timgangloff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.58 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 | |
I get it, You don't like the camera. I'm intrigued by it. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't for pro sports. Time will tell. But I'll bet you a cold beverage I see more r5's on the sports sidelines and baselines (If I ever stand / sit on one again....) than I will see Sony bodies of any sort.
I actually watched the whole video you linked, It was painful. His technique, framing and use of a mirrorless camera seemed pretty far off. For sports like football, I'm not using face and eye AF. Most of the time you can't even see them and they are certainly way too small most of the time to try to follow. Same with my a9's. I am aiming mid-body and trying to follow a player through a myriad of distracting subjects. If you read the accompanying comments on his video, he tones down is critique of the camera considerably.
"John Gress
1 week ago
I think the AF is great! A friend who shoots sports full time looked over the images and said the in focus percentages were very good and in the studio it was almost 100%"
Sensor read out speed is an issue that needs further review, especially if you want the 20fps electronic shutter offers. It is a reason I don't shoot with it with my a7r4. But I still take the a7r4 to sports events and shoot with it. It has value in some situations, but no, fast action is not its forte.
I still disagree about the number of pixels. It's clearly an advantage for a shooter who is focal length limited, by situation or budget or both. Simply put, very few folks can afford the Sony 400 2.8 GM and having a 2.8 lens at night or for indoors sports is necessary. A 300 2.8 is much more affordable. So, my point was that an r5 paired with a 300 2.8 will be much better option for someone looking to go mirrorless. With Sony, their options are fairly limited. You can try adapters and adapted glass (been there, failed at that) but it's not an ideal situation. I think from everything I've seen and read, the Canon EF to RF adapter is pretty seamless. I don't think anyone looking at the R5 is interested in the small sensor a6600, at all.
So, for some Sony shooters, it could be intriguing to go for the r5, even with the limitations of a slower sensor readout speed and maybe missing some shots. Alternatively, they could shoot with a mechanical shutter and loose some FPS. Certainly there are limitations in both scenarios, but I believe, maybe wrongly, that despite these limitations, some will find the lure of the r5 great.
I'm guessing you have also never used the r5 paired with any long glass, so we can assume you are also speculating, which is fine and what most posts in these forums are doing at least until we can get more real world users putting the bodies through the paces.
As for the comments about real-time tracking. It's great for some sports where the athletes are isolated, but miserable and unusable for some sports, like football and soccer and even baseball most of the time. It's just not consistent enough to stay on the right target and once it grabs the wrong target, the action is over before you can reacquire the intended target. It's a great tool to have on the belt, but certainly no panacea.
And maybe I need to step away from the keyboard for awhile, but I'll end with this. This Canon r5 thread in the Sony forum is now 58 pages and growing... Clearly, it has ignited some interest in Sony shooters, even if you are not one of them.
osv2 wrote:
idle speculation about gear you've never used...
you mean beyond the obvious technical facts? see the video below.
the r5 for pro sports work? are you serious? i can't tell.
no, that's not the scenario you just claimed, with your 300mm lens shooting a large playing field, and no, higher pixel density with 24mp aps-c means more pixels in the image than what you'll get with a cropped 45mp r5.
beyond that, the advantages of a stacked sensor have been discussed at length in this thread, i'm not going to repeat it.
|
)...
.
Also, there's not enough hours in the day.