|
ilkhan posted:They're long reach and cheap. I can see them being good for *cheap* cheap birding. When you want reach but can't spend a ton on it. Most people will look at them and live with the limitation. Maybe down the line when there's either really cheap used R's or if a cheap APS-C R appears, but until then you're spending over $1000 on the cheapest body just to mount the lenses.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Maybe down the line when there's either really cheap used R's or if a cheap APS-C R appears, but until then you're spending over $1000 on the cheapest body just to mount the lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Videos talking about the photography half of the R5 are finally showing up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SSFGBYp_Tc (of course they still whine about the video for a third of it, but the review of the stills performance is glowing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 14:53
|
|
|
I think it's undoubtedly as good a still camera as there is. Canon's marketing departments really hosed up promoting the 8K/4K HQ modes so heavily and Youtube has responded by making GBS threads all over it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
I can see why Canon would want to be ahead of the curve with 8k after lagging behind so badly with 4k, but I suspect we're not going to see 8K ever widespread adoption outside of (perhaps) high end productions filming in it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
The main benefits I see are future proofing whatever you capture, or doing 4k with super sampling or cropping in post. This assumes one has put down the money for a desktop that can deal with files that big without being a slideshow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
The main use case for 8k in their launch video was shooting video footage and then pulling out frames from that to use as full resolution stills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
A computer powerful enough to process that 8K video in real time is going to cost you...around the cost of another R5 lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Videos talking about the photography half of the R5 are finally showing up: Any ideas how the 4K HQ would compare with the R6 4K? The line-skip they showed looked loving awful but the R6 does a 1:1 readout as I understand so it would be down to supersampling vs not. But they don't seem to have the still comparison available anywhere. Anyway it's not like I'd be able to justify the R5 so this is mostly pretty academic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
Seamonster posted:A computer powerful enough to process that 8K video in real time is going to cost you...around the cost of another R5 lol There's not a whole lot of need to process 4K or 8K in real-time, though, when you can just use proxies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
Let’s be honest they don’t want people wanting to spend lots and lots of money on the best camera for their cruise* to compare it to the rival brands and go “well this one doesn’t have 8k so I’ll go with the other one Doris”. *My parents once ended up on holiday in the Middle East with Micheal Palin’s cameraman and he shot an actual pro holiday video film on one one of those enormous shoulder cameras, and the main thing I came away with from this was how annoying it must have been for his wife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
Even longer stills focused review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5GeNH3Ip0 The eye tracking is blowing my mind. The AF system in general is really impressing me.. but perhaps that's because I've been slumming it on their prosumer stuff for the last 10 years. It also amuses me that you can, in camera, pull 35MP jpeg stills from the 8k video and they look pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
This thing looks amazing. I wish I had money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
I know it would be a horrible mistake for me to get one since I don't actually do photography professionally any more, but I've got serious gadget fever over that thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2020 00:18
|
|
|
I've been nerding on R5 info for shooting birds and looking for samples/experiences and I'm dumping it here for all y'all. 1.6x "crop mode" on the R5 is 17 megapixel photos, the R6 is 7.7 megapixels for APS-C "reach" comparisons (from the Canon Manuals) Bird nerd with R5 and some big whites, mainly initial impressions practical stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3x1pt87-O0 Flickr channel with R5 + 800 f/11 and also some with the 1.4x at f/16 (the dream low weight, eye af, walk around 800mm solution with the f/11 problem?) Mostly the shots in good light look (up to ISO 1000 look) great maybe a little denoise smear, the higher ISO stuff is mushy (did they use Topaz AI?) I'm excited though.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/46506981@N03/with/50190557382/
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
I love the real dudes reviews. He must be rolling in money though having bout basically every flagship camera ever made. He mentions he hasn't noticed any rolling shutter with full electronic, but it is there. You have to really swing the camera around to see it though. The IBIS is pretty great, but it sounds like the 8 stops Canon advertised is pretty optimistic. The 5 stops he was seeing is much closer to what everyone else is seeing, regardless of lens. 2000 pictures on old batteries with the battery grip is pretty good numbers though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I love the real dudes reviews. He must be rolling in money though having bout basically every flagship camera ever made. He does birding tours, so I guess his gear is somewhat justified, wish I could make that kind of dough from macro workshops/tours.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
I'm moving up to full-frame with the R6 and since my beloved 17-55mm is EF-S I'll need a replacement. As far as I can tell there's only a few possibilities: From Canon: The only kit lens availble here, the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, which sounds like it's quite bad unless you're a total beginner (~€340). The RF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM (€1205) The RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM (€2094) The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM (€1563) Sigma has a 24-70 f/2.8 with IS and USM for €1100 but reviews seem to be 50% "it's bad and soft" and 50% "this is the best lens ever". Tamron has a virtually identical one for almost the same price (€1040) with pretty good reviews. Given that the 17-55's main strength was the f/2.8 throughout, the exorbitant price of the RF 24-70, and the lack of IS on the EF 24-70, I'm leaning towards either the Sigma or the Tamron. I have two other Sigma Art lenses I'm very happy with, so I'd be surprised if the 24-70 was actually bad, but does anyone have any experience with either of these? Am I missing anything else around the €1000 mark that would qualify? Thanks. gschmidl fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Aug 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:04
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:I'm moving up to full-frame with the R6 and since my beloved 17-55mm is EF-S I'll need a replacement. As far as I can tell there's only a few possibilities: Tamron's G2 lenses are pretty good, I have the 70-200mm f/2.8. I have their original 24-70mm and it isn't so good, probably my least favorite lenses, I should've just spent an extra $400 on the G2. Sigma lenses in general seem to have a bad rep for softness, I have their 35mm f/1.4 and I don't think I've ever hit focus wide open. I think the Tamron would be best. In case you didn't know, your EF-S lense will work fine with the R6, you'll just get a lower MP picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:21
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Sigma lenses in general seem to have a bad rep for softness, I have their 35mm f/1.4 and I don't think I've ever hit focus wide open. I think the Tamron would be best. I have no such problems with the 150-600 and 14-24 but a lot of people are reporting it with this one, yeah. The only thing that puts me off about the Tamron is that the focus ring goes the "wrong" way, but I'll accept that if it's the clearly better lens. Thom12255 posted:In case you didn't know, your EF-S lense will work fine with the R6, you'll just get a lower MP picture. I know - the question is whether the 10-ish MP that remain (plus the 1.6 crop) are worth keeping it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
The original EF 24-105 f4 L is probably the best bet, and is what I'm currently scouring the internet for a good price on. You can easily get it for about $450 and if you survive the mind-numblingly dry reviews of Christopher Frost you'll find the optical performance of every similar lens that has come since (the mk2, the RF mount L version, and the sigma art) are almost indistinguishable in image quality. The non-L 24-105 RF lens is so horrible you should never consider getting it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The original EF 24-105 f4 L is probably the best bet, and is what I'm currently scouring the internet for a good price on. You can easily get it for about $450 and if you survive the mind-numblingly dry reviews of Christopher Frost you'll find the optical performance of every similar lens that has come since (the mk2, the RF mount L version, and the sigma art) are almost indistinguishable in image quality. You'd recommend the longer f/4 over the shorter f/2.8s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:You'd recommend the longer f/4 over the shorter f/2.8s? You've been shooting constant 2.8 on aps-c. Constant 4 on full frame will be indistinguishable. And, the 105 length will more closely imitate the lens you are replacing. The 24-105 is a great lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The original EF 24-105 f4 L is probably the best bet I have this lens and I absolutely love it. An awesome piece of equipment for the price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You've been shooting constant 2.8 on aps-c. Constant 4 on full frame will be indistinguishable. And, the 105 length will more closely imitate the lens you are replacing. The 24-105 is a great lens. Oh, of course, I forgot about the aperture "crop". President Beep posted:I have this lens and I absolutely love it. An awesome piece of equipment for the price. Alright, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks all!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:43
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:You'd recommend the longer f/4 over the shorter f/2.8s? Depends on what you want to photograph I guess. f4 is plenty for me because I'm always outdoors or on a tripod. But if you're doing more low light stuff then the f2.8 becomes more important. Just keep in mind the 2.8 is much heavier, the RF 24-70 is 900g and the RF 24-105 is 395g.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
sigma lenses are soft because of the backwards engineered autofocus for ef/ef-s mount, if you don't have the calibration dock you might miss critical focus in certain situations. but apparently if you adapt it to the r mount, there's no af issues at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:I'm moving up to full-frame with the R6 and since my beloved 17-55mm is EF-S I'll need a replacement. As far as I can tell there's only a few possibilities:
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 15:41
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Would you consider a mid-focal length prime instead? The RF 35mm f/1.8 is fantastic and not gonna cost a fortune. I've never really gotten warm with non-macro primes. Maybe I should learn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:I've never really gotten warm with non-macro primes. Maybe I should learn. Having a fast 35/50mm is a must, IMO. The 24-105L is a great zoom, but sometimes you gotta blow out those backgrounds...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Having a fast 35/50mm is a must, IMO. The 24-105L is a great zoom, but sometimes you gotta blow out those backgrounds... I do have the 50mm f/1.8 but I don't ever use it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 16:27
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:I do have the 50mm f/1.8 but I don't ever use it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:I do have the 50mm f/1.8 but I don't ever use it. It's very nice to put it on a get nice out and about pictures without hurting my wrists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:Sigma lenses in general seem to have a bad rep for softness, I have their 35mm f/1.4 and I don't think I've ever hit focus wide open. Just an anecdote, but my Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4 and 24mm f/1.4 lenses have all been stupidly sharp — both are EF mount and were good on my 5D Mark III and now are 10x better with Eye AF on my A7RIII through the Sigma MC-11 converter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Having a fast 35/50mm is a must, IMO. The 24-105L is a great zoom, but sometimes you gotta blow out those backgrounds... melon cat fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Aug 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
melon cat posted:24-105L...average at everything...image quality just isn't anything special... How dare you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
President Beep posted:How dare you! 
melon cat fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
melon cat posted:Personally I find that "do-it-all" lenses like the 24-105L (and the Sony 18-105 F4) all suffer from the same problem- they're average at everything. It's a handy lens for documentary work and times where you can't swap out lenses and need to travel light. But their image quality just isn't anything special. They're also useful for beginners to find out which focal length they'll use the most. In my case, I started out with the Tamron 28-300, which was definitely average at best. When I bring something like the 17-55 it's because I'm not sure what I'll need and it's not always as easy as "just go closer/further away". Right now I'm leaning towards the RF 24-105 f/4L as it's an OK price in the first place plus €200 cashback if you buy it with a body. Of course it's not going to be as amazing as a lens that costs 4x as much, but it's still going to be better than anything I've used so far, and if I want to move "up" from it in a few years, I can always re-sell it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
gschmidl posted:In my case, I started out with the Tamron 28-300, which was definitely average at best. When I bring something like the 17-55 it's because I'm not sure what I'll need and it's not always as easy as "just go closer/further away".
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:37 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:I have to agree with melon cat. When I was using a 24-105 f/4L lens a lot, I ended up with a lot of pictures that felt really similar to what mobile phone photos look like. At least for me, that defeats the purpose of carrying around my big fancy camera in the first place. Understood, but as I don't really care for dragging 10 kilos of lenses with me on vacation, something's gotta give somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2020 21:06
|
|