Archive 2020 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.48 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Eruditass wrote:
Do you have a link to any wobble that is not wide angle?
it's your claim, not mine.
Eruditass wrote:
Wide angle wobble is a known problem
a random internet comment as proof of something?
there are easily over a dozen blatantly false claims about sony in just this thread alone.
Eruditass wrote:
with every implementation of IBIS that I know of, as you're dealing with persepctive distortion and rotation. Even the 5-axis systems only use gyro rotation estimates as projects onto translations, as rotating around those axis would be resulting in the tilt-shift effect.
see above, and watch the video before commenting next time, because he made it clear that wobble wasn't the only issue.
Aug 08, 2020 at 01:41 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Tilt/shift is addressing a different issue. It only enhances IQ versus an image taken at tilt / shift 0 then digitally processed for "perspective correction". If you don't need to do such corrections then it doesn't enhance IQ vs a standard lens (measured as apparent sharpness, noise, color quality).
Also, nothing stops one to use tilt/shift lenses in conjunction with pixel shift or stacking (and btw I know of two flavors of stacking, one is just an average of multiple images at same lens settings, and one usually reffered as "focus stacking" where you change the focusing distance between shots; they usually have rather different purposes; I was reffering to the first one in my previous post).
Finally, purchasing a tilt/shift lens is expensive and justified only for rather specific subjects. An extra option in the menu saying "pixel shift" or "smooth reflections" have little cost and more universal applications. BTW Sony please bring "back smooth reflections" in some form.......Show more →
Well we were talking about increasing IQ for architecture shooting where perspective control is often an issue. So, do you agree that tilt/shift lenses can increase IQ for architecture shots where perspective control is needed?
As to how universal the applications are for pixel shit and stacking are that depends on how much the environment is changing. As Jordan discussed changes in the environment even subtle ones can ruin pixel shift or stacked shots as differences from shot to shot create artifacts when combining images. But let's be concrete about this issue, exactly how many shots have you used pixel shift to increase IQ? Do you have examples? If so, please enlighten us of how you have used this feature.
Personally, I have not found any use for pixel shift in my shooting, but of course YMMV.
p.48 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Speaking of those long white lenses. I bet that any self respecting pro covering sport events would be using the 1DX not the R5. Simply because they can't risk the battery going flat or the camera overheating and shutting down 15 minutes into the game.
The R5 is as un-pro as they could possibly have made it. I think even the wedding guys will avoid it other than as a secondary camera. To be kept in a thermal bag until actually needed.
That said, the R5 does offer amazing video quality - for the 15 minutes until it shuts down. Obviously the sensor will be a serious contender in that area once Canon puts it in an appropriate body with functioning heatsinks.
p.48 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
there are easily over a dozen blatantly false claims about sony in just this thread alone.
I love the implication by Canonites that you can now finally use Canon T/S lenses on mirrorless, when that is one of the earliest markets that adopted the Sony A7R. If you want the best IQ with Canon T/S lenses on a FF sensor you still need to buy a Sony A7R - mark 4 these days.
EDIT - although I hear some people are using the Fuji GFX-100 with the Canon T/S, which will give even better IQ.
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
I used a large format camera for several years. I absolutely have used tilt and shift. And it's faster with a 4x5 camera to get accurate tilt and shift than with a dSLR lens with fiddly knobs. If conditions are changing rapidly it's far, far faster to dial in a few focus changes for stacking than it is to change tilt, shift and focus for even one image.
When I photograph I balance sky, clouds, light and foreground in my composition. That means I need to act quickly to changing conditions in the sky and clouds and adjust my composition. Whoops - just blew up all my careful work adjusting the tilt and shift! This is why I stopped using LF gear.
More ad-hominem nonsense. The R system doesn't have any tilt-shift lenses anyway. And people have been using tilt-shift lenses with Sony mirrorless cameras since 2010. In fact they bought Sony cameras to get better results out of their Canon T/S lenses.
I guess, the planning required to use tilt/shift lenses hasn't worked for you. I haven't found those problems, so of course YMMV, and you really need to learn what an ad-hominem is. If you understood that your would realize what a ridiculous statement your last sentence is. Saying that you cannot admit any weaknesses in the Sony system when you fail to do so repeatedly even in the face of clear evidence for those weaknesses is not an ad-hominem. It is an argument based on evidence which you have demonstrated in the course of the conversation. For example, when you failed to acknowledge that Canon EF lenses adapted Canon RF cameras have an advantage over Canon EF lenses adapted to Sony cameras because Canon has knowledge of the lens protocols and whoever makes the Sony adapter does not, you demonstrated that you will not acknowledge a Sony weakness. Pointing that out is not an ad-hominem. It is an argument from evidence and your calling it an ad-hominem just demonstrates that you don't know what the term means and does nothing to take away the force of the argument.
p.48 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
...you [sic] complete lack of ability to recognize any limitations or weaknesses in the Sony system.
I just posted a weakness of the Sony system to this thread - no 8K. The Canon video quality is clearly better - for the 15 minutes or so it can be relied on.
I also wrote that the Canon sensor will be a very dangerous competitor for video - once they put it in an appropriate body.
So you repeated a ridiculous ad-hominem about my "complete lack of ability to recognize any limitations or weaknesses in the Sony system" after I posted a limitation / weakness in the Sony system. Of course it is an ad-hominem.
I can name many other weaknesses. Here are a few:
Narrow lens mount reduces FF IBIS effectiveness
Lack of lossless compressed RAW
Lack of good quality control with lenses until the past couple years
Inability to change certain settings until the camera buffer empties
So you see, you've not only written ad-hominem about me, but it's ridiculous, clearly false ad-hominem.
Aug 08, 2020 at 02:01 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
I love the implication by Canonites that you can now finally use Canon T/S lenses on mirrorless, when that is one of the earliest markets that adopted the Sony A7R. If you want the best IQ with Canon T/S lenses on a FF sensor you still need to buy a Sony A7R - mark 4 these days.
EDIT - although I hear some people are using the Fuji GFX-100 with the Canon T/S, which will give even better IQ.
And that implication was made by no one and since I was the one talking about tilt/shift lenses, it might be relevant to point out that although I have Sony, Nikon, and Fuji cameras I do not have a Canon camera and haven't had one for years. I am definitely not a Canonite, but I do use T/S lenses on mirrorless--on the Fuji GFX.
p.48 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
For example, when you failed to acknowledge that Canon EF lenses adapted Canon RF cameras have an advantage over Canon EF lenses adapted to Sony cameras because Canon has knowledge of the lens protocols and whoever makes the Sony adapter does not, you demonstrated that you will not acknowledge a Sony weakness.
The A9 and A92 have done an amazing job focusing a lot of the Canon big white glass with adapters. Whether the R5 or A92 are better with Canon glass is an empirical question, not one that relies on whether Sigma understands the Canon AF protocols (my bet is after 30+ years of building Canon EF autofocus lenses they do understand it).
p.48 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
As one with both systems and adapted lenses, I can assure you that the RF mount cameras focus EF lenses far better than Sony does. EF lenses on Sony are certainly usable and even quite good in many situations, but EF glass on an RF body acts as a native lens. EF glass is general as good or better on R bodies than they are on EF bodies. The adapters are just a pin pass through....no translation is going on, so the camera is natively focusing the lens.
p.48 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Jman13 wrote:
As one with both systems and adapted lenses, I can assure you that the RF mount cameras focus EF lenses far better than Sony does. EF lenses on Sony are certainly usable and even quite good in many situations, but EF glass on an RF body acts as a native lens. EF glass is general as good or better on R bodies than they are on EF bodies. The adapters are just a pin pass through....no translation is going on, so the camera is natively focusing the lens.
You are comparing with the A9 and/or the A92, or just with the A7 series?
The A9 does AF far more quickly than any non-stacked mirrorless camera and does not suffer the same kinds of sensor sampling blackout because of that. As a realtime software developer, AF system "translation" can occur essentially instantaneously if the algorithm is implemented correctly and the adapter hardware is up to snuff.
Aug 08, 2020 at 02:19 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.48 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NonDecaf wrote:
People choose a 300 f/2.8 over a slow super-zoom to isolate players on a crowded field, and also to shoot indoors or night-time games or winter sports.
that's not relevant to what we were discussing, but since you went there, pros don't use a 300/2.8 on ff to shoot surfing, it's way too short even on the north shore.
reading between the lines of your post, i hope you realize that surfing is an olympic sport, it's just as valid a use case as any field sport.
1) tim made the claim that canon had a lens for sports that sony doesn't
2) i replied with an example of a sports/bif lens that canon has never had, in their entire history
i'll also point out that only sony has a list of certified lenses that work at 20fps, and no, unlike the r5 garbage, the fps rate of sony lenses doesn't drop when the battery hits 60% charge.
r5 is a joke for shooting sports, and not just because you have to adapt old dslr lenses to use it... there have been multiple reports of overheating just from shooting stills.
NonDecaf wrote:
Of course, in theory you can shoot sports with any lens. Not knocking your skill at all, but I shot the 2017 Vans in Hawaii (not a paid shoot, was there on vacation) with an 80D and the Sigma 150-600. The AF worked very well..
i've shot on the north shore, it's a piece of cake because it's front-lit and the action is right on top of you.
yes you can use any lens, i've shot surfing with a manual focus 60-300 on the a7r, see these wedge pics on freak swell... point is, a few keepers doesn't make it a good gear choice:
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
I just posted a weakness of the Sony system to this thread - no 8K. The Canon video quality is clearly better - for the 15 minutes or so it can be relied on.
I also wrote that the Canon sensor will be a very dangerous competitor for video - once they put it in an appropriate body.
So you repeated a ridiculous ad-hominem about my "complete lack of ability to recognize any limitations or weaknesses in the Sony system" after I posted a limitation / weakness in the Sony system. Of course it is an ad-hominem.
I can name many other weaknesses. Here are a few:
Narrow lens mount reduces FF IBIS effectiveness
Lack of lossless compressed RAW
Lack of good quality control with lenses until the past couple years
Inability to change certain settings until the camera buffer empties
So you see, you've not only written ad-hominem about me, but it's ridiculous, clearly false ad-hominem. ...Show more →
Please look up what an ad-hominem is. You are using the term wrong in the earlier post and in this one. Even if I were to acknowledge that you are admitting Sony weaknesses (which I am not doing and no 8K is hardly admitting a weakness and noting some things that are not bad about Canon is not admitting a Sony weakness) my argument that you don't admit to any weaknesses from Sony would not be an ad-hominem argument. It would be an argument based on evidence that was wrong.
I am not going to look up ad-hominem for you but I will put it in my own words. An ad hominem attack is a criticism of the other person that is not based on evidence or arguments. When you criticize someone based on faulty evidence or poorly understood evidence or illogical arguments are not ad hominem. Those are simply bad arguments and bad criticism. Ad hominem is literally a criticism that comes out of nowhere based on no claim of evidence or rational argument. That is clearly not what I am doing.
You are using ad hominem as synonymous with a bad argument. When you do so you are using a big word, but you clearly don't know what it means. Frankly, it makes you look foolish and overreaching.
Aug 08, 2020 at 02:23 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.48 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
I just posted a weakness of the Sony system to this thread - no 8K. The Canon video quality is clearly better - for the 15 minutes or so it can be relied on.
I also wrote that the Canon sensor will be a very dangerous competitor for video - once they put it in an appropriate body.
So you repeated a ridiculous ad-hominem about my "complete lack of ability to recognize any limitations or weaknesses in the Sony system" after I posted a limitation / weakness in the Sony system. Of course it is an ad-hominem.
I can name many other weaknesses. Here are a few:
Narrow lens mount reduces FF IBIS effectiveness
Lack of lossless compressed RAW
Lack of good quality control with lenses until the past couple years
Inability to change certain settings until the camera buffer empties
So you see, you've not only written ad-hominem about me, but it's ridiculous, clearly false ad-hominem. ...Show more →
just do yourself a favor and put him on ignore that's what i did.
p.48 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
"Even if I were to acknowledge that you are admitting Sony weaknesses (which I am not doing and no 8K is hardly admitting a weakness and noting some things that are not bad about Canon is not admitting a Sony weakness) "
I guess you missed the previous thread where I implied no 4K was and is a clear weakness of the A7S3. Well I said it more like this "No 8K?!". That combined with saying that Canon's video IQ is better (while it is running) clearly shows that Sony has a weakness here versus the competition. And it looks like the Panasonic has 6K that actually works without shutting down the camera - so more Sony weakness.
Perhaps since you don't read everything I write (and I don't expect you to) you should refrain from making generalized insults about me and what I am capable of and what I can and cannot comprehend.
"When you do so you are using a big word, but you clearly don't know what it means."
Ahh, yes. More ad-hominem.
From Oxford English Dictionary:
"[an argument] directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
"When you do so you are using a big word, but you clearly don't know what it means."
That is the ad-hominem. You are claiming that I am "incapable of", "clearly don't know" etc. which are not only ad-hominem (that is, they are targeted at me as a person) but they are also clearly wrong.
If you don't want to engage in ad-hominem, don't throw out personal insults in a discussion. That means, don't attribute malice, stupidity, ignorance, etc. to the person you are debating with. Which you have done and continue to do in this thread. Just stop doing it.
p.48 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
that's not relevant to what we were discussing, but since you went there, pros don't use a 300/2.8 on ff to shoot surfing, it's way too short even on the north shore.
reading between the lines of your post, i hope you realize that surfing is an olympic sport, it's just as valid a use case as any field sport.
1) tim made the claim that canon had a lens for sports that sony doesn't
2) i replied with an example of a sports/bif lens that canon has never had, in their entire history
i'll also point out that only sony has a list of certified lenses that work at 20fps, and no, unlike the r5 garbage, the fps rate of sony lenses doesn't drop when the battery hits 60% charge.
r5 is a joke for shooting sports, and not just because you have to adapt old dslr lenses to use it... there have been multiple reports of overheating just from shooting stills.
i've shot on the north shore, it's a piece of cake because it's front-lit and the action is right on top of you.
yes you can use any lens, i've shot surfing with a manual focus 60-300 on the a7r, see these wedge pics on freak swell... point is, a few keepers doesn't make it a good gear choice:
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
lightskyland wrote:
"When you do so you are using a big word, but you clearly don't know what it means."
More ad-hominem.
From Oxford English Dictionary:
"[an argument] directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
"When you do so you are using a big word, but you clearly don't know what it means."
That is the ad-hominem. You are claiming that I am "incapable of", "clearly don't know" etc. which are not only ad-hominem (that is, they are targeted at me as a person) but they are also clearly wrong.
If you don't want to engage in ad-hominem, don't throw out personal insults in a discussion. That means, don't attribute malice, stupidity, ignorance, etc. to the person you are debating with. Which you have done and continue to do in this thread.
My post both then and now was about the position you were maintaining and not about you. I was first commenting about what you said and failed to acknowledge about Sony cameras. That was a critique of your position. Your failure to acknowledge the weaknesses of Sony camera is part of your position about Sony cameras. It is not an ad hominem attack. It is not an attack of you. It is an attack of the position you took or more precisely in this case the position you failed to take. I made absolutely zero personal insults. Saying you failed to acknowledge something is not a personal insult. It is a description of your position. It is not an attribution of malice stupidity or ignorance.
I did state that by your use of a word you demonstrated that you did not know what it means, but that is not in any way an attribution of malice, stupdity, or ignorance. It is simply the misuse of a word. There was not attack on you as a person, just a criticism of your arguments including the failure to recognize weaknesses in Sony's system.
Aug 08, 2020 at 02:41 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.48 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
just do yourself a favor and put him on ignore that's what i did.
Thank you for putting me on your ignore list. Now if you would only stop commenting on my posts.
p.48 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
"I did state that by your use of a word you demonstrated that you did not know what it means..."
I quoted the dictionary definition, which I believe matches what you have done in this discussion. Saying I am "incapable of" etc. is certainly a personal insult and one that is incorrect to boot.
I don't see much point in continuing this further. In the future, I would appreciate if you do not make claims about what I don't know and can't do, especially claims that are easily disproven. Let's keep the discussion on the cameras and not on the other posters.
p.48 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
that's not relevant to what we were discussing, but since you went there, pros don't use a 300/2.8 on ff to shoot surfing, it's way too short even on the north shore.
reading between the lines of your post, i hope you realize that surfing is an olympic sport, it's just as valid a use case as any field sport.
1) tim made the claim that canon had a lens for sports that sony doesn't
2) i replied with an example of a sports/bif lens that canon has never had, in their entire history
i'll also point out that only sony has a list of certified lenses that work at 20fps, and no, unlike the r5 garbage, the fps rate of sony lenses doesn't drop when the battery hits 60% charge.
r5 is a joke for shooting sports, and not just because you have to adapt old dslr lenses to use it... there have been multiple reports of overheating just from shooting stills.
i've shot on the north shore, it's a piece of cake because it's front-lit and the action is right on top of you.
yes you can use any lens, i've shot surfing with a manual focus 60-300 on the a7r, see these wedge pics on freak swell... point is, a few keepers doesn't make it a good gear choice:
I don't shoot surfing, that was my only time. Anyway, as you are well aware, the list of pro level sports where a slow 200-600 is a better choice over the 70-200 / 300 / 400 2.8 (2 which Sony already has) is short. Canon's EF glass has been used to deliver professional quality results for a very long time, and the fact that the R5 can natively communicate with EF lenses is certainly an asset for Canon till they can produce more RF lenses. The R5 is not a direct competitor to the A9 spec for spec, but it comes darn close. The vast majority of sports are being shot with a mechanical shutter. Maybe golf would be a good example to demonstrate some the weakness of the R5's ES. Certainly mirrorless and e shutters are the future, but all of the current electronic shutters are slower than mechanical shutters so there is a lot of room to improve.
I fail to see how the R5 is "a joke" based on your assertions. It's barely been out for a month. The A9 had a bumpy launch and it only became great after a few firmware updates. At launch, the A9 had overheating issues, and AF issues while zooming in/out, menu lockout during writing, etc.
Also, do you have personal experience shooting sports with the R5 or are you simply passing on other peoples opinions? If I wanted to know what someone else thinks, I would just ask them instead of hearing their opinion second-hand through you.
Aug 08, 2020 at 03:09 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.48 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
mogul wrote:
Looking at the wedge shot, reminded me of being driven right into the sand back in the 60's. Something you don't forget.
x2 on that, many moons ago i used to box in the golden gloves, but the worst concussions i ever suffered was from being driven into packed sand while bodysurfing.
that's what i did.