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

rndman wrote in post #19106917
Okay let's get back to the regularly scheduled program. The R5/R6 overheating..

I was on topic, I can only deliver 200-300 due to the R5 overheating during the wedding!

John Sheehy wrote in post #19106754
Who needs that fast to get a benefit? Even 1/1000 makes big headway against the sun for flash.

ISO 100, F2, bright sunlight.

Wilt wrote in post #19106895
Just curious how that affects the bottom line of the wedding photographer?...or ups the cost of coverage to the bride?

Not sure. I have read pros do it. If you are well known and good at your craft then you can build it into your cost. If not then you have to edit. If you aren't editing then you can do more work?

If you have a good workflow down you can move pretty quickly. I used LR and now it even offers so many more options. It now offers ISO Dependant presets. Colour Profile, Texture, Clarity, Dehaze, Sharpness, Detail, Masking, NR and Lens corrections all apply at import for me at import. Each file adjusts those settings independently based on ISO. This is during import. Auto is pretty decent now. It adjusts, white and black clipping, exposure, vibrance, saturation to mention a few. You can use in the sync feature adjusts hundreds of files and each one will analyzed independently. Only takes a few minutes and then you up can go through and fine tune. I prefer doing that one at a time.

This is not my shot but a DNG I downloaded. It look less than 10 seconds to develop.

digital paradise wrote in post #19106893
You can outsource PP.

Better yet

You can shoot it right, use LR and batch process and get it done in 5-6 hours

Its all about great captures and getting it 100% right in camera. Post processing is a breeze at that point

umphotography wrote in post #19106985
Better yet

You can shoot it right, use LR and batch process and get it done in 5-6 hours

Its all about great captures and getting it 100% right in camera. Post processing is a breeze at that point

I had that thought as well. What did people do before they had instant review and virtually unlimited data storage. They had to shoot it right. Not that they don't do that now but it is easier to cut corners.

digital paradise wrote in post #19106993
I had that thought as well. What did people do before they had instant review and virtually unlimited data storage. They had to shoot it right. Not that they don't do that now but it is easier to cut corners.

Weddings took longer, they weren't as fast paced or full of events like today. Back in the day, it was just some shots of the bride and groom, then a handful of family members, first kiss, announcement of Mr and Mrs and a few other shots. Then just guest shots during the reception and before the wedding...

Today has more events, and brides expect the entire event to be documented as part of the package cost, and cameras can now capture action in low light with better quality, etc. So despite the fact that more is now imaged, and the weddings are faster paced, today's tech allows the photog to stay caught up and able to capture much more than the old film days. Now you have to do posed shots with the bridesmaids, groom's men, have to take them out to a scenic area and do a large group shot, etc, while also getting pics of the dress, rings, girls and guys getting ready, guests arriving, the event, family shots, full reception events, etc. Hundreds, if not thousands of shots, depending on size and scope. Then to add to all of this, many want video of the events.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19106997
Weddings took longer, they weren't as fast paced or full of events like today. Back in the day, it was just some shots of the bride and groom, then a handful of family members, first kiss, announcement of Mr and Mrs and a few other shots. Then just guest shots during the reception and before the wedding...

Today has more events, and brides expect the entire event to be documented as part of the package cost, and cameras can now capture action in low light with better quality, etc. So despite the fact that more is now imaged, and the weddings are faster paced, today's tech allows the photog to stay caught up and able to capture much more than the old film days. Now you have to do posed shots with the bridesmaids, groom's men, have to take them out to a scenic area and do a large group shot, etc, while also getting pics of the dress, rings, girls and guys getting ready, the event, family shots, full reception events, etc. Hundreds, if not thousands of shots, depending on size and scope.

That is true. I don't have that experience from the day. When I did them I enjoyed it when different locations where further apart. I'd get a 10 minute break from all the commotion. Still pays to do it right and save time in PP. It was what I attempted to do. Software has come a long way too which helps.

butterfly2937 wrote in post #19105846
You would be very happy with a 1DX3 if you don’t already have one. Amazing AF and no issues at least none that I have encountered yet.

Actually I do have one

umphotography wrote in post #19106164
The only plus for me out of this entire debacle of a release is that Im going to get 8-10 yrs use out of my 1Dx2 and 5D4. Everything Works great and does not overheat from all day use in the sun. Big deal- I dont have eye focus in the auto mode

I still cant believe what Im reading across the net about these latest and greatest cameras from canon that are getting hot- what a disaster of a release......what good is it to have these fantastic R mount lens if your camera is overheating at a wedding

unbelievable Canon. Just really unbelievable

Given this, I can't believe they didn't wait until November! lol!

This;
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=iUe4vsO3HQ8

And 45MP are why I want an R5 by the way...

Not in a rush, so now given the heating situation, i will not be an early adopter. Chelsea's comments re the heat warnings and limitations are truly scary to me.

Plus, I still have a lot to learn on the 1DX3

LoneRider wrote in post #19106744
.
I’m curious if those that shoot “thousands” of frames at a wedding did so in film days and how many shots are delivered to the customer. Seems like “spray and pray” instead of photography.
.

.
I never understand why people bring film into these discussions, because expectations are far higher these days than they ever were with film. . People expect - and demand - much more when it comes to photos they are paying for. . Film was good enough then because it was the best we had. . Film is not good enough now for most professional uses, because the clientele have gotten used to receiving images that go beyond what film was able to yield.

Customers expect that if there is a group shot with 12 or more people in it, that the faces look really good on every single one of those people. . People no longer accept a group image in which little cousin Joey is scowling, or in which Aunt Emma's eyes are half closed because she was caught in mid-blink. . Totally unacceptable.

People expect great looking photos of their receptions, that are lighting nightmares for the photographer. . With film, photographers wouldn't even bother trying to photograph people dancing with the lights off at a reception, because film just couldn't do it at all without annoying flashes going off and ruining the mood (and yes it does ruin the mood, no matter what some may say). . Today, brides and grooms (and especially bride's parents) expect, and demand, dozens of great shots of people dancing in extremely low light, with no annoying flash being used.

The same is true in my genre, wildlife photography. . When I look at the cover photos on old magazines like National Geographic, or Field & Stream, or the Audubon Society, from the film era, it amuses me, because these were the COVER images, and yet they would be immediately rejected if they were submitted to these publications today. . I know because I submit to many of these publications, and their submission guidelines are very extreme in the technical requirements. . If your image ain't damn near perfect at 100% view, then don't even bother submitting it, because you will get blacklisted and they won't even look at future submissions once you are known to submit material that doesn't meet their extremely stringent technical guidelines.

So any idea that such and such should be "good enough" - because it was good enough back when we shot with film - is a preposterous idea that is not rooted in the reality of today's marketplace.


.

Photos with film back in the day were for memories for the family. Now it seems to be a contest for who can create the most artsy look that can hang over a couch or fireplace.

Every photo album I have looked at from family over the years back with pro film shooters just leave me thinking "that's a good snapshot of that family group" or "that's a nice shot of the couple", but now the pictures have to be vibrant, and detailed, and be ever so creatively composed.

That is a result of the digital age (tools, social media, etc) and the fact that just about anybody with some artistic ability, and technical ability and a knack for technology can become a photographer it seems. Everything is about "one-upping the other person" with posts and selfies and killer wedding or event photography.

I am not saying it's a bad thing, it certainly will cause one to improve the caliber at which they work, which is a great result from all of this. But like Tom says, what we do today was just not the impetus for photos back 20 years ago for wedding photography.

Same can be said of wildlife shooting. Go pull old National Geographic magazines out and look at the film photos of animals. They were pretty good, then. I think today's gear and the speed at which we can capture the environment just blows away yesteryear's attempts.

I mean for cat pictures, in the house, posed and all, here is in old NatGeo picture.
https://www.nationalge​ographic.com …79808369.adapt.​1900.1.jpg

Or an osprey shot?
https://64.media.tumbl​r.com …5j1tFy7v1rbqpjl​o1_400.jpg

Things are just more competitive now. It's all about the detail and no noise at 200%, etc and wasn't such a concern then.

Notice how it tracks the main subject and ignores the obstructions.

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

Pretty good review by Jan Wegener on the R5 for bird photography:

https://www.youtube.co​m …2VWXtzSKRgE1MO2​DyNJZZHkHI

He discusses the overheating issue at the 25:00 mark.

Melissa6 wrote in post #19107478
Pretty good review by Jan Wegener on the R5 for bird photography:

https://www.youtube.co​m …2VWXtzSKRgE1MO2​DyNJZZHkHI

He discusses the overheating issue at the 25:00 mark.

I seen it earlier today. I just solved the heating problem. Sitting is no good. The shutters opening and closing act like fans