R5 v/s R6- here they are. which for you and why ?

butterfly2937 wrote in post #19093688
The 1DX3 has no heat issues and you can shoot 20fps mechanical or e- shutter. Unlimited buffer and a battery that can last all day. E- shutter is a disadvantage in allot of situations.

20 fps is e-shutter. The fastest mechanical shutter is 16 fps (which is impressive given limitations of a focal plane shutter for faster frame rates).

As to resolution of R5 vs 1DX3: Canon has defined their 1DX line as both sports camera and replacement of the 1DC....with 5D series having higher sensor specs for professional uses such as wedding. I can see how Canon was trying to push more resolution with the R5 (for 5D4 users to consider upgrading and to finally compete with Nikon D800 and Sony A4R series).

John Sheehy wrote in post #19093701
The cameras with pure electronic (slow rolling) shutters (AKA "quiet mode") for stills should come with a pamphlet that explains and visually demonstrates their limitations; a lot of people have botched the photography of unrepeatable events with this mode.

I'm still trying to find out information about the shutter lag using mechanical shutter. There are no videos showing that. There are videos showing the LCD during E shutter. I have been reading about the E shutter in preparation but I'm not sure how interested I am in using it. I have come across some of those botched example.

Canon USA it does provide the specs but I'm not sure what that equates to. 81ms and E is 50. We know how bad the R is with that slide show look but Canon USA does not provide those specs for a comparison. Also I'm not sure if we know Canon has done anything to reduce the lag.

This is my only area of interest at this point. I'm OK with everything else.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19093623
Those numbers are not what they might seem to be to.

When you see numbers like 60% for quantum efficiency, they are referring to the efficiency in a green-filtered pixel when presented with narrow-band green light. Half the pixels don't record much of the green light at all, and use it not as green, but as "not-green" to help distinguish local color, so the real quantum efficiency of green light is more like 30%, and blue light, about 10%, and red light, about 6%; that what you pay for in photons, for color.

The metric focuses on the green channel because the green channel is the most sensitive, and green light is the most abundant beneath the color filters in most lighting situations for a white subject tone, representing the channel most likely to run into headroom problems.

Thanks... I tried to look into the details of sensor efficiency some time ago and it was complicated. I decided figuring it out was not worth it. There are clever folks at the camera manufacturers who know about it and are applying the technology as best they can. I do know that there are limits to what can be achieved, and suspect that further gains will be incremental.

Charlie wrote in post #19093702
I believe you are being accurate as in the price of cameras have been stable for many years. Stills guys are paying for a lot of the RnD work for the video guys and I thank you for that

if Canon were focused purely on stills, you would probably have a DUAL CFexpress, 60mp R5 by now

on topic of the R5/R6, firmware promises, looks like the pendulum is swinging back towards the R5 for me. Two modes without overheating, and generally better overheating recovery. Wont be preordering though, the insane price drop of the original R has me scared of taking such a big hit. Either way, I'm excited about the firmware leaks, if true, it would solve most of the issues I see with this camera.

That is great because I wouldn't want 60 mp. Not for BIF

Let's look at this a different way. Did video shooters not contribute to R&D as well? The 5D2 that came out in 2008. Hollywood used the 5D4 for full feature filming. Crash cams and so on. I'm sure there is a healthy number of people out there that since 2008 purchased them specifically for video to avoid the dedicated cinematography cameras which are very expensive.

Currently my only query about the R5 is mechanical shutter lag during burst shooting.

Charlie wrote in post #19093646
You don’t like 20 FPS or 45mp?

To be honest, I don't need 45mp and although 20 fps is nice, for the past 6 years I've been shooting a 6D with 4.5 fps so I can live with that.

I agree. Instead there would be a full frame stills only DSLR with the same resolution and fps as the R5/R6........ but cheaper.

In looking at the photos on the 1DX Mk3 thread, if the same sensor is in the R6, it should be awesome.

digital paradise wrote in post #19093722
That is great because I wouldn't want 60 mp. Not for BIF

Let's look at this a different way. Did video shooters not contribute to R&D as well? The 5D2 that came out in 2008. Hollywood used the 5D4 for full feature filming. Crash cams and so on. I'm sure there is a healthy number of people out there that since 2008 purchased them specifically for video to avoid the dedicated cinematography cameras which are very expensive.

Currently my only query about the R5 is mechanical shutter lag during burst shooting.

The 5D2 defined what a HDSLR is, but it had limited use with TV production and cinema shots. The type of productions that consider cinema cameras are the ones who can buy 1D3s or R5s for particular b-roll shots. It seems to me that the biggest market for a stills camera that doubles for video is the video blogger segment.

davesrose wrote in post #19093714
20 fps is e-shutter. The fastest mechanical shutter is 16 fps (which is impressive given limitations of a focal plane shutter for faster frame rates).

As to resolution of R5 vs 1DX3: Canon has defined their 1DX line as both sports camera and replacement of the 1DC....with 5D series having higher sensor specs for professional uses such as wedding. I can see how Canon was trying to push more resolution with the R5 (for 5D4 users to consider upgrading and to finally compete with Nikon D800 and Sony A4R series).

No you get 20fps mechanical or electronic shutter in live view

Archibald wrote in post #19093721
Thanks... I tried to look into the details of sensor efficiency some time ago and it was complicated. I decided figuring it out was not worth it. There are clever folks at the camera manufacturers who know about it and are applying the technology as best they can. I do know that there are limits to what can be achieved, and suspect that further gains will be incremental.

The numbers in the post you quoted are suspect, but further gains are likely incremental.

.
Thanks for the explanation, John Sheehy ..... I appreciate it.

According to what you said, it seems that "normalizing results" is pretty much what I suspected it was. . I thought there may be a lot more to it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Hence, it seems that the only time that normalizing results would apply would be if the photographer plans to crop the full frame image.

.For my usage, I think it would be foolish to normalize results. . I mean, why would I pay for a a full frame camera and longer glass, and then do things to the image to reduce the quality to what I would get from a crop sensor? . I have already had crop sensors - for years - and moved up to full frame because I wanted the better image quality. . It wouldn't make sense to arbitrarily handicap my images just to be "fair" to crop sensor bodies.

Many, many, many photographers are not "reach challenged" or "focal length challenged" at all. . I think that those who are reach challenged are a rare exception, not the rule. . And normalizing results seems to be something that only applies to that slim little portion of the photographer demographic. . The rest of us frame images the same way, regardless of what sensor size we are using.

.

Fordsabroad wrote in post #19093681
.
Actually WilsonFlyer whether your steering wheel is on the right side of the car is a matter of opinion!!
.

.
For photography, it is preferable to have the steering wheel on the side that is nearest the shoulder of the road, not on the side that is in the center of the road. . This is because many people pull over to the shoulder of the road to take photos out the car window. . This is a common practice in wildlife and bird photography.

So both the countries in North America and those in Europe have it wrong. . If one had a car made for Europe and used it in North America, that would be perfect for photography. . Likewise if someone driving in Europe had a car that was made for North America.

It really sucks to have to lean over the passenger seat to take photos of animals out the car window ...... and it also sucks to have to shoot over the width of the roadway, because this sets us further back from the animal.

I love these off-topic tangents! . Thank you to whoever started this side discussion.

.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19093701
The cameras with pure electronic (slow rolling) shutters (AKA "quiet mode") for stills should come with a pamphlet that explains and visually demonstrates their limitations; a lot of people have botched the photography of unrepeatable events with this mode.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19093701
The cameras with pure electronic (slow rolling) shutters (AKA "quiet mode") for stills should come with a pamphlet that explains and visually demonstrates their limitations; a lot of people have botched the photography of unrepeatable events with this mode.

For fast moving subjects mechanical shutter is preferred as a distortion is seen in fast-moving subjects using electronic shutter. Once cameras get global electronic shutter that will change. But for now fast moving subjects mechanical shutter is the way to go. Also under any type of artificial lighting electronic shutter is going to be a problem again mechanical shutter will be preferred. So for people shooting wildlife and sports using electronic shutter they are going to see lots of distortion. This is the reason that the 1DX3 will remain the preferred body for sports and wildlife. The 1DX3 offers the most speed at all shutter options. The ability to have 16 to 20 FPS Mechanical shutter for fast moving subjects eliminates the distortion issue and allows outstanding speed even under artificial lighting.

Wow, July 9th to now, 343 replies on 23 pages. That has to be a topic for the records!

butterfly2937 wrote in post #19093734
No you get 20fps mechanical or electronic shutter in live view

Hosted photo: posted by butterfly2937 in
./showthread.php?p=190​93734&i=i5778358
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

No, your img says up to 20fps (which is live view e-shutter). Canon's own website says up to 16fps OVF (what is mechanical shutter).

John from PA wrote in post #19093756
.
Wow, July 9th to now, 343 replies on 23 pages. That has to be a topic for the records!
.

.
Reminds me of the good old days.

Funny that most people would rather talk about cameras than photography. . Can you imagine how awesome it would be if there was this much talk about composition and applied color theory and photographic history?! . That would be incredible!


.