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

John Sheehy wrote in post #19096016
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.

This fellow mentions it here briefly at minute 7:50. Not bad review but he is clearly Sony biased and has never held either the R5 or 6.

https://www.youtube.co​m …7T-TJwzY&feature=emb_logo

John Sheehy wrote in post #19096039
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.

That were High Speed Sync is used. It has it's advantages and disadvantages.

digital paradise wrote in post #19096042
This fellow mentions it here briefly at minute 7:50. Not bad review but he is clearly Sony biased and has never held either the R5 or 6.

https://www.youtube.co​m …7T-TJwzY&feature=emb_logo

I hope you can open this. Here is another link.

https://www.fredmirand​a.com …/topic/1653904/​9#15285710

John Sheehy wrote in post #19096018
Rolling shutter and readout speed are independent. "High speed readout" can exist alongside a slow rolling shutter.

Can you elaborate. My understanding is as readout gets faster rolling shutter distortions are less pronounced. Jordan Drake said that the R6 at 19ms is minimal. The A9 II at 6ms is almost non visible. I have another question for you after this.

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?

https://www.imaging-resource.com …-eos-r5/canon-eos-r5A.HTM
Flash photography is not supported with the all-electronic shutter mode

So use mechanical if you are using flash.
You can use EFCS - (Electronic First Curtain) with flash, but that still uses the mechanical shutter.

The complete paragraph of the link above:
Flash photography is not supported with the all-electronic shutter mode, nor is HDR, multiple exposures, multi-shot NR mode, auto-exposure bracketing, HDR PQ mode, anti-flicker shooting, Dual Pixel RAW or when using Digital Lens Optimizer set to High.

Choderboy wrote in post #19096048
https://www.imaging-resource.com …-eos-r5/canon-eos-r5A.HTM
Flash photography is not supported with the all-electronic shutter mode

So use mechanical if you are using flash.
You can use EFCS - (Electronic First Curtain) with flash, but that still uses the mechanical shutter.

The complete paragraph of the link above:
Flash photography is not supported with the all-electronic shutter mode, nor is HDR, multiple exposures, multi-shot NR mode, auto-exposure bracketing, HDR PQ mode, anti-flicker shooting, Dual Pixel RAW or when using Digital Lens Optimizer set to High.

It says that in my R when I put it in silent mode and I there is a flash on.

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.

We are operating in a range of variables where the jello effects can be small or subtle, with typical angles of view or subject motion speeds, which is why the typical ~1/350 rolling shutters of high-end action DSLRs don't usually show the jello noticeably, even though it is always there at high shutter speeds. That's how it is with a lot of things - they are always there, but we only talk about them, usually, when they cross a threshold. Yes, when a lens gives a symmetrical ghost of a very bright light in the frame, it is not the brightness of the light relative to the rest of the scene that creates the ghost; everything shot with that lens, even a low contrast scene ghosts, too. You just don't notice it, because of the larger signal of the normal part of the image, and any noise that may also mask it.

When you do use the highest mechanical shutter speeds, some cameras will show horizontal luminance banding if you crank the contrast way up on a flat subject, like blue sky, because the gap between the curtains is not consistent, and any tiny stuttering of the curtains starts to modulate exposure more, down the frame. I suppose that things like that aremajor reasons for 1/8000s limits that are common for mechanical curtains; the cameras could be made to use 1/16000 or 1/32000, but exposure may be wonky, and noticeable even with normal conversion contrast. Electronic shutters do not suffer this, as any timing errors are tiny.

I may as well John this question based on post #487. How does frame insertion work with all of this? I'll use the R6 as an example. Readout is 18ms which makes it 1/52 which I'll round out to 1/60.

With an optical viewfinder and shooting 1/1000 is pretty straight forward. The shutter is so fast we barely see a gap while burst shooting.

With an EVF we are burst shooting at 1/1000. The read out is 1/60. So basically how does this work? The A9 II readout is 6ms so 1/160. Faster than the R6 but still a big difference between 1/1000 SS. How does the viewfinder show no lag? I know it frame insertion but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.

I read that increasing the EVF refresh rate does not help. It only makes things appear a little smoother. It is still dependant on the data it receives, which is based on readout speed.

digital paradise wrote in post #19096046
Can you elaborate. My understanding is as readout gets faster rolling shutter distortions are less pronounced. Jordan Drake said that the R6 at 19ms is minimal. The A9 II at 6ms is almost non visible. I have another question for you after this.

You are using the term "readout speed" where it doesn't belong. "Readout speed" is for things like pixels per second bandwidth or FPS, not rolling shutter speed. Call what you are talking about "rolling shutter speed".

I have a camera that captures 40fps and has a rolling electronic shutter speed of 1/12s or 1/13s (I forget which). Some parts of frame 3 are recorded before some parts of frame 1!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19096069
You are using the term "readout speed" where it doesn't belong. "Readout speed" is for things like pixels per second bandwidth or FPS, not rolling shutter speed. Call what you are talking about "rolling shutter speed".

I have a camera that captures 40fps and has a rolling electronic shutter speed of 1/12s or 1/13s (I forget which). Some parts of frame 3 are recorded before some parts of frame 1!

You have me a little confused because my understanding is that rolling shutter distortions can be a result of readout speeds. I know readout and rolling shutter are two different things.

Generally speaking, as the sensor gets larger and higher in resolution, the greater potential there is for rolling shutter artifacts; because the larger the sensor area, the longer the readout of that sensor will take.

Source

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …ter-versus-global-shutter

digital paradise wrote in post #19096057
I may as well John this question based on post #487. How does frame insertion work with all of this? I'll use the R6 as an example. Readout is 18ms which makes it 1/52 which I'll round out to 1/60.

With an optical viewfinder and shooting 1/1000 is pretty straight forward. The shutter is so fast we barely see a gap while burst shooting.

With an EVF we are burst shooting at 1/1000. The read out is 1/60. So basically how does this work? The A9 II readout is 6ms so 1/160. Faster than the R6 but still a big difference between 1/1000 SS. How does the viewfinder show no lag? I know it frame insertion but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it.

I read that increasing the EVF refresh rate does not help. It only makes things appear a little smoother. It is still dependant on the data it receives, which is based on readout speed.

Not so straight forward. Somewhere around 1/250 second, with mechanical shutter, blackout is near enough to constant.
The slit between the shutter blades gets smaller but the shutter blades don't move faster.
So the difference in blackout time between 1/250 sec exposure and 1/1000 sec is very small.

I believe the A9 'drops' some frames to achieve no blackout, but it's imperceptible.
The high refresh rate is also not constant. If higher refresh option is selected, it's mostly high refresh rate but slows down under various circumstances.
EVF resolution also reduces with high refresh rate. No problem for me, highest refresh rate is 120 fps, I only use 50 fps.

digital paradise wrote in post #19096077
You have me a little confused because my understanding is that rolling shutter distortions can be a result of readout speeds. I know readout and rolling shutter are two different things.

Generally speaking, as the sensor gets larger and higher in resolution, the greater potential there is for rolling shutter artifacts; because the larger the sensor area, the longer the readout of that sensor will take.

Source

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …ter-versus-global-shutter

I think it's just semantics.

In this article, Jim Kasson uses the term "read speed"
https://blog.kasson.co​m …ny-a9-electronic-shutter/

John Sheehy wrote in post #19096030
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.

I love your detailed technical replies John, even if occasionally they go a little over my head.

I have had a number of difficult to MFA/focus lenses, the Sigma 18-30 Art, the 50mm Art and the V1 Tamron 150-600mm. The results with my 7Dii were very hit and miss, despite fairly good MFA'ing. Some focus modes worked well, some not so well at all.

Even with the 100mm L macro and the 100-400mm F/2 ii the focusing accuracy wasn't great.

Despite this, I loved the 7Dii's image quality and ergonomics, I much preferred using it over my 6D. Incidentally, I replaced an a7r with the 7Dii and 6D combo, the a7r produced lovely files but I hated using it and had numerous significant issues with it. It's not always about potential image quality.

However, for me, my R nails the focus much more often, despite completely missing it on occasion (I prefer a complete miss to near miss that I only discover when I'm editing, but that might just be me).

I miss the reach, especially having gone from primarily the 150-600mm on the 7Dii to the 100-400mm on the R. However, I bought a 2xiii and it works fairly well with the 100-400mm.

My R with the 800mm gives a more detailed image than my 7Dii did with my 150-600mm at it's best image resolving focal length.

I'd love the R5 but I'll probably wait a year or so and go from 3 cameras down to 1.

Choderboy wrote in post #19096079
Not so straight forward. Somewhere around 1/250 second, with mechanical shutter, blackout is near enough to constant.
The slit between the shutter blades gets smaller but the shutter blades don't move faster.
So the difference in blackout time between 1/250 sec exposure and 1/1000 sec is very small.

I believe the A9 'drops' some frames to achieve no blackout, but it's imperceptible.
The high refresh rate is also not constant. If higher refresh option is selected, it's mostly high refresh rate but slows down under various circumstances.
EVF resolution also reduces with high refresh rate. No problem for me, highest refresh rate is 120 fps, I only use 50 fps.

Oh I see. I wondered about that because it does work. When you see 1/250 and 1/1000 it seems like a lot at first glance. You have to reverse that thought. Not sure if that was the best way to describe it.

Thanks.

Choderboy wrote in post #19096080
I think it's just semantics.

In this article, Jim Kasson uses the term "read speed"
https://blog.kasson.co​m …ny-a9-electronic-shutter/

Thanks.