That has been out for a day or so. At first I wondered I that was actually a 100-400 because the lens was OOF but you can see it is because of the foot.
lighthound wrote:
That is insane! Can anyone tell me if there is any other AF tracking system out there that takes it to this level?
I think we all know the answer.
I’d like to help you out if I can. I pre-ordered with B&H in the first 1/2 hour but I am thinking of canceling the R5 but keeping my order for the 100-500L lens as I don’t need the camera until September when the lens ships. This will also give me time to sell some gear and get my finances in order. However, I live in Southern California, so I don’t know if I can help you.
lighthound wrote:
Fitting to match my mental state most days.
I'm going to die if I don't make the first shipment from B&H. I have GOT to have this camera for Alaska.
lighthound wrote:
That is insane! Can anyone tell me if there is any other AF tracking system out there that takes it to this level?
I think we all know the answer.
lighthound wrote:
That is insane! Can anyone tell me if there is any other AF tracking system out there that takes it to this level?
I think we all know the answer.
And that's with adapted EF glass!
Looks really nice, yes. But you do not read my (and others) posts. I already mentioned a couple of times the EF lenses (which I know) work even more reliable and faster, using them adapted to an R-Body (I tested it with the "R" and "RP" only - maybe the R5/R6 could enhance the performance a bit because they are much more expensive).
And here is my answer: What is insane is that after one or two week of using R5/R6 you will expect it as beeing "normal".
I am pretty sure he took the wrong tool.
In this light situation he should have used the R6 imo:
Better AF in low light, less noise, less weight, no 8K overheating ...
The safari video is a review of the R5 with an EF lens - so we are talking about the R5’s AF performance in low light with an EF lens - we are not talking about the noise here. Yes, the R6 should have less noise - and the AF of the R6 should be just as good - not the other way round.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I am pretty sure he took the wrong tool.
In this light situation he should have used the R6 imo:
Better AF in low light, less noise, less weight, no 8K overheating ...
Instead of trying to find videos I decided to search the net. This again is just speculation as there are no numbers yet. We know that the R5 has a new sensor design.
It combines a high-speed sensor readout with the much faster DIGIC X image processing chip, allowing for more accuracy and faster continuous shooting speeds.
Ralph Conway wrote:
I am pretty sure he took the wrong tool.
In this light situation he should have used the R6 imo:
Better AF in low light, less noise, less weight, no 8K overheating ...
Resize the R5 to 20MP and noise will probably be similar, though the image will be a touch sharper. IMO the R5 has the wider shooting envelope. Higher resolution if you need it or the benefit of oversampling when your end use is at a lower resolution.
rscheffler wrote:
Resize the R5 to 20MP and noise will probably be similar, though the image will be a touch sharper. IMO the R5 has the wider shooting envelope. Higher resolution if you need it or the benefit of oversampling when your end use is at a lower resolution.
Hm, guess you are right. May sombody here just lend me the 1.800€ price difference for - let me think ... maybe 5 years ... buy me a new computer ... and ... based on my age ... add some decades of life span ...?
bobbytan wrote:
The safari video is a review of the R5 with an EF lens - so we are talking about the R5’s AF performance in low light with an EF lens - we are not talking about the noise here. Yes, the R6 should have less noise - and the AF of the R6 should be just as good - not the other way round.
Not the other way round? My english is not so good. Wasn´t this what I said?
By the way: as far what I read the R6s AF indeed is more sensitive than the R5 one.
arbitrage wrote:
Welcome to May 2017 Canon....golf clap....
I have question and I hope I get this right. Based on readout speed we should see the same thing in the EFV using either M or E shutter. The EVF will receive the data just as quickly in both modes? The only difference is the mechanical shutter closing, which is obvious.
