Mike_5D wrote:
Dual pixel AF is pure phase-detect according to a Canon video I saw. I'm very suspicious of the -6 EV stat.
Even if it is down to -6EV in CDAF only it is still industry leading by a huge margin, two full stops. Pair that with an industry leading ultra fast f/2 zoom and a f/1.2 prime with native IBIS and that is killer kit, especially for event shooting/portraiture (low light AF, fast native glass, native IBIS). I shot a couple low light events with CDAF only camera and it's not that bad with fast glass. Fuji GFX and Hassy X1D are CDAF only. Previous leaders for low light focusing were -4EV(Nikon) and -3EV(Fuji) not sure where Sony is but probably right around there.
I voted no and wait for the next generation. After reading through a few dozen comments, I was surprised how few people mentioned lack of IBIS. I mention it because fuji at one point said their existing lens mount made it difficult to not lose image quality in the corners when the sensor moved due to IBIS. Since Canon had the option to design their lens mount with IBIS in mind, why isn't it there? How can someone launch a mirrorless camera without this critical feature, especially when perhaps the most exciting lens available, the 28 70 f/2 doesn't have IS.
rbf_ wrote:
Even if it is down to -6EV in CDAF only it is still industry leading by a huge margin, two full stops. Pair that with an industry leading ultra fast f/2 zoom and a f/1.2 prime with native IBIS and that is killer kit, especially for event shooting/portraiture (low light AF, fast native glass, native IBIS). I shot a couple low light events with CDAF only camera and it's not that bad with fast glass. Fuji GFX and Hassy X1D are CDAF only. Previous leaders for low light focusing were -4EV(Nikon) and -3EV(Fuji) not sure where Sony is but probably right around there....Show more →
But aren't Canon using a different measuring stick than Nikon and the rest of the world when doing their AF sensitivity tests? Isn't Canon using a 1.2 aperture when the rest us a 1.8 aperture? How does this influence the numbers?
chez wrote:
But aren't Canon using a different measuring stick than Nikon and the rest of the world when doing their AF sensitivity tests? Isn't Canon using a 1.2 aperture when the rest us a 1.8 aperture? How does this influence the numbers?
What’s this the “They’re testing different, they’re cheating.” meme? Where have we heard this type of FUD before... I have no reason to believe they are engaging in false advertising.
rbf_ wrote:
What’s this the “They’re testing different, they’re cheating.” meme? Where have we heard this type of FUD before... I have no reason to believe they are engaging in false advertising.
Well their -6EV rating is taken with a 1.2 lens whereas other cameras use a 2.0 lens for their rating. Testing at 1.2 will give you better EV ratings than testing at 2.0. See, it even fooled you...so it's marketing speak at its best. Very much like saying it can shoot 8fps ( in single shot mode ).
I voted no at first and said that I’d rather have a 5D4 body instead. After more reading, I’ll go with a soft maybe. I’ll wait until reviews of corse but come December, I’ll either have a 5D4 or the Eos R. Either would be a huge upgrade from my 6D.
chez wrote:
Well their -6EV rating is taken with a 1.2 lens whereas other cameras use a 2.0 lens for their rating. Testing at 1.2 will give you better EV ratings than testing at 2.0. See, it even fooled you...so it's marketing speak at its best. Very much like saying it can shoot 8fps ( in single shot mode ).
The standard in the industry, going back decades, has been based on 50mm f1.4 lenses.
What's the big deal about using an f1.2 lens for the rating anyway? All modern, professional camera systems have several f1.2 AF lenses in their lineup...
molson wrote:
The standard in the industry, going back decades, has been based on 50mm f1.4 lenses.
What's the big deal about using an f1.2 lens for the rating anyway? All modern, professional camera systems have several f1.2 AF lenses in their lineup...
Nothing wrong to use a 1.2 lens...but if one is to compare ratings from various cameras...then the settings need to be the same in order to get an accurate picture. Using different settings makes comparisons useless.
It's like looking at noise in an image from different cameras using different ISO settings...useless for comparison.
rbf_ wrote:
What’s this the “They’re testing different, they’re cheating.” meme? Where have we heard this type of FUD before... I have no reason to believe they are engaging in false advertising.
Nobody is promoting FUD or the allegation that Canon is engaging in false advertising. Just pointing out that they used different parameters in the EOS R AF sensitivity specification than they’ve used in at least some recent cameras. It may be materially important to some people who are buying it largely based on that spec. Can’t make an apples-to-apples comparison without being aware of this.
AF sensitivity ratings of two current Canon cameras, for reference.
mitesh wrote:
Nobody is promoting FUD or the allegation that Canon is engaging in false advertising.
No, that would be like claiming Sony RAW files are 14-bit, or the A9 shoots 20 frames per second...
The EOS R does focus in light levels as low as -6 EV. All the wining about it is nothing more than petty jealousy from fanboys of one of the few camera systems that does not have f1/2 AF lenses.
Canon is also claiming to have in camera image stabilization in their white paper.
"In the new EOS Rsystemthe lens embodiesnew technologies that combine with the IS system in the camera to implement an augmented control over the image blurring that can be caused by shaking and vibration of the lens-camera system.This is empowered by an interactive data communication between the two. Within the lens a dual gyro sensor system detects any inadvertent physical movements of the system and this data is reported acrosslens-camera communicationto the DIGIC 8 processor. At the same time the image sensor is “seeing” any blur stimulated by these same movementsand it also reports this image data to the DIGIC 8processor. Thesetwo datareports are algorithmically processed at very high speed and a compensation control signal is generated andsent back at high speed to the lens to actuate the IS optical element that counteracts the disturbance.Figure38The lens gyro sensor reports lens movements and the image sensor reports associated blur data to the DIGIC 8 processorDuring video recording there is the added ability to combine any optical Image Stabilization in the lens with electronic Image Stabilization within the CMOS image sensor. CombinationIS adds five axisdegree of control electronic IS at the image sensor as shown in Figure 38, in addition to the up/down, left/right stabilization typically carried out in the lens. The lens IS system exercisescorrection in the Yaw, Pitch, andRolldirections —see Figure 39. The in-camera stabilization system exercisesadditional control over Yaw and Pitch —as well as correction in Roll and the vertical and horizontal planes.
Figure 39Showing the five dimensions of image stabilization correction in the EOS Rcamera33"
ggreene wrote:
The 5FPS with AI-Servo really hurts it for action type photography. Even the 5D4 at 7FPS is no bargain.
Can you do sports with it? Sure, but far less optimized then the A7III at 10FPS. Sony just has the advantage at the $2000 price point.
The 5D4 does outstandingly with sports. Actually that frame rate isn't bad, especially if you have experience in the sports you shoot. I would certainly take a 5D4 over a A73 for NBA ball and other sports I shoot, due to the tracking it can do by staying on the target even when others get in the way. When I see another shooter just shooting burst after burst on some of the action, it is obvious they don't know the sports, or don't process their own pics, they hand that off to someone else to dig through.
I don't need that. 10fps would be fine, but it isn't a huge hindrance for me at this point. AF parameter/behavior tweaking, speed of AF, and consistency/flexibility of AF modes are MUCH MORE important than burst.
I use single point AF tracking and it rarely ever misses with the settings I have currently. So for what I shoot, I see no advantage to the A73. Now with anything else I shoot, I know enough about the A73 to know what it can do to help those scenarios.
rbf_ wrote:
Canon is also claiming to have in camera image stabilization in their white paper.
"In the new EOS Rsystemthe lens embodiesnew technologies that combine with the IS system in the camera to implement an augmented control over the image blurring that can be caused by shaking and vibration of the lens-camera system.This is empowered by an interactive data communication between the two. Within the lens a dual gyro sensor system detects any inadvertent physical movements of the system and this data is reported acrosslens-camera communicationto the DIGIC 8 processor. At the same time the image sensor is “seeing” any blur stimulated by these same movementsand it also reports this image data to the DIGIC 8processor. Thesetwo datareports are algorithmically processed at very high speed and a compensation control signal is generated andsent back at high speed to the lens to actuate the IS optical element that counteracts the disturbance.Figure38The lens gyro sensor reports lens movements and the image sensor reports associated blur data to the DIGIC 8 processorDuring video recording there is the added ability to combine any optical Image Stabilization in the lens with electronic Image Stabilization within the CMOS image sensor. CombinationIS adds five axisdegree of control electronic IS at the image sensor as shown in Figure 38, in addition to the up/down, left/right stabilization typically carried out in the lens. The lens IS system exercisescorrection in the Yaw, Pitch, andRolldirections —see Figure 39. The in-camera stabilization system exercisesadditional control over Yaw and Pitch —as well as correction in Roll and the vertical and horizontal planes.
Figure 39Showing the five dimensions of image stabilization correction in the EOS Rcamera33"...Show more →
That isn't inbody stabilization. That is simply the camera having better control over the IS, and the software supposedly also has video digital stabilization, which is nothing more than software processing frame by frame trying to correct for movement. No actual stabilization in the body at all..
If Canon put in real sensor stabilization, it would have been heavily marketed on day 1.
TeamSpeed wrote:
That isn't inbody stabilization. That is simply the camera having better control over the IS, and the software supposedly also has video digital stabilization, which is nothing more than software processing frame by frame trying to correct for movement. No actual stabilization in the body at all..
If Canon put in real sensor stabilization, it would have been heavily marketed on day 1.
That makes sense it was really hard to figure out exactly what they were talking about
Is dual-pixel AF compatible with IBIS?? Does one preclude the other?
PS. I MAY purchase an R but it will not be until 2019 (already ordered a Z6 for 2018) so do not categorically fit any of the points to vote on for this thread. I use both systems, C and N.
I've tried IBIS with M4/3 (brilliant in the latest generation), SONY E-mount, and even Pentax.
It's like a gateway drug. Sure I can always kick up the shutter speed, but once I've been able to shoot at 1/5 with no blur, I ain't going back.
Same with eye AF, of which SONY leads the pack, but some other makers also offer.
I've also shot the EOS M50 by comparison and don't find their version of face AF or video IBIS to be competitive.
If the R's system is just a scaled up version on the EOS M50, then it's going to be "No thank you, ma'am" until Canon can get it right (at least "right" in my book).
I'm going to wait a bit on reviews, but my opinion is unlikely to change. Then I'll either get a discounted A7 III, or perhaps the A7 IV. Maybe SONY's next release will even have global shutter, considering how hard they've been hustling. And even as a Canon user, I admire that hustle.
