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

As for EVF lag, blackout, slide show effect. Whatever you want to call it. There are no examples of what we will see in the EVF out there yet except below. That is what the person claims.

Based on readout speed should we see the same thing in the EFV using either M or E shutter? The EVF will receive the data just as quickly in both modes? The only difference is the mechanical shutter closing, which is obvious and all cameras do this.

I'm trying to understand if E shutter transmits data a different rate, etc. In E mode it is always exposed and blanks between shots. Like turning a light off and on. In M mode it is like covering the light. Not sure why it should be at different rates but I'm not a camera or electronics engineer. If so when shooting birds/sports the it should be just as smooth with the exception of shutter closing and opening - I would think.

Listen to what he says at minute 3.

https://www.youtube.co​m …tsFZBFYo&featur​e=emb_logo

I don't think there is any rule on how one likes a post. This isn't Facebook where likes garner some form of reputation.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095850
As for EVF lag, blackout, slide show effect. Whatever you want to call it. There are no examples of what we will see in the EVF out there yet except below. That is what the person claims.

Based on readout speed should we see the same thing in the EFV using either M or E shutter? The EVF will receive the data just as quickly in both modes? The only difference is the mechanical shutter closing, which is obvious and all cameras do this.

I'm trying to understand if E shutter transmits data a different rate, etc. In E mode it is always exposed and blanks between shots. Like turning a light off and on. In M mode it is like covering the light. Not sure why it should be at different rates but I'm not a camera or electronics engineer. If so when shooting birds/sports the it should be just as smooth with the exception of shutter closing and opening - I would think.

Listen to what he says at minute 3.

https://www.youtube.co​m …tsFZBFYo&featur​e=emb_logo

I should say learning about how MLIC works is interesting. I’m posting this stuff waiting until the sensor readout specs come out.

I don’t want to spend this kind of money and spend the next 5 years trying to predict where a bird might be going. Had that for the last 10 months now.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095894
I should say learning about how MLIC works is interesting. I’m posting this stuff waiting until the sensor readout specs come out.

I don’t want to spend this kind of money and spend the next 5 years trying to predict where a bird might be going. Had that for the last 10 months now.

But there's quite a difference between 3.5/5 FPS and 12 FPS. Predicting a flight path would be a whole heap easier at 12FPS regardless of blackout.

mccamli wrote in post #19095899
Bu there's quite a difference between 3.5/5 FPS and 12 FPS. Predicting a flight path would be a whole heap easier at 12FPS regardless of blackout.

I never thought of that. Even more interesting. Thanks

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19095883
.
I don't think there is any rule on how one likes a post. This isn't Facebook where likes garner some form of reputation.
.

.
Right. . Of course not. . I never said there was.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19095240
I am very confident that the two cameras are nearly identical in ISO and DR. I am sure too that if you resample the R5 down to 20Mpx of the R6, it will be nearly impossible to tell what is what.

The R6 is just a lower optioned and cheaper constructed R5 to appeal to folks budgets so that there is a great camera at two price points to garner more market share.

I think that unless there is some new technological surprise with the R6 , the R5 will have better IQ in every way, except the silly way some people have of focusing on 100% pixel views, which are cleaner and sharper all other things being equal, as if they were actually views of the sensor IQ. If there is a noise benefit to the R6, it will likely be small and limited to the shadows of higher ISOs and all the tones of ISOs so high that most people here would never use them.

The R5 has the new AA filter style, which allows more sharpening with less color moire. It does that with more pixels to begin with, so the 2.25x difference in pixel density is complemented by the fact that the same optics alias less with higher pixel densities to begin with, and the different AF filters, all taken together, mean a huge difference in color moire potential with the same sharp optics. People don't notice the color moire in low-density FF cameras because the demosaicing mutes the expression of color at the pixel level. Cameras known to have less issues with color moire (due to higher pixel density or the new AA filter type) can allow converters to sharpen color at full resolution more, and hide it less.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095349
New 45 Megapixel Full-Frame Canon CMOS Imaging Sensor with High-Speed Read-Out; Incredible Image Quality and Dynamic Range Promised

Rolling shutter and readout speed are independent. "High speed readout" can exist alongside a slow rolling shutter.

Charlie wrote in post #19095378
It was being compared to the R, which “should “ have very poor rolling shutter.

Based on the R video capabilities, should be in the 1/15 range. 1/30, I’ll pass, 1/60, I can live with, 1/120 or faster, I’ll be happy. I won’t rest till I find a camera with fast readout for stills and video and the closest I have is a 1” sensor camera lol. There’s a lot of freedom/simplicity shooting E-Shutter all the time. Noise, vibrations, wear and tear, a thing of the past*** mostly.

You can't gauge the rolling shutter speed of stills from the EVF refresh rate. The EVF can be supplied with data with line-skipping, so it can be much faster than the rolling shutter used for an actual full-res exposure.

digital paradise wrote in post #19095789
The only body out there that has eliminated rolling shutter distortion is the Sony A9 II. 20 fps is too much anyway. Imagine the culling after a days shooting.

Maybe worth keeping in mind, A9 and A9II rolling shutter is reduced to a level where it is rarely detrimental to the result, but it is not eliminated.
The A9/A9II have roughly half the rolling shutter of Sony A7 series cameras with mechanical shutter.
Mechanical shutters do not eliminate rolling shutter. Sony A9/A9II readout speed is about 1/160 second, mechanical shutters are usually in the range of 1/250 - 1/300 second.

mccamli wrote in post #19095899
But there's quite a difference between 3.5/5 FPS and 12 FPS. Predicting a flight path would be a whole heap easier at 12FPS regardless of blackout.

Have you ever tried to track a swallow with a 500mm? I know I can't they flit about, changing direction suddenly at right angles etc. They are tough, I get about 1 good shot in 100 to 200, they are also very small hard to focus on

mccamli wrote in post #19095547
Have you used the 7Dii much since you got the R? Mine's gathering dust.

There may be some types of conditions in which the R AF is superior (especially with lenses that are hard to MFA correctly, or very low light but high subject contrast), but for anyone shooting focal-length-limited, the 7D2 has less noise at high ISOs and more resolution than a 1.6x crop from the R.

I find it very strange that so many people judge cameras' IQ in a monolithic, all-encompassing way, by the situations in which they wind up using them. You will strip the slot in a screw if you use a screwdriver with a head that is too small or it will just twirl inside the lot if the screwdriver is narrow enough. The screwdriver that fits that big slot, though, is not very useful for a much smaller head and slot. Which is the better screwdriver?

If someone had one telephoto prime, and an R and a 7D2, they would choose to use the R when the angle of view needed to be larger, if they could get closer or had a larger subject, even if they would choose the 7D2 for other situations. Then, when they reviewed the images, of course the R images, on average, will be better, whether entire images were viewed at the same monitor size, or one looked at pixel-level views. However, the better results were only potentiated by the more favorable photo-ops, which would have caused the person to step back with the 7D2, or not use it. When the sensor area of the 7D2 is sufficient, though, due to a small subject or unavoidable distance, the 7D2 gives better maximum IQ than a crop from the R, in both high-ISO noise, and subject resolution (the R will be cleaner in low ISO deep shadows, though). Yes, the R will look sharper and cleaner at 100% pixel view, but that has nothing to do with the quality of subject capture; it is just a pet viewing method that some people have, chock full of illusion that does not take scaling into account.

I see a lot of talk about how people use both FF and APS-C, saying that when light is generous, they prefer the "reach" of the crop factor (which isn't an IQ benefit at all; only higher pixel density or lower visible noise per unit of sensor area can be). Then they say something like, "even if I really want the reach, I use the FF when the light is low". Unless their camera choices allow better AF in low light for the FF, and the APS-C struggles, and there are no TCs to remove to improve AF, this is not realistic at all. If you ranked all the APS-C and FF sensors of any given time period, as to their high-ISO noise in a 1.6x crop area, there is no ranking based on sensor size or pixel size. The 1Dx3 and the 90D have the same high ISO noise when the 1Dx3 is cropped 1.6x; the 1Dx and 1Dx2 fall a little behind that, the 5D4 and 7D come next, then the R, 6D, closely behind, then the 6D2, 5D3, etc. Canon's latest APS-C sensor has the same high-ISO noise as Canon's best high-ISO FF cropped 1.6x, and less than all the other FF Canons, and many FF cameras from other manufacturers, like the A7R4 or D850.

umphotography wrote in post #19095555
wheres the love button

biggest point for me is that 45mp sensor and using EF L lens....I dont want to start investing in RF glass...I currently have great L lens so with an adapter I feel the R6 sensor is a much better fit for people that are going to move GRADUALLY into R glass.....for me...the R24-105 is about the only R glass i am interested in

excellent post

You don't need better glass for a denser sensor. The only reality is that you may appreciate the difference that better glass gives more, with a higher pixel density, whereas it would be more wasted, and more prone to aliasing, with a less dense sensor.

Any image will be better using the same glass on a much denser sensor of the same size (more MP).

Choderboy wrote in post #19096023
Maybe worth keeping in mind, A9 and A9II rolling shutter is reduced to a level where it is rarely detrimental to the result, but it is not eliminated.
The A9/A9II have roughly half the rolling shutter of Sony A7 series cameras with mechanical shutter.
Mechanical shutters do not eliminate rolling shutter. Sony A9/A9II readout speed is about 1/160 second, mechanical shutters are usually in the range of 1/250 - 1/300 second.

Yes I should have said that. It is not eliminated.

rebop wrote in post #19095673
Question on shutters:

Seems the electronic shutter is faster, has faster sync speed and is silent. So when might you choose to use mechanical shutter?

Faster sync speed? Flash sync can't be any faster than the rolling shutter speed, as then the entire sensor is never taking exposure at the same time.