Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
InternetJunky
May 25, 2002



jarlywarly posted:

I rented a big white 600mm

Famous last words (before you start selling kidneys).

I didn't realise this, but in Canada I can submit an equipment try out request through Canon CPS (that doesn't cost anything) so I put in a request for an R5. Hopefully they send me one. I better get my own kidneys checked out.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Somewhat Heroic
Oct 11, 2007

(Insert Mad Max related text)




evil_bunnY posted:

Get a fast, wide prime. 35mm is my fav, but you do you.
Or be boring and get a standard zoom (2x/70 2.8)

This is very good advice and has me thinking (and looking).

This seems like a incredible deal for this lens though? (16-35 2.8L III)


since we're posting birbs I tried my best to shoot this road runner running through my parents yard when last visiting.




man I wish I had more reach.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



16mm is comically wide, but it's good if you want stuff close to the lens to appear enormous (and distorted) while everything else is super tiny.

InternetJunky
May 25, 2002



My usual camera store just let me know that the CPS discount that was usually available on pro gear is no longer offered by Canon. Can anyone else confirm this? That was kind of the main perk in being a CPS member (eg. the discount on my 600mm was more than 3k) so I really hope they are misinformed.

[edit] Got a reply back from Canon saying it's true that they discontinued the discount program. That was the best perk of being a CPS member ;(

InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Nov 24, 2020

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


Remember Linus water cooling his Red camera? There are some good news for the R5 havers too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1u-9YqrIJc

Tl;dw: the watercooling is just for a test, he comes up with a passive improvement that increases 8k recording by like 50% and cuts down the cooldown time to about 5 minutes. A little fan is enough for indefinite recording.

Honestly this is a pretty impressive hack. The R6 is about the most I can reasonably justify but if I had the 5, that seem like a no brainer.

evil_bunnY
Apr 2, 2003



xzzy posted:

16mm is comically wide, but it's good if you want stuff close to the lens to appear enormous (and distorted) while everything else is super tiny.
Yes. There's a reason anything with a lower bound under 20mm is called *ultra* wide. It's definitely a "rent first" kinda lens.

InternetJunky
May 25, 2002



mobby_6kl posted:

Remember Linus water cooling his Red camera? There are some good news for the R5 havers too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1u-9YqrIJc

Tl;dw: the watercooling is just for a test, he comes up with a passive improvement that increases 8k recording by like 50% and cuts down the cooldown time to about 5 minutes. A little fan is enough for indefinite recording.

Honestly this is a pretty impressive hack. The R6 is about the most I can reasonably justify but if I had the 5, that seem like a no brainer.

The thing about that video that worries me is that based on his analysis and solution it's pretty clear the overheating is an inbuilt flaw and not something that can be dealt with via a firmware update. His improvement is out of reach for 99.9% of R5 users.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



There was a guy that got dramatically improved 8k record times just by replacing/adding some thermal tape to the relevant bits of circuitry. I think I linked it a page or two back. Still out of reach to most, but it does suggest to me that Canon should 100% produce a revision to the body and give current owners a retrofit service. They won't, but they should.

It's pretty clear the whole issue is that a weather sealed body is going to have extremely poor heat dissipation. Who would have thought!

(another issue is the recording timer didn't actually read the camera's thermometers until a firmware update fixed it)

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


xzzy posted:

There was a guy that got dramatically improved 8k record times just by replacing/adding some thermal tape to the relevant bits of circuitry. I think I linked it a page or two back. Still out of reach to most, but it does suggest to me that Canon should 100% produce a revision to the body and give current owners a retrofit service. They won't, but they should.
Haven't seen this wrt the R5 but it's also a common improvement for cheap laptops that usually improves performance and/or temperatures significantly. I guess they just don't care because it works "good enough" as is

InternetJunky posted:

The thing about that video that worries me is that based on his analysis and solution it's pretty clear the overheating is an inbuilt flaw and not something that can be dealt with via a firmware update. His improvement is out of reach for 99.9% of R5 users.
Unless it's they come up with a magical algorithm that processes 8k video much more efficiently, yeah, it looks like it has to be a hardware fix.

Most people definitely wouldn't want to make the heatsink themselves (though it's not that bad, seems entirely doable with hand tools) but I can see someone making and selling these, or even offering to install for a fee too.


E: Hell, I'll do it. Just send me your R5s!

mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Nov 27, 2020

BetterLekNextTime
Jul 22, 2008

It's all a matter of perspective...


Grimey Drawer

Yikes I just bought a refurb 5d4. heads up that I'll have some Canon stuff in Buy/Sell soon.

Just posted some EF/EF-S/and EF-M stuff in Buy-Sell. Go get it!

BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Dec 5, 2020

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



Because it went over so well last time canon swapped physical buttons for touch controls, why not keep experimenting with the idea:

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-replacing-the-shutter-button

Thou shalt not photograph with gloves on!

an actual cat irl
Aug 28, 2004



I'm constantly frustrated by how crappy the autofocus is on my 5Dmk2, especially since playing around with my friend's Sony a7ii, and I'm thinking it might be time to upgrade. Would the R (or RP) be a quantum leap in AF performance compared to what I'm used to from the 5D2?

Bonus question - is it unreasonable/ludicrous to expect the IBIS from the R5/R6 to make it into the next generation R/RP?

gschmidl
Sep 3, 2011

it's the journey
not the destination
as we know



"YOU TRIED" DIVISION


This may not be much help since I know nothing about the 5Ds, but I upgraded from an 80D to the R6 and the autofocus is absolutely incredible even on a moving ship in the dark.

jarlywarly
Aug 31, 2018


The R5/6 AF is great but I hear results can vary if you are adapting older EF glass.

ilkhan
Oct 7, 2004

IF I JUST LICK ENOUGH BOOT LEATHER, BIG DADDY TRUMP WILL SURELY LOVE ME

an actual cat irl posted:

I'm constantly frustrated by how crappy the autofocus is on my 5Dmk2, especially since playing around with my friend's Sony a7ii, and I'm thinking it might be time to upgrade. Would the R (or RP) be a quantum leap in AF performance compared to what I'm used to from the 5D2?

Bonus question - is it unreasonable/ludicrous to expect the IBIS from the R5/R6 to make it into the next generation R/RP?
Never had an issue with AF on my RP, but I'm also looking to upgrade to an R6 for IBIS. Lmk if you're interested in the body.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



jarlywarly posted:

The R5/6 AF is great but I hear results can vary if you are adapting older EF glass.

All my lenses are EF and they focus like magic on my R5.

It breaks down badly in low light though, but the R5/R6 have been demonstrated to be poor at that in all cases. And by low light I'm talking "30 minutes after sunset in the shade, running at ISO 51200" levels of low light.

800peepee51doodoo
Feb 28, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune


Have any of you with an R5/R6 tried it with older EF lenses? I've been seeing people online saying they aren't getting full 12fps burst rate with the mechanical shutter on some older lenses. I have a 500mm F4 mark I which is not on the Canon approved list for high burst rate. If I'd only be getting 5-6fps its kind of a deal breaker for what I like to shoot. Which sucks because that animal eye AF looks mind blowing.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



If there is a bug it must be intermittent or relatively model specific because every EF/EF-S lens I've put on my R5 has worked flawlessly. But all my gear is relatively new, my oldest ones are the EFS 17-55 f2.8 (2006) and the EFS 10-22 from 2004. They both do 12fps just fine.

The only lens issue I've had is with my Tamron 70-200 g2. It doesn't lock the internal mechanisms properly if stabilization is engaged when I remove the lens, I didn't have that happen on my 80d. When it happens I can hear components inside the lens shifting around and I have to remount it and either shut the camera off or disable stabilization to fix it.


The AF is mind blowing in decent conditions.. it's not god tier wizardry. Shooting brown animals in a brown forest it struggles hard to find a subject because of the low contrast, and if you aim at a bird in a mess of tree branches it will never find it. It also falls apart in post-sunset light and becomes completely unreliable. I can't really fault it for this as those are pretty tough conditions but it's worth noting.

But if there's fair light and a clear outline of an animal it will latch on and stick like glue. Then once it turns its head towards you and it can find an eye every single shot will be tack sharp.

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.


800peepee51doodoo posted:

Have any of you with an R5/R6 tried it with older EF lenses? I've been seeing people online saying they aren't getting full 12fps burst rate with the mechanical shutter on some older lenses. I have a 500mm F4 mark I which is not on the Canon approved list for high burst rate. If I'd only be getting 5-6fps its kind of a deal breaker for what I like to shoot. Which sucks because that animal eye AF looks mind blowing.
When people are saying they're not getting 12fps, how do their lenses match to the list of lenses supporting high burst rate? My faith in the average camera-owning internet warrior being unable to accurately reference their lens against the support list and being able to accurately assess the fps they are getting, is quite low...

800peepee51doodoo
Feb 28, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune


xzzy posted:

If there is a bug it must be intermittent or relatively model specific because every EF/EF-S lens I've put on my R5 has worked flawlessly. But all my gear is relatively new, my oldest ones are the EFS 17-55 f2.8 (2006) and the EFS 10-22 from 2004. They both do 12fps just fine.

The only lens issue I've had is with my Tamron 70-200 g2. It doesn't lock the internal mechanisms properly if stabilization is engaged when I remove the lens, I didn't have that happen on my 80d. When it happens I can hear components inside the lens shifting around and I have to remount it and either shut the camera off or disable stabilization to fix it.


The AF is mind blowing in decent conditions.. it's not god tier wizardry. Shooting brown animals in a brown forest it struggles hard to find a subject because of the low contrast, and if you aim at a bird in a mess of tree branches it will never find it. It also falls apart in post-sunset light and becomes completely unreliable. I can't really fault it for this as those are pretty tough conditions but it's worth noting.

But if there's fair light and a clear outline of an animal it will latch on and stick like glue. Then once it turns its head towards you and it can find an eye every single shot will be tack sharp.

Great, its good to hear you're not running into that limitation. I wasn't sure if it was even worth a rental but I think I'll try it out and see if it works at full burst rate with my 500.

I think I have realistic expectations of the AF and a buddy of mine has a 1DXIII so I have an idea of what it can do and can't do. I'm pretty used to switching between AF modes for bird photography and would be expecting to switch between eye AF and spot focus. I had seen some video of people using the eye AF for birds in flight which is loving nuts. That was what made me actually consider a switch to mirrorless.

Pablo Bluth posted:

When people are saying they're not getting 12fps, how do their lenses match to the list of lenses supporting high burst rate? My faith in the average camera-owning internet warrior being unable to accurately reference their lens against the support list and being able to accurately assess the fps they are getting, is quite low...

Well yeah, thats why I'm asking here. Camera forums are usually cesspools of fanboyism and corporate bootlicking. I've seen conflicting reports with some people saying that the R5/R6 hobbles older lenses while other people are saying their older lenses (and 3rd party lenses) work perfectly. Canon officially does not support my lens for high frame rate with the mechanical shutter but they also usually only officially support production gear so its been pretty hard to find accurate info. My friend with the 1DXIII was worried about his mark I 500mm because it wasn't officially supported but it blasts away no problem. I wanted to see if there were any trustworthy sources that could at least tell me it has a chance of working before spending a couple hundred bucks on a rental.

gschmidl
Sep 3, 2011

it's the journey
not the destination
as we know



"YOU TRIED" DIVISION


My EF lenses aren't that old, but they are third-party (Sigma 150-600 and 14-24) and work flawlessly.

800peepee51doodoo
Feb 28, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune


So I rented an R6 + EF adapter and just received it yesterday. After some low light shooting of tundra swans last night and some goldeneyes and ruddy ducks on my lunch break today, I can confirm that this camera whips rear end. Holy poo poo the animal eye af is fantastic. I can also confirm that I'm able to get good burst rates with my 500mm F4 mark I. I can't say for sure if its 12fps but its at least as fast as my 7D2 so thats a relief.

I did have similar issues with the AF that xzzy was talking about in their post. Obstructions can confuse it, as well as highlights on water and spots on plumage. Also, it really liked to lock on to mule deer butts which was a lol. But the tracking once it grabbed a ducks eye was astounding. It was able to follow it no matter where the bird turned its head and made look over shoulder shots and preening shots simple. Absolute game changer. Unless I find some major problem in the next week I have this body, I'll be picking up an R6 or R5 asap. C'mon BidenBux!

charliebravo77
Jun 11, 2003



800peepee51doodoo posted:

So I rented an R6 + EF adapter and just received it yesterday. After some low light shooting of tundra swans last night and some goldeneyes and ruddy ducks on my lunch break today, I can confirm that this camera whips rear end. Holy poo poo the animal eye af is fantastic. I can also confirm that I'm able to get good burst rates with my 500mm F4 mark I. I can't say for sure if its 12fps but its at least as fast as my 7D2 so thats a relief.

I did have similar issues with the AF that xzzy was talking about in their post. Obstructions can confuse it, as well as highlights on water and spots on plumage. Also, it really liked to lock on to mule deer butts which was a lol. But the tracking once it grabbed a ducks eye was astounding. It was able to follow it no matter where the bird turned its head and made look over shoulder shots and preening shots simple. Absolute game changer. Unless I find some major problem in the next week I have this body, I'll be picking up an R6 or R5 asap. C'mon BidenBux!

Do you have any reservations on the 20MP resolution from the R6 with wildlife pics from what you've seen? I'm really itching for an upgrade and as much as I'd like the R5 I don't know if I can stomach it without actually making money from it. Did you miss the top LCD screen? I reference mine on the 80D pretty frequently but maybe I can live without it.

BetterLekNextTime
Jul 22, 2008

It's all a matter of perspective...


Grimey Drawer

It would be cool to know if there was actually going to be an APS-C sensor R with the AF and dynamic range of the R6 sometime in 2021. I'd hold out for that, but if it's not going to happen, then I'd probably get the r6 sooner rather than later.

800peepee51doodoo
Feb 28, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune


charliebravo77 posted:

Do you have any reservations on the 20MP resolution from the R6 with wildlife pics from what you've seen? I'm really itching for an upgrade and as much as I'd like the R5 I don't know if I can stomach it without actually making money from it. Did you miss the top LCD screen? I reference mine on the 80D pretty frequently but maybe I can live without it.

I think 20MP is fine for wildlife and birds. Its what I've been using with my 7DmII and my old as hell 1Dm4 (actually 16MP) so 20MP full frame feels good to me. All things being equal I'd much rather have the 45MP sensor from the R5 just for cropping and noise control from down sampling but 20 doesn't feel limiting. I haven't had a lot of time with the camera yet and I've really only played around with jpegs since I'm not set up where I'm at to process RAWs but even heavy crops still look really good to me.

I use the top LCD a lot on my 7D2/1D4 but actually I don't think I'd miss it much since there's so much info in the EVF and the real time exposure feedback is excellent. Also, I realize as I'm typing this that one of the reasons that I use the top LCD on the 7D2 is that to change ISO you have to hold a button on top and then scroll the front wheel. You can do it with your eye to the viewfinder but I usually don't because I'm also chimping the display. The R6 has a dial that's right by your thumb to control ISO (or is assignable, I imagine) and you can see the results right away in the viewfinder. Again, though, I've only used it for a short time so the lack of other info on a top LCD might become annoying as I use it more.

A couple of other things - the mechanical shutter is incredibly quiet, like crazy quiet. I thought my 7D2 had a pretty good shutter but this blows it away. I generally haven't had much of an issue with birds or animals getting spooked by shutter noise but it does happen sometimes. I think this will be much less stressful for animals. Not much I can do about the giant predatory eye I'm pointing at them but at least there isn't a machine gun noise to go with it. I haven't even tried the electronic shutter yet, that should be a hoot. On the downside, I hit the buffer limit on what felt like relatively short bursts a few times. Could be that I'm shooting RAW + jpeg, it could also be the card I'm using, but its a bit of a disappointment. My friend with the 1DXIII was showing off the bottomless well of a buffer that camera has when he first got it and now I'm just sad whenever any camera I use starts chugging after a decent burst. It kind of sucks the R6 only has SD card slots, a CFast slot like the R5 would be super cool. Also, to be honest, the size of this thing is a little small for a big telephoto lens. I actually miss the balance of the weightier 1D and even the 7D2. Maybe it feels a bit better with a battery grip. Minor gripe though, and for other lenses or types of shooting I'm sure smaller is better.

BetterLekNextTime posted:

It would be cool to know if there was actually going to be an APS-C sensor R with the AF and dynamic range of the R6 sometime in 2021. I'd hold out for that, but if it's not going to happen, then I'd probably get the r6 sooner rather than later.

I kind of wonder if they will or not. It seems like Canon and Nikon are moving away from crop? I guess it depends on where they want to go with "entry level" mirrorless. An R7 crop would be rad, though.

gschmidl
Sep 3, 2011

it's the journey
not the destination
as we know



"YOU TRIED" DIVISION


charliebravo77 posted:

Do you have any reservations on the 20MP resolution from the R6 with wildlife pics from what you've seen? I'm really itching for an upgrade and as much as I'd like the R5 I don't know if I can stomach it without actually making money from it. Did you miss the top LCD screen? I reference mine on the 80D pretty frequently but maybe I can live without it.

As an R6 haver, I thought I might miss the top screen but not only is there the wheel 800peepee51doodoo mentions, there's also a button that lets you go through the settings that used to be up there easily without taking your eye off the viewfinder/main screen.

I was able to try both the R5 and R6 shortly before release and actually prefer the R6's labelled mode dial to the R5's unlabelled one - it only shows what mode you're changing to on the top LCD for god knows what reason. The only thing I found superior on the R5 in actual use, vs. specs, was the viewfinder resolution, and I've gotten used to the R6's in no time.

jarlywarly
Aug 31, 2018


gschmidl posted:

As an R6 haver, I thought I might miss the top screen but not only is there the wheel 800peepee51doodoo mentions, there's also a button that lets you go through the settings that used to be up there easily without taking your eye off the viewfinder/main screen.

I was able to try both the R5 and R6 shortly before release and actually prefer the R6's labelled mode dial to the R5's unlabelled one - it only shows what mode you're changing to on the top LCD for god knows what reason. The only thing I found superior on the R5 in actual use, vs. specs, was the viewfinder resolution, and I've gotten used to the R6's in no time.

Going from 24MP crop to 20MP FF is actually more like going to 7MP. It's too much for me I'm waiting to see the long rumoured R7 before I make any call.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



I think there are some valid reasons for lower MP sensors (low light performance, noise, readout speed, some other stuff I'm forgetting), but I think now that sensors are habitually cresting 50, putting a 20MP sensor into a body feels like something straight out of Canon's playbook: making their expensive poo poo look better by crippling the cheaper stuff.

gschmidl
Sep 3, 2011

it's the journey
not the destination
as we know



"YOU TRIED" DIVISION


jarlywarly posted:

Going from 24MP crop to 20MP FF is actually more like going to 7MP. It's too much for me I'm waiting to see the long rumoured R7 before I make any call.

Oh, yeah, you definitely wouldn't want to use crop lenses.

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.


The R6 sensor is a version of the one in the 1D mk III which remains their most expensive ILC. The 18-20MP 1DX line has been a workhorse for sports and wildlife photographers for ages. IMO in the R6 it represents great value.

jarlywarly
Aug 31, 2018


gschmidl posted:

Oh, yeah, you definitely wouldn't want to use crop lenses.

Even if you use FF lenses like most wildlife photographers who shoot crop you have to get much closer to get the same number of pixels on the subject as you would with a crop sensor. Overall you are losing a lot of pixels going from APS-C to FF.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



Pablo Bluth posted:

The R6 sensor is a version of the one in the 1D mk III which remains their most expensive ILC. The 18-20MP 1DX line has been a workhorse for sports and wildlife photographers for ages. IMO in the R6 it represents great value.

Doesn't count because people with a 1DX walk around with $12,000 worth of glass stuck to the front of their camera.

gschmidl
Sep 3, 2011

it's the journey
not the destination
as we know



"YOU TRIED" DIVISION


jarlywarly posted:

Even if you use FF lenses like most wildlife photographers who shoot crop you have to get much closer to get the same number of pixels on the subject as you would with a crop sensor. Overall you are losing a lot of pixels going from APS-C to FF.

Sorry, I'm not good at words today. R6 + lots of crop (or APS-C lenses) is, as you correctly say, suboptimal.

BetterLekNextTime
Jul 22, 2008

It's all a matter of perspective...


Grimey Drawer

Right now I've got max 600mm on a crop sensor, but if I got an r6 with it's IBIS I'd at least try out a 400mm/5.6 + 2xTC. I'd lose about a stop from what I usually shoot the 150-600 at but I'd easily make back the speed aspect of that with the performance of the sensor compared to the 7d2, just missing some resolution and the depth of field.

800peepee51doodoo
Feb 28, 2001

Volute the swarth, trawl betwixt phonotic
Scoff the festune


jarlywarly posted:

Even if you use FF lenses like most wildlife photographers who shoot crop you have to get much closer to get the same number of pixels on the subject as you would with a crop sensor. Overall you are losing a lot of pixels going from APS-C to FF.

The gold standard for wildlife and sports shooting is the 20MP FF 1DX series. I shot wildlife for years with a 16MP 1Dm4 and it was a huge IQ improvement over my original 7D, an 18MP crop. The 1Dm4 isnt even FF, its APS-H, but the difference was night and day. Full frame is generally better from an IQ standpoint because of the better light gathering. Apart from big sensor tech generational gaps, you will almost always have less noise and more detail with a full frame, even when cropping.

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



BetterLekNextTime posted:

Right now I've got max 600mm on a crop sensor, but if I got an r6 with it's IBIS I'd at least try out a 400mm/5.6 + 2xTC. I'd lose about a stop from what I usually shoot the 150-600 at but I'd easily make back the speed aspect of that with the performance of the sensor compared to the 7d2, just missing some resolution and the depth of field.

I can't see myself ever pursuing wildlife as a photography side-hobby given the gear requirements. With the 150-600 racked out on an 80d, I was still cropping away 50% of the pixels. It was like I'd need a 2x on top of that to feel like I had enough reach.

Sure, if it's something close by or cute and not threatening I'll machinegun stuff all day and maybe get something cool but the really neat stuff like bears or bison it seems way out of my reach.

And then a Morten Hilmer video pops up in my youtube suggestions and I'm all 'ohhhh that's how they do that. they camp out in a blind for five days and wait for the fuzzy stuff to come to them.'

SMERSH Mouth
Jun 25, 2005



The R6 seems to have really good image quality and an unobtrusive noise pattern. I wouldn’t want to crop down to 7MP but it doesn’t seem like taking off 20-30% of the photo would make a huge impact on final image usability.

After going to 400mm on apsc (600mm equivalent or 400/5.6L on 7D), I learned that 1) you can never get enough reach so just equip yourself with whatever supertele you can afford and learn how to get closer to the birds and 2) in-focus and sharp are more important than pixels on subject. Although yeah I would say that 12MP is really as low res as I’d want to go.

BetterLekNextTime
Jul 22, 2008

It's all a matter of perspective...


Grimey Drawer

I’m hoping to sell more prints but now I mostly sell cards and calendars. 8mp is plenty for at least some of my uses.

Pablo Bluth
Sep 7, 2007

I've made a huge mistake.


xzzy posted:

Doesn't count because people with a 1DX walk around with $12,000 worth of glass stuck to the front of their camera.
As a sports camera where focal length isn't such an issue, it's insanely good camera. For large-animal wildlife photography, I don't think it's a major problem either; I shoot 500 on a 1DX and often that can be on the long end (my dream next lens is the 200-400 f4 but the price has gone up £2k in the last two years..). Bird photography is the use-case where the loss of crop is the main issue.

Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 20, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

xzzy
Mar 5, 2009



Pablo Bluth posted:

For large-animal wildlife photography, I don't think it's a major problem either; I shoot 500 on a 1DX and often that can be on the long end
Well then maybe my expectations are way off because this is an uncropped photo from an APS-C camera at 600mm and I still felt like I was too close: https://i.imgur.com/Ur4zaXy.jpg (please don't point out how I missed focus, it wounds me to this day)

We were maybe 100 meters away? How close are you getting to big stuff?

I get that not every wildlife photo has to fill the frame so you can see the pores on their nose (the best shots have some landscape in them too) but I still felt pretty constrained.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply