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

Holy crap!! Wow!! Nice shots!! That's so cool to find some wildlife there and fresh snow in July!?

jamganz wrote in post #19404053
about 30 mins earlier it was snowing very hard

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nar​uvb Grand Canyon by jamganz, on Flickr

Passed some friends along the trail

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2naj​c5a Grand Canyon by jamganz, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2nas​ddu Grand Canyon by jamganz, on Flickr

Ordered the "R" - $1599 on sale right now - realized I "over bought" with the R5 - so it's being sold. I think the R will do just fine for landscape/astro duty. I'll pickup an R7 for dedicated birds/wildlife eventually

QUESTION:

I want to do TL shots, the OLD way - me doing all the work on the computer, not this in camera crap.

It's my understanding that the R does NOT have a built in intervalometer for us "old people" that just want it to take shot after shot, save the raw files to then work on later?

My confusion is this:

Do I need to buy an external intervalometer for $20-$50 (the ones where you have to program in number of shots, time between shots, etc) OR - Can I get away with a cheap $9 trigger that plugs into the camera, and just have the trigger button locked down, so, "in theory" once it's done with one shot, it automatically starts taking the next shot?

My thought process is to simply set the camera in full manual mode: F2.8 ISO6400 10 seconds. Plug trigger in. Lock down button. Camera "hopefully" receives orders to take first shot, then, sees that trigger is locked down, and takes next shot after recording first shot... and to do this for 2-3 hours so I can take a nap and enjoy my backcountry noise free (which - I have a HUGE rant about Arches and noise... do we have a "rant" / "venting" thread ? I almost want to do a book: "HOW TO Visit Arches without destroying the experience for those around you"

Sorry, didn't mean to be misleading...took the shots during a visit in March. My wife and I walked quite a bit of the Rim Trail that day. We bumped into plenty of Elk...but no humans!

markesc wrote in post #19405194
Ordered the "R" - $1599 on sale right now - realized I "over bought" with the R5 - so it's being sold. I think the R will do just fine for landscape/astro duty. I'll pickup an R7 for dedicated birds/wildlife eventually

QUESTION:

I want to do TL shots, the OLD way - me doing all the work on the computer, not this in camera crap.

It's my understanding that the R does NOT have a built in intervalometer for us "old people" that just want it to take shot after shot, save the raw files to then work on later?

My confusion is this:

Do I need to buy an external intervalometer for $20-$50 (the ones where you have to program in number of shots, time between shots, etc) OR - Can I get away with a cheap $9 trigger that plugs into the camera, and just have the trigger button locked down, so, "in theory" once it's done with one shot, it automatically starts taking the next shot?

My thought process is to simply set the camera in full manual mode: F2.8 ISO6400 10 seconds. Plug trigger in. Lock down button. Camera "hopefully" receives orders to take first shot, then, sees that trigger is locked down, and takes next shot after recording first shot... and to do this for 2-3 hours so I can take a nap and enjoy my backcountry noise free (which - I have a HUGE rant about Arches and noise... do we have a "rant" / "venting" thread ? I almost want to do a book: "HOW TO Visit Arches without destroying the experience for those around you"

It's unfortunate that Canon didn't add the intervalometer function through a firmware update, and I never understood the reason that they left it out in the first place. I haven't done much time-lapse, but I use a wireless intervalometer on the occasion that I give it a go. Simply shooting frame after frame might not give you the result that you want, whereas with the intervalometer you can set the interval between frames after you determine the number of shots that you need.

Neil van Niekerk just did a tutorial on time-lapse that might be useful. I'm going through it now.
https://neilvn.com …pse-photography-tutorial/

markesc wrote in post #19405194
Ordered the "R" - $1599 on sale right now - realized I "over bought" with the R5 - so it's being sold. I think the R will do just fine for landscape/astro duty. I'll pickup an R7 for dedicated birds/wildlife eventually

It's the rare photographer who backs down from a camera once he's bought it. Anything in particular when you say overbought? Maybe just more pixels than needed? I think you'll be happy with the R. Maybe a few days of getting used to different controls, but good image quality.

Taken with the RF 100-400, couldn't quite go all in on the 100-500 at that price.

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

It's like owning a fast car with nowhere to drive it. That's kind of the best way I can put it! I don't live by any wildlife, so no need for all of the speed; I'd rather pickup the R, and maybe the R7 if I move north.. or some prime lenses - There's nothing "wrong" with the R5, I just would rather free up some funds and pickup some other lenses. Also, I'm thinking the lower pixel density will be a step forward in terms of Astro performance per a paper I read by some ultra smart NASA scientist. 100% of my photos around town are on the tripod/slow process...

patrick j wrote in post #19405317
It's the rare photographer who backs down from a camera once he's bought it. Anything in particular when you say overbought? Maybe just more pixels than needed? I think you'll be happy with the R. Maybe a few days of getting used to different controls, but good image quality.

Thanks for the reply!

Yeah I've been all over the map: 70d-90d 5d1 -5dIV - Anyone can do amazing work with any camera!!

Yeah time between frames is great for daytime use - 3-5 seconds between shots; for astro work, I go for the next shot as quickly as the camera can make it happen!

Looks like I'm getting an external controller (I'm surprised magic lantern didn't do a firmware hack for this option?! I'll have to look into it!) - I just dislike having one more item to plug into the camera, especially as it's windy here, so... it's going to flop around, will have to rubber band it to tripod perhaps!

davinci953 wrote in post #19405308
It's unfortunate that Canon didn't add the intervalometer function through a firmware update, and I never understood the reason that they left it out in the first place. I haven't done much time-lapse, but I use a wireless intervalometer on the occasion that I give it a go. Simply shooting frame after frame might not give you the result that you want, whereas with the intervalometer you can set the interval between frames after you determine the number of shots that you need.

Neil van Niekerk just did a tutorial on time-lapse that might be useful. I'm going through it now.
https://neilvn.com …pse-photography-tutorial/

I did something similar for similar reasons. I bought an R6 on release day. I liked it but it was totally wasted on me. I sold it along with the 24-105 F4 lens (which I wasn't crazy about) and replaced it with an R and a 24-240. Does everything I need and then some. I hope one day to go back to the higher end models (like an R6 Mark 2) but I only will if there's a need. I got caught up in the "frenzy" and thought I HAD to have one.

As I retreated to nature during the pandemic, I found myself getting into shooting birds again. I have been using the Sigma 100-400mm C with the R mainly for this purpose. While focus is easier to achieve with larger birds, I have found difficulty nailing focus on the smaller varieties. While the camera and lens would indicate focus achieved using AF, afterwards I would find that the results were just too soft. I found myself resorting to using manual focus almost exclusively. I don't know if anyone else experiences similar? Maybe it's the Sigma lens? Maybe user (me) in some cases? Just curious if anyone is facing similar? I am looking at the results of the newly release R7 and it has me contemplating getting that body for wildlife (I would keep the R). The advance AF and extra reach would be nice.

An example of shot that I used manual focus to ensure that best focus achieved (eye/body). Shots like this if I use AF the result is less sharp. Sorry, don't have a shot to show comparison. Just trying to demo what I am talking about.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m73​FvY

My scattered thoughts:

Exactly - I often go back through 5d1-4 files, and think: "Okay, so these look FINE to me..."

I actually would rather have a basic "R" for slower work: landscapes/astro/metho​dical stuff.... and the R7 for some action/fastmoving birds/wildlife - you can have BOTH NEW for LESS than the R5. It's nice to not have to change lenses, and have a free camera / telephoto while the other camera is on the tripod doing a time lapse...If/when I move north or somewhere that has birds other than Ravens/Crows, I'll try out the R7...

In photographing the Wild Horses on the Salt River - I was sort of split - some occasions I missed the crop factor, as the horses will cross the river in different locations in a normal season; other occasions I was thankful I had a true 100mm as the horses were too close. However - in reviewing photos, the best composition of the horses happen when I was physically farther away, as this helps them behave as WILD horses AND it just has a better overall look. In those cases at times I actually missed the crop factor/90d, but I don't want to blow $2800 on the 100-500 for that situation... the 100-400ii on a crop like the 90d/r7 will be great for 85-90% of compositions in that particular situation.

For Landscapes/living around Moab/Arches: In looking at ISO6400, which for ME, is my "go to" for astro work - I just do not see a "game changing" difference among any of the R series cameras. Typically I'm rolling with ISO6400 F2.8 10-13 seconds at around 15mm... I chose the R over RP because the battery is the same ones I have a bunch laying around, and it seems like the R has better raw file correction abilities in low light/less color shift. Is the R5 "better" yes, but - Not $2000 "better" in my opinion, not for what I am doing right now...

I believe the R5 is a better studio/portrait/weddin​g/people work type of camera or those that want to do video or if you are all over the place in terms of occasion/subject matter...or if you just have money to blow and want a camera that does "everything" pretty well...

Just my "opinion" - I've seen AMAZING work on virtually any camera... It really comes down to grit/perseverance in most cases. I do wish at some point we can move past the social alienation of those choosing to live leaner/less stuff/simple stuff... and, when we're posting photos online, I don't really care what camera or lens was used, I'm looking at it from both an art perspective and a some technical aspects, but really - ANY camera made in the last 5 years will do fine, and I still am a huge advocate for those with older cameras or crop sensors to give Topaz a shot if you have distracting elements going on (they have sales on most holidays, but a 30 day free trial is worthy of consideration).

Overall I believe that things are improving, and we're sloowwwwwlying moving past the whole "what camera did you use" phase - and finally going back to the ART of photography in terms of discussions. This to me is much more exciting, as since the switch to digital, it's been a long slog of specs based dialog rather than Art, which, I "thought" is why we're all beating ourselves up hiking miles across the desert trying to not fall into a canyon, and scratching those scabbed over mosquito bites while editing photos!?!?!

Sometimes I do want to get a "stupid" 20d and a few prime lenses - take some amazing shots, post them, just as a reminder - NONE of us 'need' the newest/"bestest" - most of us don't need faster cars, we just need to become better drivers, and maybe some better tires/brake pads. I sort of look at cameras in the same way. Do we "need" Porsche 911 GT3 - RS to go to Costco?

Optiq wrote in post #19405430
I did something similar for similar reasons. I bought an R6 on release day. I liked it but it was totally wasted on me. I sold it along with the 24-105 F4 lens (which I wasn't crazy about) and replaced it with an R and a 24-240. Does everything I need and then some. I hope one day to go back to the higher end models (like an R6 Mark 2) but I only will if there's a need. I got caught up in the "frenzy" and thought I HAD to have one.

Yeap! Keep the R, and get a crop sensor camera for the birds/wildlife...see how that lens behaves before considering changing it. I am still a huge believer in the "older" 100-400II, so maybe consider a used copy. Otherwise, birds will always be highly frustrating subject matter as they're always near trees/obstructions/thi​ngs that will cause the AF to lock on to something OTHER than the bird!!

The R7 would be a "no brainer" and a great combo with that lens!

jamganz wrote in post #19405618
As I retreated to nature during the pandemic, I found myself getting into shooting birds again. I have been using the Sigma 100-400mm C with the R mainly for this purpose. While focus is easier to achieve with larger birds, I have found difficulty nailing focus on the smaller varieties. While the camera and lens would indicate focus achieved using AF, afterwards I would find that the results were just too soft. I found myself resorting to using manual focus almost exclusively. I don't know if anyone else experiences similar? Maybe it's the Sigma lens? Maybe user (me) in some cases? Just curious if anyone is facing similar? I am looking at the results of the newly release R7 and it has me contemplating getting that body for wildlife (I would keep the R). The advance AF and extra reach would be nice.

Looks great!!

I've had my older 70d-80d-90d's lock focus just fine in the shadows, so, sometimes it's just bad luck or bad camera/lens combo... BUT: I have always done birds with center point only focus on those cameras. The only deviation was using the eye tracking on the R5; and if you move to the R7, just know that it will be better, UNTIL you have groups of birds taking off, and you'll see that it may jump from one bird to the other, and that can be good/bad... There's no perfect camera!!

I ran into that issue while photographing the wild horses: You sort of get "lulled" into holding down the eye tracking/animal detect button, and then the horses start galloping/splashing through the water, and for whatever reason, with the water in the air, on some occasions, even the R5 will decide that it's "bored" with the original horse you started with, and will decide to go focus on some other horse... This taught me one thing: Don't depend on any of the subject/eye tracking things when there's groups. It DOES work 95% of the time, but just be ready/aware to let off and have it on center point only...

Hope that helps... I also would not use a single case to judge if the R is good/bad with birds... For me personally, I usually give a camera a solid 12 months/20k-50k shots before I decide what it can/cannot do and in what cases. I think the other problem (not YOU personally!) is that far too many reviewers simply do not spend enough TIME with a camera/lens combination, and giveup too easily, which is why the 90d got all the negative press that it did...

Lastly: I have tried both the older sigma 100-500 (or 150-500?) as a rental, and owned the tamron 150-600... tried on the 70d and 5dmkiii and 5dmkiv... I could never get a 3rd party lens to perform as Consistent as a canon lens on a canon camera. So that "may" be a factor. The problem is that statement is something that "some people" will find inconvenient, but I do believe that there simply are some combinations of cameras and 3rd party lenses that for whatever reason, just do not behave very well with eachother. It could be something as simple as lighting, the bird/case use, or firmware used on either the lens or the camera at any given time. Sort of like how your computer is doing "just fine" and then, the genius's at Microsoft force an update, and all of a sudden you have issues and have to roll back the update (does not happen often, but, you won't forget when it does!).

jamganz wrote in post #19405625
An example of shot that I used manual focus to ensure that best focus achieved (eye/body). Shots like this if I use AF the result is less sharp. Sorry, don't have a shot to show comparison. Just trying to demo what I am talking about.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m73​FvY Ruby-throated Hummingbird by jamganz, on Flickr

markesc wrote in post #19405639
Looks great!!
Hope that helps... I also would not use a single case to judge if the R is good/bad with birds... For me personally, I usually give a camera a solid 12 months/20k-50k shots before I decide what it can/cannot do and in what cases. I think the other problem (not YOU personally!) is that far too many reviewers simply do not spend enough TIME with a camera/lens combination, and giveup too easily, which is why the 90d got all the negative press that it did...

Agree with this. I probably took 30-40K shots over the past 2 summers birding with the R so definitely more than a wknd outing. I mainly use the center point AF, but used all focus options as a trial and error to eliminate any of those possibilities. I still love my R. Just looking for something that hopefully makes it a little easier (with a few more keepers of course!). I am curious how the 100-400mm Sigma will pair up with the R7 once I get that body. Been watching for results in the R7 thread but will rely more on my own experience to see if I have to move onto the Canon 100-400mm II or step up to the RF 100-500mm.