p.57 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I thought I read the R5 does 20fps in H+ electronic shutter, but only 20fps (no 15fps option), and it only shoots RAW in that mode as well, so no jpeg of heif.
p.57 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Steve Spencer wrote:
And that is why I think there will always be a market for the A9. I think quite a few people share your perspective. I also think that quite a few people would like more megapixels for shooting fast action and that is why I think there has been a clamoring for an A9r. I am actually with you. I wouldn't get the A9r even if it was available and I am happy with the A9, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market out there for an A9r. I think there very well may be plenty of room for both an A9 and an A9r....Show more →
The A9 is a great camera for all kinds of applications. I find that I reach for mine much more often than for my A7R4. I know there is some call for an A9R, at least on this forum. But I wonder if it will happen. The difficulty I see is that the fast electronic shutter is essential to what makes the A9 so special (along with the frame rate and superlative AF), and I think it will be very difficult to get up into really high mpix territory and maintain or improve the fast electronic shutter in the A9.
I wonder if instead of an A9R Sony will continue to refine and develop the strengths of each of its current specialized offerings. For the A9, I think this might mean a small increase in mpix, maybe to about 30, an improvement in dynamic range and high ISO image quality, advancements in autofocus, better IBIS, additional improvements in ergonomics and connectivity, and perhaps even a slightly faster electronic shutter. If they could do all that or a substantial part of it, it would be a lot and would be worth trading up for.
The A7R4 would similarly also become better at what it already does well--maybe with an emphasis on AF and IBIS improvements.
The A74 would continue to offer superb image quality--as this model does now in the A73-- in a strong, lower cost package that does everything well but not at the level of specialization and cost of the A9 and the A7R4.
I think this would be consistent with what Sony has said about a development and marketing strategy of specialization in its camera offerings and which the new A7S3 itself demonstrates, and would also be technically feasible.
The other specialization that I could see Sony doing at some point is a body with a new sensor format, like a quad-Bayer.
p.57 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
chiron wrote:
The A9 is a great camera for all kinds of applications. I find that I reach for mine much more often than for my A7R4. I know there is some call for an A9R, at least on this forum. But I wonder if it will happen. The difficulty I see is that the fast electronic shutter is essential to what makes the A9 so special (along with the frame rate and superlative AF), and I think it will be very difficult to get up into really high mpix territory and maintain or improve the fast electronic shutter in the A9.
I wonder if instead of an A9R Sony will continue to refine and develop the strengths of each of its current specialized offerings. For the A9, I think this might mean a small increase in mpix, maybe to about 30, an improvement in dynamic range and high ISO image quality, advancements in autofocus, better IBIS, additional improvements in ergonomics and connectivity, and perhaps even a slightly faster electronic shutter. If they could do all that or a substantial part of it, it would be a lot and would be worth trading up for.
The A7R4 would similarly also become better at what it already does well--maybe with an emphasis on AF and IBIS improvements.
The A74 would continue to offer superb image quality--as this model does now in the A73-- in a strong, lower cost package that does everything well but not at the level of specialization and cost of the A9 and the A7R4.
I think this would be consistent with what Sony has said about a development and marketing strategy of specialization in its camera offerings and which the new A7S3 itself demonstrates, and would also be technically feasible.
The other specialization that I could see Sony doing at some point is a body with a new sensor format, like a quad-Bayer....Show more →
Right...I don't see the point of a high resolution "a9" that compromises on what makes the a9 great because of the processing bottlenecks involved with a higher resolution sensor. The minute they develop a high resolution sensor with sensor read-out speeds that are on the level of the a9, it should be put into the a9III.
Now that the Sony a5 is in play, I don't think the a7IV is going to be the budget option any longer...rather it will take on the jack of all trades role that the R5 does.
p.57 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Mystik wrote:
Right...I don't see the point of a high resolution "a9" that compromises on what makes the a9 great because of the processing bottlenecks involved with a higher resolution sensor. The minute they develop a high resolution sensor with sensor read-out speeds that are on the level of the a9, it should be put into the a9III.
Now that the Sony a5 is in play, I don't think the a7IV is going to be the budget option any longer...rather it will take on the jack of all trades role that the R5 does.
Agreed regarding your first point, at least based on the other parts of the technological chain/hardware considerations that would be involved at present.
The problem with the A7IV placement in the jack of all trades comparison relative to the R5 for many of us would then be that it lacked the resolution for those that want it in a jack of all trades type body. If the body is going to be lower resolution, I'd rather have the A9.
Personally, I imagine I will be quite content with running the A9 and R5 side by side as it covers the gamut for my uses.
Mystik wrote:
mraw and sraw actually include more of processing bottleneck because the camera has to downres the native resolution before writing to raw....so it is not an ideal solution for an action oriented camera. This is the case with the smaller raw sizes in Canikon cameras now.
The R5 is a jack of all trades, master of none type camera IMO. It's trying to be a high resolution camera, an action camera, and a video camera....and its bringing all the compromises involved with each into a single body. So yes it can do a lot, but it does all of those things sub-optimally. It reminds of compact "sport" suv's like the BMW X6, Acura XDX, etc etc. They look cool, but don't have the utility and seating of a true SUV, and don't perform as well as a true sports car.
Regarding the second point, it depends on the end user and their needs. Using your car example though, there is a reason the market for those types of vehicles is so massive.
This is another area where perspective and semantics are at play with regard to being a jack of all trades that does all things sub-optimally. Personally, the glass is half-full from where I sit and I see the R5 (and the "sport" SUVs) as doing all things in a range from proficient to exemplary without being the best at one particular category for most people. I think what most companies seem to have found (across multiple fields) is that the mass market prefers things that do many things well enough versus things that do very specific things the best in that specific category while lacking more significantly in others.
In essence, maybe I'd like my SUV to have some kick while I'm hauling my family (while wrapped in cushy leather and other luxuries) up a steep grade on the highway without needing it to have the fastest quarter mile time or the ability to climb up the side of a mountain.
p.57 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Agreed regarding your first point, at least based on the other parts of the technological chain/hardware considerations that would be involved at present.
The problem with the A7IV placement in the jack of all trades comparison relative to the R5 for many of us would then be that it lacked the resolution for those that want it in a jack of all trades type body. If the body is going to be lower resolution, I'd rather have the A9.
Personally, I imagine I will be quite content with running the A9 and R5 side by side as it covers the gamut for my uses.
Agreed regarding the first point.
Regarding the second point, it depends on the end user and their needs. Using your car example though, there is a reason the market for those types of vehicles is so massive.
This is another area where perspective and semantics are at play with regard to being a jack of all trades that does all things sub-optimally. Personally, the glass is half-full from where I sit and I see the R5 (and the "sport" SUVs) as doing all things in a range from proficient to exemplary without being the best at one particular category for most people. I think what most companies seem to have found (across multiple fields) is that the mass market prefers things that do many things well enough versus things that do very specific things the best in that specific category while lacking more significantly in others.
In essence, maybe I'd like my SUV to have some kick while I'm hauling my family (while wrapped in cushy leather and other luxuries) up a steep grade on the highway without needed it to have the fastest quarter mile time or the ability to climb up the side of a mountain....Show more →
I just see too many people comparing the R5 to the a9 because on paper in looks like the mythical a9r. But it is not because of the trade-offs involved in its jack of all trades design, vs narrowly focusing on having exemplary performance in a specific use case.
But yes jack of all trades type products always have the broadest appeal and is important in any product portfolio. This is why I think the a7IV will be elevated from being the budget option, to being something that sits between the R5 and R6. There will be a price bump for sure, but also a jump in resolution, FPS, and AF.
The a7III is at the end of its product life cycle and the entry point to FF mirrrorless has been pushed down by the Z5, RP, etc...this is where the a5 will live.
p.57 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Mystik wrote:
I just see too many people comparing the R5 to the a9 because on paper in looks like the mythical a9r. But it is not because of the trade-offs involved in its jack of all trades design, vs narrowly focusing on having exemplary performance in a specific use case.
But yes jack of all trades type products always have the broadest appeal and is important in any product portfolio. This is why I think the a7IV will be elevated from being the budget option, to being something that sits between the R5 and R6. There will be a price bump for sure, but also a jump in resolution, FPS, and AF.
The a7III is at the end of its product life cycle and the entry point to FF mirrrorless has been pushed down by the Z5, RP, etc...this is where the a5 will live. ...Show more →
Entry level is at $1,000. A7Rx is at $3,000+. There still is a huge need for the A7x cameras at $2,000. I think the A74 competition will be the R6, leaving the A7Rx to compete with the R5.
p.57 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Mystik wrote:
mraw and sraw actually include more of processing bottleneck because the camera has to downres the native resolution before writing to raw....so it is not an ideal solution for an action oriented camera. This is the case with the smaller raw sizes in Canikon cameras now.
...
Not an issue, downsampling is computationally trivial.
p.57 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
It was Jared Polin who led me to look more closely at the a9 a couple of years ago. Like him or hate him, this video is pretty illuminating on what the r5 and r6 can do with shooting sports. From watching, it sure looks like the r5 and r6 face and eye AF work as well as my a9 and a92, maybe better if I'm being honest. It's definitely worth taking a more serious look at. I'd love a higher MP a9. 20FPS is fast enough for me. Faster cards are great. Video is nice, but not my primary interest, so not too worked up about potential video issues with these cameras.
Frankly, some bashing the r5 and r6 sound like some of the Canon fan boys when you mention the AF speed and accuracy of the a9...but the size, but the weather sealing... yawn.
"6) sRAW is heavy for processors and bad for batteries
If you look at the buffer capacity of the Nikon D810, you will realize that while the sRAW format produces files that are roughly twice smaller in size than full uncompressed 12-bit RAW files. However, despite the smaller file size, the buffer speed is actually worse in comparison. In full resolution the D810 can shoot 34 frames before the buffer fills up, while shooting in sRAW only yields 18! In this particular case, sRAW seems to be twice smaller in comparison. This has to do with the heavy load the sRAW file puts on Nikon’s EXPEED processor. In addition, with Nikon sRAW using frame buffer for processing raw into sRAW, battery life is also negatively impacted."
p.57 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
"Downsampling" RAW files is far from trivial. You start with an array like this
R G R G
G B G B
R G R G
G B G B...
and then from this you must output, e.g.,
R G R
G B G
R G R
which has to contain original photosite data from the above 4 x 4 matrix.
In practice, e.g., in the D850, the small and medium RAW files are soft but have good tonality. There are two problems with their application: one is that the burst depth is reduced from what it is with full RAW files, due to the extra processing that the camera has to do. The D850 manual lists 12-bit NEF maximum burst depths (at 7 fps) at:
L 170
M 94
S 56
frames.
At 9 fps (from menu guide):
L 54
M 40
S 35.
So in practice, you get worse burst performance from the camera using one of the smaller RAW formats, and it produces a softer image than what you'd get by shooting with a 20MP camera in the first place. This is why these medium and small RAW formats are not such a hot idea. They may work for specific instances but it kind of defeats the purpose of owning a high resolution, high fps camera when you are penalised in resolution (even compared with lower-resolution cameras) and burst capability.
Personally I shoot full-size RAWs (with lossless compression) and if I need ultra high ISO or extended burst shooting, I'll use the appropriate camera instead of the D850. However, I do believe the D850 (and its Canon and Sony competitors) is the most attractive camera to many people who want the best possible image quality, whether shooting action or other subjects. At high ISO, at some point the tide turns in favour of the lower-resolution, high-speed, "flagship" camera bodies (for me this point is around ISO 2000, at which point and above, I feel D5 files are nicer), but still, if I had to choose one, it would be no doubt the D850 because of the beautiful image quality it has the potential of producing. I assume R5 and A7R IV shooters have similar hopes.
p.57 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I can't answer for what Nikon does in their implementation, reduced buffer size sounds like bad memory management on their end (like they use the buffer memory to store both the original size and reduced size for each file at the same time or something). You make a mistake if you assume that is how it has to be. Also the processing *is* trivial, it has linear processing time in the number of pixels and it is perfectly parallelizable and require no heavy operations.
p.57 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
randomguy wrote:
I can't answer for what Nikon does in their implementation, reduced buffer size sounds like bad memory management on their end (like they use the buffer memory to store both the original size and reduced size for each file at the same time or something). You make a mistake if you assume that is how it has to be. Also the processing *is* trivial, it has linear processing time in the number of pixels and it is perfectly parallelizable and require no heavy operations.
Okay, if it is "trivial", please explain how you can map
R G R G
G B G B
R G R G
G B G B...
values into this:
R G R
G B G
R G R
corresponding to the same image area (i.e. a 3 x 3 matrix replaces the image area previously taken by 4 x 4 matrix) and each pixel value is from one original photosite of the sensor (which is the definition of a RAW file).
So, which 4x4 photosite value do you use for each of the 3x3 values so that the smaller file has the contents of the larger original, only using exact values from the original data? I'd love to see your trivial formula.
Anyway, it's quite possible that you're correct that it holds both the original and reduced-size in memory at the same time.
p.57 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
You don't pick single values in the original matrix.
Debayer, resample, rebayer is one way to do it. Resample and rebayer is trivial. Debayering depends on what algorithm you pick, but guess what, you camera already have to do that step if it is going to be able to make a heif/jpeg image that you can see.
p.57 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
randomguy wrote:
You don't pick single values in the original matrix.
Debayer, resample, rebayer is one way to do it. Resample and rebayer is trivial. Debayering depends on what algorithm you pick, but guess what, you camera already have to do that step if it is going to be able to make a heif/jpeg image that you can see.
It means quite a few operations, even if "trivial". As the "grid" is fixed it depends on the interpolation order how much work it is. Usually you need to sweep through x and y directions using sums of the neighbour values, all needs to be stored optimally in cache and refetched - it certainly will introduce overhead (this is something I do in computational fluid dynamics for a living on massively parallel computers) but is doable provided the processor is optimised to do things like this.
p.57 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Cropping isn't necessary with enough focal length. If your cropping heavily you weren't close enough or not thinking of composition. No need for high rez bodies unless you print big, real big for clients (think bigger than 20x30).
I'll take a faster camera over a hi resolution camera any day of the week (better AF , high ISO) . You cant beat physics...same sized sensor with larger pixel always outperform pixel dense sensors due to light gathering abilities and less cross talk (digital noise). Also readout speeds will be faster with fewer pixels. chez wrote:
More pixels allows more cropping. I don't shoot birds, but when shooting bears where you need to keep your distance, cropping is pretty handy.
p.57 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Maxxus46 wrote:
Cropping isn't necessary with enough focal length. If your cropping heavily you weren't close enough or not thinking of composition. No need for high rez bodies unless you print big, real big for clients (think bigger than 20x30).
I'll take a faster camera over a hi resolution camera any day of the week (better AF , high ISO) . You cant beat physics...same sized sensor with larger pixel always outperform pixel dense sensors due to light gathering abilities and less cross talk (digital noise). Also readout speeds will be faster with fewer pixels.
Many situations where one cannot get "close enough" to compose tightly, especially when you are in a fluid situation and things are changing and moving around you. I've shot enough in crowded street / markets where you cannot get any closer to a subject...only means is to crop.
I do print my landscape images very large, up to 72" on the long end. As far as AF goes, for many situations other than maybe fast erratic sports or some erratic wild animals, the AF abilities of the A7R3/4 are very suited.
I'll throw it back at you...do you really think you'd see the difference in those "larger pixels" if you didn't pixel peep at 100%? I could show you countless images where I know you'd not have a clue what size of sensor they originated from.
p.57 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Just wondering if you have ever shot a sports event on a large field. I don't know of a professional sports shooter who hasn't wanted more reach from time to time. Many part time sports shooters simply can't afford the long glass. 400s, 500s and 600s are simply out of reach price wise for a vast majority of shooters. Cropping is a way of life. Simply having more pixels to work with can be great and sometimes is necessary. Sony's 400 2.8 is well north of $10k. So, an a9 and 400 costs about $15k. You can get an r5 and Canon 300 2.8 for considerably less, especially since there is loads of long Canon glass on the secondary market.
So, just because in your world you can always get closer to the subject and are never focal length limited, doesn't mean there are not great use cases for more MP. And I know wildlife shooters, for stealth, access and safety, are often focal length limited.
Maxxus46 wrote:
Cropping isn't necessary with enough focal length. If your cropping heavily you weren't close enough or not thinking of composition. No need for high rez bodies unless you print big, real big for clients (think bigger than 20x30).
I'll take a faster camera over a hi resolution camera any day of the week (better AF , high ISO) . You cant beat physics...same sized sensor with larger pixel always outperform pixel dense sensors due to light gathering abilities and less cross talk (digital noise). Also readout speeds will be faster with fewer pixels. chez wrote:
p.57 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Buddy of mine shared this with me yesterday. Definitely looks more than good enough to replace my R3 and also doesn't leave me feeling like the R4 would have been giving me something extra in the AF department.
p.57 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Canon looks really good in this video but I'm wondering if lens selection does not affect the results a bit (85 GM is known for its not super fast AF). Also the frame insertion makes R5 look better... Still impressive though .
Aug 16, 2020 at 11:30 AM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.57 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
timgangloff wrote:
Just wondering if you have ever shot a sports event on a large field.
i'm wondering if you have personal experience shooting large field sports with an r5/300mm prime.
timgangloff wrote:
I don't know of a professional sports shooter who hasn't wanted more reach from time to time. Many part time sports shooters simply can't afford the long glass. 400s, 500s and 600s are simply out of reach price wise for a vast majority of shooters. Cropping is a way of life. Simply having more pixels to work with can be great and sometimes is necessary. Sony's 400 2.8 is well north of $10k. So, an a9 and 400 costs about $15k. You can get an r5 and Canon 300 2.8 for considerably less, especially since there is loads of long Canon glass on the secondary market. ...Show more →
r5 does not have a stacked sensor, so it does not have a9 af capability, it's apples vs. oranges.
since you can't use r5 electronic shutter for sports, you are limited to 12fps or less, depending on which version of 300mm prime is used, read it for yourself in the canon r5 manual... early versions of canon lenses are not supported at 12fps.
timgangloff wrote:
So, just because in your world you can always get closer to the subject and are never focal length limited, doesn't mean there are not great use cases for more MP.
what good is more mp when you are cropping it away?
a $1400 a6600 will give you higher pixel density than an r5, with sony real-time tracking, for much less $$$ than a $3900 r5.
.