p.16 #2 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
The RF lens' shorter flange distance allows for "much greater flexibility in lens design" ... but why can't they make the lenses more compact and lighter than they are?
Zenon Char wrote:
I have used this reference multiple times. This stood out the most to me during the presentation mostly because of his reaction. He is an ambassador but it looked pretty genuine. The more discussion about this I had another thought. It is clearly in mechanical shutter - I think because that is not silent. I don't know if that is it actual 12 fps but if the readout speed was an issue would the shutter not have slowed down? That sounds pretty fast to me. Not sure if I'm on the correct train of thought here.
p.16 #3 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
Mike_5D wrote:
After initially ignoring the R6 due having only 20 MP, I'm giving it some serious consideration. The only thing it lacks (that I care about) appears to be the 45 MP, but it sure is a lot cheaper. $3900 is a tough pill to swallow. Then I'd need new cards, card reader, batteries, and a grip. It all adds up. The R6 is a much better value.
Agreed. The R6 is the better value between them. For the reasons you mention, I thought long and hard about going with the R6.
But I ultimately decided to go with the R5 for those 45 pickles. I looked through my images that I've been shooting with my 32.5mp cropper + 500II + 1.4III and even at that length I find myself cropping a fair bit on small song birds. The thought of having to crop deep into a 20mp file is what pushed me to spend a few bucks more. I'm always reach limited it seems except on furry critters such as bear, elk or deer. I think if they would have put a 30mp in that puppy I would have gone with it.
I couldn't care less about 8k video but might play around with 4k/120 or 1080/120 when they release the rumored firmware for it.
I recall numerous times, when I'd bitch about have video crap stuffed in our stills cameras, I was told by all the video kids that we aren't paying any extra for having video in our still cameras, so I guess it's just a free bonus.
I joke about that but the truth is, still shooters will benefit from the extra sauce they put into the R5 that allows it to do 8k ff raw. That takes some serious data crunching.
p.16 #5 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
lighthound wrote:
Agreed. The R6 is the better value between them. For the reasons you mention, I thought long and hard about going with the R6.
But I ultimately decided to go with the R5 for those 45 pickles. I looked through my images that I've been shooting with my 32.5mp cropper + 500II + 1.4III and even at that length I find myself cropping a fair bit on small song birds. The thought of having to crop deep into a 20mp file is what pushed me to spend a few bucks more. I'm always reach limited it seems except on furry critters such as bear, elk or deer. I think if they would have put a 30mp in that puppy I would have gone with it.
I couldn't care less about 8k video but might play around with 4k/120 or 1080/120 when they release the rumored firmware for it.
I recall numerous times, when I'd bitch about have video crap stuffed in our stills cameras, I was told by all the video kids that we aren't paying any extra for having video in our still cameras, so I guess it's just a free bonus.
I joke about that but the truth is, still shooters will benefit from the extra sauce they put into the R5 that allows it to do 8k ff raw. That takes some serious data crunching.
I'm honestly on the fence, but cost is a big consideration. I crop a lot too. I mainly use my 100-400 for kids soccer, air shows, and the occasional birding session. Reach is an issue for all three. The good news is that from what I can tell so far, an R6 won't be any worse and will likely still be a slight improvement over my current bodies. I also have a 1.4x III TC which isn't useful at all for soccer on the 100-400 now, but the R6's improved AF may make it workable. So I can get some reach back there. The way I look at it, the R6 gets me 90% of what I want in a new camera, and doesn't give up anything, for a much more affordable price.
p.16 #7 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
lighthound wrote:
Agreed. The R6 is the better value between them. For the reasons you mention, I thought long and hard about going with the R6.
But I ultimately decided to go with the R5 for those 45 pickles. I looked through my images that I've been shooting with my 32.5mp cropper + 500II + 1.4III and even at that length I find myself cropping a fair bit on small song birds. The thought of having to crop deep into a 20mp file is what pushed me to spend a few bucks more. I'm always reach limited it seems except on furry critters such as bear, elk or deer. I think if they would have put a 30mp in that puppy I would have gone with it.
I couldn't care less about 8k video but might play around with 4k/120 or 1080/120 when they release the rumored firmware for it.
I recall numerous times, when I'd bitch about have video crap stuffed in our stills cameras, I was told by all the video kids that we aren't paying any extra for having video in our still cameras, so I guess it's just a free bonus.
I joke about that but the truth is, still shooters will benefit from the extra sauce they put into the R5 that allows it to do 8k ff raw. That takes some serious data crunching.
p.16 #8 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
Mike_5D wrote:
I'm honestly on the fence, but cost is a big consideration. I crop a lot too. I mainly use my 100-400 for kids soccer, air shows, and the occasional birding session. Reach is an issue for all three. The good news is that from what I can tell so far, an R6 won't be any worse and will likely still be a slight improvement over my current bodies. I also have a 1.4x III TC which isn't useful at all for soccer on the 100-400 now, but the R6's improved AF may make it workable. So I can get some reach back there. The way I look at it, the R6 gets me 90% of what I want in a new camera, and doesn't give up anything, for a much more affordable price. ...Show more →
p.16 #9 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
They may one day.
bobbytan wrote:
The RF lens' shorter flange distance allows for "much greater flexibility in lens design" ... but why can't they make the lenses more compact and lighter than they are?
p.16 #10 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
Dj R wrote
I bet you have an R6 by October!
Possibly, but I'd rather wait until discounts, GAS sales, or angry spouse sales appear on FM.
Another option would be to get a used 5D4. It would be almost even money after selling the 5D3 and 7D2 and is better than either in almost every way, though not dramatically so. It's more of an incremental upgrade than the big leap that the R6/R5 are. It also doesn't require buying a lens adapter or new batteries or memory cards for best performance. The only thing is, getting the 5D4 now pretty much takes the R6 off the table in the future as losing that many megapickles would be hard. Still, the R6 is hundreds more than a used 5D4 today and may be for a while.
p.16 #12 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
Dj R wrote:
R6 portrait session
I thought the locations looked familiar. The last location (trail) she shot is a trail I use for training when I am preparing for my running races. Lucky for her my races are cancelled this year or I may have come running through behind the model ruining the shots.
p.16 #13 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
That’s pretty crazy. Is she a popular photographer in your region?
burningheart wrote:
I thought the locations looked familiar. The last location (trail) she shot is a trail I use for training when I am preparing for my running races. Lucky for her my races are cancelled this year or I may have come running through behind the model ruining the shots.
p.16 #18 · Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs
So it appears that this won't be a vloggers camera at the higher video modes, based on how long it took to cool down the camera just to do more. Two hours and the camera still had reduced recording capacity.
So this would be good for small clips through an event maybe while being a primary stills camera, which is fine with me.
Can't wait for the global shutter singularity 