Good Bye to 5D- EOS R5 on the way

Trey T wrote in post #19003318
1dx iii is only 16fps @ 20mp (viewfinder), which is stupid-hyper fast, and 20fps @ 20mp (live view).
If the R5 do 20fps @ 45mp, then someone can make a good categorical argument that the 1dx iii will be obsolete on 2/13/20, the rumored announcement date.

You make a good point

For me, im not about to do anything until I see specs on this new R5

I cant imagine canon putting out a mirrorless that out performs the 1Dx3 2 months after a release

There is no way the AF will match a 1DX3 in terms of speed or accuracy.

We see the limitations of the EOS R now with stuff that moves

I think there is a lot to be discovered about this release but I do think its going to replace the current 5D line up

AF on the 5D4 is pretty good. Not as good as the 1Dx2 but pretty good

I suspect we will see the same with a 1Dx3 v/s EOS R5 AF performance comparisons

Trey T wrote in post #19003318
1dx iii is only 16fps @ 20mp (viewfinder), which is stupid-hyper fast, and 20fps @ 20mp (live view).
If the R5 do 20fps @ 45mp, then someone can make a good categorical argument that the 1dx iii will be obsolete on 2/13/20, the rumored announcement date.

You are making the assumption that the R6 is doing 20fps with AI Servo, and as seen on other offerings, like the R, the highest burst rate is only good for One Shot, not AI Servo. The 1DX3 will do that burst rate with AF, and then 20fps using live view, which is more akin to the R6, both using DPAF.

Also, we still only have rumors for the R6, but reality for the 1DX3. We need to wait a bit to see really what the details might be on the R6. Just the resolution and IBIS would be exciting for me, and if the burst rate is better than the 5D4 at least in AI Servo, that is icing on the cake.

If it is indeed true that 20fps is indeed possible, but only with spot focus, that means the subject(s) must be stationary. That begs the question, when would you need 20fps with stationary subjects and would that be a feature used by more than just a few?

The subject doesn't have to be stationary, they just have to be in the DOF area. So a dancer on stage where you have the stage covered by enough DOF, then 20fps would work just fine. For those that don't need razor thin DOF and have quite a bit of the scene in focus, 20fps in one shot could work well and for many situations.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #19003411
.
If it is indeed true that 20fps is indeed possible, but only with spot focus, that means the subject(s) must be stationary. That begs the question, when would you need 20fps with stationary subjects and would that be a feature used by more than just a few?
.

.
You make quite a valid point.

The vast majority of people who use and need 20 FPS are people shooting sports or wildlife action. . These folks are typically using long telephoto focal lengths and wide open apertures, where depth of field is shallower than they would prefer. . Ideally, we want to shoot from further back, yet have so much focal length that the subject almost completely fills the frame, with very little room to spare. . This creates a very real depth of field challenge.

So, for the vast majority of people who need fast frame rates, depth of field is nowhere near deep enough to keep them in focus with one-shot, and extremely precise, perfect focus tracking is absolutely necessary. . There may be one or two humans somewhere in the world who actually use 20 FPS and don't need to do it while focus tracking in AI Servo, but those are extreme exceptions that do not at all represent the way these fast cameras are used by those who own them.


.

There are many times you don't need to track, but yet still have action/movement. Yes, if the focal length isn't a wide angle, you may have to stop the aperture down

100mm on a FF at f8 shooting a dance on stage 30' away yields 13' of DOF, for example.

Drummer in a band on a stage...

Horse competitions...

Bird with its prey, tearing it apart...

Ice skater in a spin...

Cheerleaders in formation doing their dance...

etc.

So many situations where there is motion/action, but little change in position. 16fps if you want to track with AI Servo, and likely 20fps in situations like the above, but using LiveView.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19003442
There are many times you don't need to track, but yet still have action/movement.

.
Right, but the people shooting those situations aren't obsessed with super high FPS the way the people tracking are. That was the point I was trying to make. The people who are all obsessed over FPS and actually NEED FPS are the ones who are focus tracking. The people shooting the situations you mention are usually content with a more reasonable frame rate, because they are typically in a better position to be able to time their shots selectively.


.

We have had several discussions here on POTN where people actually do want high FPS for those things like dance, a horse in competition in a jump, etc. High burst rates are very much in demand, just like in wildlife or other action shots. We will have to agree to disagree, and I am sure others that actually shoot those types of things may chip in with their thoughts. I have shot dance on stage before, so I have experience with that personally.

I do hope the R6 will have 24 MP, as I'm afraid the R5 will be too expensive considering I don't do that much photography. Coming from a 5D3, having 20 MP would be a bit disappointing.

Personally feel FPS is very highly over rated. I have been shooting almost 40 yrs. FPS is a nice tool. It gets you a ton of shots. But I rarely shoot anything more than a 5-7 FPS burst. I dont think I have ever held if down on a BIF or any subject Just to get that perfect shot. I have never hit the buffer on my 1Dx2.

I just dont need to see 18 shots in a row to get the one perfect shot....so much culling...I hate to cull

Timing and anticipation goes a lot further than FPS in my opinion. I think photographers really get hung up on FPS....thats not why I buy 1D bodies

BTW....If this new mirrorless is gonna do 20 FPS...you can count of new cards. I dont see any SD or CF thats gonna do 20 FPS

umphotography wrote in post #19003693
Personally feel FPS is very highly over rated ..... I don't think I have ever held it down on a BIF or any subject Just to get that perfect shot. I have never hit the buffer on my 1Dx2.

I just don't need to see 18 shots in a row to get the one perfect shot....so much culling...I hate to cull

Timing and anticipation goes a lot further than FPS in my opinion.

.
I notice something in what you say that gives me a clue into how you think and what your goals are when you are shooting, and that helps to explain why you don't place much value on high frame rates.

You repeatedly mention "one perfect shot". . Is that your goal, to get one perfect shot? . If so, then what you say about timing and anticipation over FPS makes some sense to me.

But keep in mind that for many of us, out goal goes far beyond capturing one perfect shot of any action sequence. . If a deer runs past me, I want as many quality frames as I can possibly get. . That deer's legs are going to be in awkward looking positions 90% of the time when it is running. So most frames are simply going to be useless. . The times it looks really cool is when its legs are fully extended, when they are nearly fully extended, and when they are fully contracted. . All of the in-between positions are useless, and no editor or publisher wants them.

I want to get as many frames as possible during that split second when a deer's legs are at and nearing full extension. . Coming away with just one perfect image would be a bit of a let-down, because I need a good number of quality images from the sequence to be able to distribute to different agencies and publishers. . The more quality images I get, the more clients I can submit images to, and the more sales I can make. . I imagine that it is the same for sports shooters who are aggressively trying to market their images to a dozen or more publications simultaneously. . Anyone with a very wide client base has a need for many quality captures of each and every sequence that we shoot.

One perfect shot? . That's not nearly as good as 6 or 8 perfect shots. . Some of us need as many as we can get, and the faster the FPS, the more the camera can help us reach our goals.


.

Spencerphoto wrote in post #19003411
If it is indeed true that 20fps is indeed possible, but only with spot focus,....

Is this a mistype that every one seems to have accepted? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
What does "spot focus" have to do with any of this discussion?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19003739
.
...

But keep in mind that for many of us, out goal goes far beyond capturing one perfect shot of any action sequence. . If a deer runs past me, I want as many quality frames as I can possibly get. . That deer's legs are going to be in awkward looking positions 90% of the time when it is running. So most frames are simply going to be useless. . The times it looks really cool is when its legs are fully extended, when they are nearly fully extended, and when they are fully contracted. . All of the in-between positions are useless, and no editor or publisher wants them.

...

That's excessive amount of statistics ... LOL ... makes me believe that it's a hyper-rare scenario. You'll have to substantiate the claim with your work or at least reference to someone else's...

I shot a lot of basketball and soccer events for our youth organization using the 7D, and I understand the demand for "great looking shots", but the camera did not primarily dictate the product/photo... it was something else, the fundamentals of photography. When I first started in ~2009, I didn't know what a great shot look like from the position of a camera operator, so I just fired away the 8fps. What's even worst is that I moved around the court/field too much that the hit rate was way too low. As I paid more attention to the potential actions of the players on the court/field, I positioned in one or two area and I slowly improved ... and I still suck, comparing to Google images of sports. I'm not saying 16 (or 20)fps isn't needed, but it'll be rare that seasoned action photographers would highly depend on it because there's just a lot of other skills (e.g. analytical and problem solving) that is required to make the business efficient.

A photo must tell a story, from the subject itself, and not the other way around, from the luck of high fps. But I think you're talking about the very-very detail of action photography.

When I do sports of any kind, paid or for parents, I only ever take the best image from a burst. Parents and the offices I have worked with don't care that I have 4 (or 16) good burst shots of a dunk, they will invariably only pick one anyways, so I only put my best foot forward by giving the best of a burst. In rare cases, I might pull 2 or 3 from a burst because there was varied activity from a tongue hanging out to the foul of a hand in the face, but that is the exception to the rule.

If the EOS R5 has a high degree of AF reliability ( as good or better than a 5D4 ) and It has dual cards........Its going to be the camera to get with these specs

Im not excited about 45mp's

But its a new sensor

IF- its as clean as the Sony's with similar MP counts , and the AF is good ( it can hit something that moves) and it can perform( Lock) in low light....... its gonna sell like hot cakes

I am definitely on hold until I can see whats gonna happen