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

My quick rendition and using Adobe Colour. Just used Auto and added a little Clarity and Dehaze. His face is a little red from running around but I like the skin Tone on his arm. Colours are rich. I guess that is the improved DR?

Someone at Fred Miranda just got a production R5 loaner and owns a big white. Responses so far.

"There is a bit of lag, but no blackout". "A tiny bit of lag, but it doesn't bother me".

digital paradise wrote in post #19099772
Someone at Fred Miranda just got a production R5 loaner and owns a big white. Responses so far.

"There is a bit of lag, but no blackout". "A tiny bit of lag, but it doesn't bother me".

Another

"I didn't shoot BIF, so I can't say for sure. It did well with BRIF (Bear Running In Field)".

patrick j wrote in post #19099760
Filling the frame and not needing to crop is the key, of course. The image size from the R6 sensor is 5472 x 3648. I've printed 18 by 12 from that size jpeg (out of the 70d) and it was fine, that's about 300 pixels per inch, give or take a few pixels. I'd think 24 by 16 wouldn't be a problem either, probably even 30 by 20. I do see people say they've made big prints from smaller files than the R6 will produce and they looked good (no first hand experience of that though).

Here is a crop from the 5D4, and then a 150% resample up to print a larger print, just to provide a context. This would be the basic enlargement result you would see going from an 18x12 to a 30x20, for example (pretty close anyways). Consider the point that you may actually stand back 25% to 50% as well with a larger print.

digital paradise wrote in post #19099765
Yes there is a lot of info. Hard to know where to cut if off. Technique, appropriate shutter speeds and trusting AI Servo are most important things to work becaue the AF is quite good. Better than my DSLR's particularly with a 2X on and at F8.

Dealing with the lag while burst shooting is a bit of hinderance. If you aren't getting a lot or as many keepers as you used to with a DLSR I wouldn't worry about it. My rate went down. I lost quite a few just due to the wake up time alone.

This was what I was looking for. It is out of the 1DX II AF guide. Case 5 where AF Switching increases. The principle is same. The 1DX line is just more responsive.

Weja wrote in post #19099635
Everyone have offcourse different camera,s and needs.
I am most interest how these camera s handle an adapted 600 F4.
If it is not on par , than maybe make my move into the sony camp.

The 1DX3 is awesome with the 600 f/4 with both 1.4 and 2x. Actually super with the 2x. No problem tracking BIF at 1200mm with the 1DX3. It is the best Canon camera I have ever used to date! The files are just gorgeous and the AF is absolutely amazing in all modes.

The R was frustrating for me, I did try it out on some sports events, and was able to set it up to snag some action, but it just wasn't great, including the lack of real time view in the EVF during a burst.

Has anyone tried this? Canon USA site. Go to the R5 page and click on resources and then click here. The R6 should have the same. Clarity is new. They both have Spot Focus.

https://www.usa.canon.​com …cameras/mirrorl​ess/eos-r5

digital paradise wrote in post #19099772
Someone at Fred Miranda just got a production R5 loaner and owns a big white. Responses so far.

"There is a bit of lag, but no blackout". "A tiny bit of lag, but it doesn't bother me".

This is not good news to me. Anything you see that has any frame repetition would be better if you just left them black, IMO, or maybe just 18% grey, so that there is blink of information, but not a strong blink of light. I don't want to see any false timing info that implies that the subject is even further back in time than the necessary EVF video lag. There should be an option to only show frames in the EVF that are at the normal non-shooting lag, so that all information is delayed by the same amount.

Here's the proper way to deal with it; give the user a choice:

When new EVF frames are not available, fill in the missing frames with:

1. Black
   
2. Middle grey
   
3. Average color/tone of last available frame
   
4. Last available frame
   

There is no need to do anything. I have never seen an analysis of what Sony A9 does.
EVF refresh rate can be anywhere from 50 fps to 120 fps depending on user choice.

Shoot 20 fps and I don't think 50, 60, 100 or 120 EVF fps is maintained.
Nothing needs to be inserted. It just slows down.

User just points at a flying bird, takes 40 shots in 2 seconds, notices nothing regarding EVF issues until checking results and sees 35 or more well focused shots, then complains about how annoying it is to have chose which of the 35 shots to keep.

Not in English. 2:37 and 2:43 are mechanical. 3:00 is Electronic. The next two are the A7R4. We don't now if he turned the EVF review off or was he using 120 fps refresh rate.          

https://www.youtube.co​m …6gySTdCw&featur​e=emb_logo

Minute 5:30. I think this was posted at FM. He claims he tracked a Cheetah in mechanical. He is an Explorer of light.

https://www.facebook.c​om …/videos/3727869​490574748/

This guy is clearly NOT HAPPY with the R5

https://www.eoshd.com …hotos-says-gerald-undone/

and this guy was less then thrilled with the R6- Rolling shutter issues mentioned
https://www.cinema5d.c​om …tion-doubtful-video-tool/

I am not about to rush in and buy any of these cameras. R6 on pre-order for me. However, If I continue to see these types of reports, I will cancell and go on the wait and see lists

umphotography wrote in post #19100108
This guys is clearly NOT HAPPY with the R5

https://www.eoshd.com …hotos-says-gerald-undone/

and this guy was less then thrilled with the R6- Rolling shutter issues mentioned
https://www.cinema5d.c​om …tion-doubtful-video-tool/

I am not about to rush in and buy any of these cameras. R6 on pre-order for me. However, If I continue to see these types of reports, I will cancell and go on the wait and see lists

I wouldn't give too much weight to the naysayers just yet. Overheating issues aside, these two seem to best the R in every way and there are plenty of people out there who love the R. In other words, overall the R was a success and these two are going to be better.

I remember saying this once already but it needs to be said again: Everybody relax, it's going to be fine.

Choderboy wrote in post #19100030
There is no need to do anything. I have never seen an analysis of what Sony A9 does.
EVF refresh rate can be anywhere from 50 fps to 120 fps depending on user choice.

Shoot 20 fps and I don't think 50, 60, 100 or 120 EVF fps is maintained.
Nothing needs to be inserted. It just slows down.

That's more of a semantic difference than a practical, visual one. If you're being fed fresh, relevant information every 1/120s, and then suddenly, when a new, unique frame should be there, you see the same one that you just saw previously, then it doesn't matter if the same pixel values were sustained, or if they were "replaced" by exactly the same values. The effect is the same. Changing those values to a blank or solid screen, as soon as no new information is available, prevents the presentation of irrelevant information that can only confuse.

Another person is tracking a more erratic subject, and loses track of it more often, because of confusing and inconsistent timing information.

"Blackout" has become the devil that lots of people are looking for, but the real devil is the lost information, not the choice of blackout, vs lying about time and location. It is bad enough that the EVF lags reality a tad, but that lag can be consistent, with blackout instead of sustain or repetition. Once you start sustaining or repeating frames, the lag becomes irregular, and longer, until you see the least-delayed live view again for a short while, and re synchronize.

for photography, I just don't see the point in getting the r6 with the 5dmkIV, and R on the market for less than 2k. I'm looking for a non-sports body to complement my 1dx, and the r6 looks like a waste of money to me.