lighthound wrote:
Splain this to me Lucy?
In what situation have you encountered where you would need/want to be locked into a single AF point over the Full array? Considering how well this eye AF tracking supposedly works, why wouldn't you want to take full advantage of the cameras abilities and let it lock on while you concentrate on the composition?
Is it because it's not full proof and you have to fight with it in certain situations? If so, might this only be a Sony issue and perhaps this wont be the case with the R5?
I think stanj summed it up well above. Gives you more control on where the camera will look. We've seen the downsides of only having the full array available in the Jarid Polin A9 vs 1DXIII LV head/eye basketball tracking. He used both cameras in their Full Array modes which allowed both camera to jump on all sorts of "false positives". If he had used the A9 with a smaller mode to start exactly on the head it would have done the face/eye AF when it could see there was a face/eye and then it would resort back to Tracking the original starting point (unless that totally went away from the FOV) which it is really good at IME.
Now I can't say too much about Sony's Animal Eye-AF because I don't really shoot any animals. I was using it on a Barred Owl a few days ago just for fun (because it does work on owls despite no formal support for birds) and it was helpful to use a smaller AF area to start on the face, it would find the eye whenever the owl turned its head more towards me and then jump back to Tracking mode on the head when it turned its head more away from me. If I had used Wide AF mode (all points) it would have been locking AF onto who knows what with all the twigs and tree branches and contrasty light patches coming through the canopy. Granted, head/eye AF wasn't needed at all in that scenario and just using a single AF point on the eye myself was fine as the owl wasn't moving.
But of course every implementation of these feature will be different. If Canon can eliminate false positives and be good enough to find the subject, head and then eye then it doesn't matter in the end. Also Canon does allow user selected starting point in 61-pt Auto mode so that may be suitable for more challenging situations (like branches all over the place).
Another example of how narrowing the AF area can be helpful is when I shoot ducks swimming I don't use a full AF array as the foreground water can be too strong of a target if there is contrast in the water ripples. I instead use a Zone area that I will keep positioned so it only overlaps the subjects head (not even the body if I can). This allows the AF to keep on the head and not get distracted by foreground, background or shift off the head to the body/tail etc.
Anyways, my R5 preorder is in...should be first in line (with option to bail if price nears new car price in Canada ) whenever this thing becomes available...now I just need a lens
EB-1 wrote:
Did Canon state that the 45MP body was a replacement for the 30MP 5D IV body rather than 50MP 5DsR?
EBH
It is not a replacement for either. Both of those cameras are still for sale and my guess is they will be for a long while beside the R5. The R5 is a 5 series camera designed around 8K video spec and DCI 8K resolution drove the sensor resolution to be 45MPs.
Will Canon make a high res R body...who knows? Maybe, maybe not. If the 45MP doesn't fit your needs then you will just have to wait and see or buy an A7RIV and get on with things.
RoamingScott wrote:
There’s a reason cars come in 4-5 trims per model. Not everyone wants the kitchen sink, nor wants to pay for the kitchen sink, if all they need is a commuter.
EverLearning wrote:
gdanmitchell, i agree size of market influences price, but if your means of increasing 'market' is increasing price by adding all kinds of extras, the subsequent reduction in price due to enhanced market reach doesn't offset that increase. If it did, everything - cars, TVs, furnaces, cameras, computers, etc - would just come fully spec'ed out. Such is not the case.
Anyway, as I said, I would jump at an R5 with 'crippled' video (7D MII video ample) for a reduced price.
Agree, There is also affordability. If increased price drove up market share, everyone would be driving a 13 million $ Rolls Royce Sweptail.
For those that 5-10K$ is pocket change paying a premium price for all the bells & whistles weather they have a use for them, or not, is the norm.
The less-affluent have limits, & budget restrictions; & for those primarily interested in a "higher" resolution Landscape camera; on Greentoe the Sony A7R3 is going for about $2300, & the A7R4 for under $3000, with USA warranty.
arbitrage wrote:
I think stanj summed it up well above. Gives you more control on where the camera will look. We've seen the downsides of only having the full array available in the Jarid Polin A9 vs 1DXIII LV head/eye basketball tracking. He used both cameras in their Full Array modes which allowed both camera to jump on all sorts of "false positives". If he had used the A9 with a smaller mode to start exactly on the head it would have done the face/eye AF when it could see there was a face/eye and then it would resort back to Tracking the original starting point (unless that totally went away from the FOV) which it is really good at IME.
Now I can't say too much about Sony's Animal Eye-AF because I don't really shoot any animals. I was using it on a Barred Owl a few days ago just for fun (because it does work on owls despite no formal support for birds) and it was helpful to use a smaller AF area to start on the face, it would find the eye whenever the owl turned its head more towards me and then jump back to Tracking mode on the head when it turned its head more away from me. If I had used Wide AF mode (all points) it would have been locking AF onto who knows what with all the twigs and tree branches and contrasty light patches coming through the canopy. Granted, head/eye AF wasn't needed at all in that scenario and just using a single AF point on the eye myself was fine as the owl wasn't moving.
But of course every implementation of these feature will be different. If Canon can eliminate false positives and be good enough to find the subject, head and then eye then it doesn't matter in the end. Also Canon does allow user selected starting point in 61-pt Auto mode so that may be suitable for more challenging situations (like branches all over the place).
Another example of how narrowing the AF area can be helpful is when I shoot ducks swimming I don't use a full AF array as the foreground water can be too strong of a target if there is contrast in the water ripples. I instead use a Zone area that I will keep positioned so it only overlaps the subjects head (not even the body if I can). This allows the AF to keep on the head and not get distracted by foreground, background or shift off the head to the body/tail etc.
Anyways, my R5 preorder is in...should be first in line (with option to bail if price nears new car price in Canada ) whenever this thing becomes available...now I just need a lens ...Show more →
Ok thanks, that's what I thought and it does make sense to be able to narrow it down to "help" the AF tracking as much as possible under certain circumstances. I do hope the R5 incorporates this function. I would think it would considering how jamb packed with leading tech this thing is shaping up to have. Thinking about the scenarios you and Stanj mentioned, I don't think we could realistically expect ANY tracking system being able to eliminate 100% of the "false positives" in full array tracking. Maybe someday we can hope.
This animal eye tracking function is one of the most important upgrades I'm looking forward to with this R5. I think of it as the "Easy Button".
That along with no more AFMA and silent shutter. And well ... 5 bazillion AF points that covers the entire screen, improved DR, amazing high ISO and of course 20 fps are also nice little perks.
IBIS and 4k/8K video are near worthless to me. Although IBIS might come in handy doing some handheld landscapes I suppose.
If you are referring to my mention of a pre-order, then in my case I just contact my usual contact at the store I buy my gear at and ask to be put on a priority list. There is no official preorder yet as no announcement on price or release date has been made yet.
arbitrage wrote:
If you are referring to my mention of a pre-order, then in my case I just contact my usual contact at the store I buy my gear at and ask to be put on a priority list. There is no official preorder yet as no announcement on price or release date has been made yet.
I could have sworn B&H had a pre-order button the other day. I recall thinking how weird it was because who in their right mind would pre-order something without knowing the price.
Atlasman2 wrote:
The likely scenario is line skipping and binning—throwing away data to reduce the 8K image down to 4K. I would be pleasantly surprised if down samples the 8K image to 4K.
That would make sense, 8K to 4K is like 4 lines skipped? that would explain the readout of 1/120, so the FF readout is likely 1/30 for the E-shutter, and the one downfall of the 8K, rolling shutter.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The incremental costs of adding video capability to these still cameras is almost certainly very small by comparison to the base price of producing the units.
...
Video is just another feature that some users find attractive, but not all care about — think of features like face-detection, ultra-fast burst modes, some of the esoteric AF modes, the ability to work with electronic flash, etc.
...
The bottom line here is that I'm baffled that folks are so up in arms about the fact that their great still camera also has some additional features that don't interfere with their still photography, might potentially have some use, and which enlarge the market of the cameras, allowing the development and production costs to be spread over a larger number of units.
Perhaps the incremental costs of adding video are small compared to base price of producing the unit. Perhaps not. How much extra R&D went into designing the camera to offer top of class video rather than video like a 7D MII or a 5D IV? Were more expensive materials used within the camera than otherwise necessary to aid in heat dissipation, or tolerating the higher heat? What other considerations might there be that I, not an engineer, wouldn't even think about?
I did mention two considerations; the other being perceived value, which you actually allude to as well. If you think back to the 80s, it didn't cost Sony anything to put 'Sony' on its products but it sure added to the cost. That was due to reputation and therefore perceived value. In this case, making this camera probably the best ML around AND the best non-cinamatic video device around is definitely going to cost the buyer more because you are getting 'more' so there is more perceived value.
You say that video is just another feature. True, but the other features you mention in the same breath are all related to stills, not video. A photographer who only shoots photos is very likely to use an assortment of those features but will not use the video feature.
Another point supporting this perspective is products that have been crippled in lower versions. So a product actually can do 10 things for example, but the manufacturer cripples seven things for the base version (via firmware or software) and cripples four things for the mid version. Obviously, production costs of all three versions of the product is exactly the same yet the three products sell for three very different prices.
So while I will readily agree that the video doesn't 'interfere' with my use of the camera as a tool for actual photography, I still firmly hold the believe that it adversely impacts price; possibly to the extent I will not be able to buy what is certainly looking to be an impressive tool for photography. To me, that would be very sad.
arbitrage wrote:
Will Canon make a high res R body...who knows? Maybe, maybe not. If the 45MP doesn't fit your needs then you will just have to wait and see or buy an A7RIV and get on with things.
It is virtually certain that Canon will make a high-res body. How much sensor resolution and the release date are not known.
45MP is quite high though, and it is hard to imagine that most users will find that insufficient. The differences (when it comes to detail resolution) among sensors between 40-60MP are quite tiny, to the point of usually being insignificant.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The differences (when it comes to detail resolution) among sensors between 40-60MP are quite tiny, to the point of usually being insignificant.
I think that depends on your usage. Personally between the Sony A7RIII and IV I found the additional resolution pretty noticeable for fine detail and it makes an even bigger difference in terms of how much one can crop.
2xbass wrote:
I think that depends on your usage. Personally between the Sony A7RIII and IV I found the additional resolution pretty noticeable for fine detail and it makes an even bigger difference in terms of how much one can crop.
Bingo! As a 7D Mark ii shooter who does predominantly wildlife but a smidge of landscape, a dab of cityscape and a pinch of macro (how's them 'quantifying' terms?!), cropability is very important. The 7D M2 is creeping up on six years, and I have been patiently/impatiently waiting for an upgrade. With nothing yet but weak rumours of a crop sensor 'R7' in 2021, I am thinking of the R5 as that possible upgrade. A FF equivalent to the resolution of the 7D M2 would be 51.7MP, so 44.7MP is a little short but close enough (17.5MP equivalent); especially if there is a noticeable jump in high ISO noise management, dynamic range and AF. And if it gives me the option of invoking in-camera cropping to reduce file size and improve buffering performance when I am reach-limited and know I would crop in PP anyway, so much the better.
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is virtually certain that Canon will make a high-res body. How much sensor resolution and the release date are not known.
45MP is quite high though, and it is hard to imagine that most users will find that insufficient. The differences (when it comes to detail resolution) among sensors between 40-60MP are quite tiny, to the point of usually being insignificant.
Agreed, I currently have a 45MP and a 61MP camera and I'd prioritize a lot of other features before I would care about those resolution differences for my work. Of course my use case is to use those types of cameras to crop into. If I can actually fill a FF sensor with my subject I'm more than happy with 20 odd MPs for my use. I really have no need for full 45 or 61MP images unless I am cropping.
arbitrage wrote:
Agreed, I currently have a 45MP and a 61MP camera and I'd prioritize a lot of other features before I would care about those resolution differences for my work. Of course my use case is to use those types of cameras to crop into. If I can actually fill a FF sensor with my subject I'm more than happy with 20 odd MPs for my use. I really have no need for full 45 or 61MP images unless I am cropping.
It's true, I'm often left with 20-30mp worth of photo once I crop my R3 pictures. Having more cropability keeps lens weight down...don't need to lug a 600mm if I can use 400 and crop a bit.
Things like action AF become more important than resolution for me over 40mp, having the ability to crop a badly tracked photo even deeper wouldn't matter.
I'd love a 40ish MP body with A9 level AF, the R5 might be that, we'll see. That's what has me so excited for it.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The differences (when it comes to detail resolution) among sensors between 40-60MP are quite tiny, to the point of usually being insignificant.
2xbass wrote:
I think that depends on your usage. Personally between the Sony A7RIII and IV I found the additional resolution pretty noticeable for fine detail and it makes an even bigger difference in terms of how much one can crop.
I noticed that, but also the inceased noise compared to my a7r III. I'd like to have a new 36MP a7xxx for lower light. The gap between 24 and 60 MP is unacceptable.
I think the R5 is going to be a win for Canon if it does all it says it will do, and does it well.
A buddy of mine is a video fiend, and he loved the 5DII when it was king. He chased the best specs and has been something of a Sony fanboy for years now. I shared the R5 specs with him and he was impressed. I was surprised to hear how interested he was and potentially interested in switching to it when released. I believe he has an A7IIs and an A7III.
2xbass wrote:
I think that depends on your usage. Personally between the Sony A7RIII and IV I found the additional resolution pretty noticeable for fine detail and it makes an even bigger difference in terms of how much one can crop.
You might be surprised if you did some actual testing, say with very large prints.
My eyes were opened a few years back when an acquaintance who was about to teach two workshops in Antarctica shared some print samples with a group of us who regularly meet to share new work. (He had to downsize the gear he was taking due to weight restrictions in place during his trip there and back.)
At the start of our meeting he handed out some pairs of prints on letter-sized paper and, without telling us any more, just asked us to tell him what we noticed about the print pairs. In each pair there were two images of the same subject, but with sightly different framing such that it was clear that they were not the same exposure. The group of us — all folks who regularly make large prints on our own 24" and larger printers — did careful side-by-side comparisons. We could tell that the prints in the pairs were different, but there was no consensus about which one was better in each pair. We all agreed that any differences were tiny, only noticeable under very close side-by-side inspection, and probably would not be visible in normal viewing.
Once we had given our feedback, his big reveal was that...
- we were looking at crops out of larger images that had been sized to print at 30" x 40"
- in each pair, one came from a 80MP MF Phase One back system and the other came from a 36MP Nikon D800e system.
Yes, you read that correctly.
People tend to vastly overestimate the likely advantage/difference that may come from increases in sensor MP count, especially when we get to higher MP sensors.
It is also useful to do a quick bit of math or two that can be somewhat predictive:
- At a given print size, what is the ppi for each source image?
- At a given ppi (say 300ppi) what are the dimensions of prints from the two sources?
BTW, I'm not at all against higher MP sensors, and I'm happy for the continuing advances in sensor design that have given us better sensors with higher resolution.
EverLearning wrote:
Bingo! As a 7D Mark ii shooter who does predominantly wildlife but a smidge of landscape, a dab of cityscape and a pinch of macro (how's them 'quantifying' terms?!), cropability is very important. The 7D M2 is creeping up on six years, and I have been patiently/impatiently waiting for an upgrade. With nothing yet but weak rumours of a crop sensor 'R7' in 2021, I am thinking of the R5 as that possible upgrade. A FF equivalent to the resolution of the 7D M2 would be 51.7MP, so 44.7MP is a little short but close enough (17.5MP equivalent); especially if there is a noticeable jump in high ISO noise management, dynamic range and AF. And if it gives me the option of invoking in-camera cropping to reduce file size and improve buffering performance when I am reach-limited and know I would crop in PP anyway, so much the better....Show more →
What is the best focusing crop body that Canon currently offers?
That’s really interesting. Since I don’t really crop much, I personally find dynamic range to be more important then having a high resolution sensor.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You might be surprised if you did some actual testing, say with very large prints.
My eyes were opened a few years back when an acquaintance who was about to teach two workshops in Antarctica shared some print samples with a group of us who regularly meet to share new work. (He had to downsize the gear he was taking due to weight restrictions in place during his trip there and back.)
At the start of our meeting he handed out some pairs of prints on letter-sized paper and, without telling us any more, just asked us to tell him what we noticed about the print pairs. In each pair there were two images of the same subject, but with sightly different framing such that it was clear that they were not the same exposure. The group of us — all folks who regularly make large prints on our own 24" and larger printers — did careful side-by-side comparisons. We could tell that the prints in the pairs were different, but there was no consensus about which one was better in each pair. We all agreed that any differences were tiny, only noticeable under very close side-by-side inspection, and probably would not be visible in normal viewing.
Once we had given our feedback, his big reveal was that...
- we were looking at crops out of larger images that had been sized to print at 30" x 40"
- in each pair, one came from a 80MP MF Phase One back system and the other came from a 36MP Nikon D800e system.
Yes, you read that correctly.
People tend to vastly overestimate the likely advantage/difference that may come from increases in sensor MP count, especially when we get to higher MP sensors.
It is also useful to do a quick bit of math or two that can be somewhat predictive:
- At a given print size, what is the ppi for each source image?
- At a given ppi (say 300ppi) what are the dimensions of prints from the two sources?
BTW, I'm not at all against higher MP sensors, and I'm happy for the continuing advances in sensor design that have given us better sensors with higher resolution.
) whenever this thing becomes available...now I just need a lens 