader in
./showthread.php?p=187​49885&i=i189527972
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Impressive detail in that Fur

Sio this is adapted. How was the AF compared to your DSLR