IndyFab wrote:
Thanks, I guess everyone is going through the process of trial and error presently to see what yields the best performance for action shooting
RF adapter to EF and use EF TC and lens
vs
All RF lenses & TC
Yes you are correct. Mounting the RF -TC to the body, then the adapter to the TC followed by an EF lens won't work. It is kind of a shame because if you want to by an RF-TC to future proof you are out of luck unless you are using an RF lens.
I sold my TC's and the rest if my EF gear execpt the 100-100 II. I ordered the 100-500 and RF 1.4 along wit the R5.
Also people stack TC's but the engineers designed the protrusion that has an element to go deep into the lens. I imagine that is for optional IQ.
The RF TC's look like they go deeper. Even of you could go Camera to RF-TC to adapter to EF lens I think you would get an extension tube effect. I used a 12mm tube tube to attach my two TC's to carry around when not using them. Once I left the tube on one of the TC's by mistake and put it on. Everything got weird. I thought broke something. I think had it in between the TC and the lens but that was last year so I can't remember. I just remembering getting a little panicky.
TeamSpeed wrote:
If the R5 has a revised low pass filter that Canon claims outresolves the 5ds, then it will be even better than the 5D4 in that regard.
It does not out resolve the 5Dsr - I have seen reviews on Northrup and 5dsr is better, which is logical; aa and less mpx.
However, better than 30mpx/aa, 5dsr is way more finicky and requires perfect technique which is not as hard on the R5; so practically for animals - R5 is significantly better. Burst depth, histogram, fps, dynamic range for a theoretical 10% reduction in print size.
And for landscape - unless you can stomach the a7Riv - R5 is really good. A7R4 does not work in the winter, has lousy lcd brightness, and there are no lens that can get much better than 5DSR or R5for UWA where I do all my shooting. The only gain vs 5DSR is dynamic range. And for R5, it does not even have that.
Here are some more photos from around town. Was going to go hiking today but slept in since I had the morning off from work instead. Will head into the mountains later this week. This RF50 is a fantastic lens though its taking me a while to get used to the FL since I have been on 28/35 + 85 for years.
Loving all the birds, critters and city shots. Now it is time for someone to go out and take some serious landscape shots. What I am hoping for:
Sunset/sunrise shots testing the deep shadows and DR
Macro shots using the new focus stacking feature (dunes, flowers, etc.)
Astrophotography shots to see how the high ISO holds up and how much reduction in noise we get with this new sensor.
I am just sitting here all bummed that I don't have my new kit and can only live vicariously through others and their shots!
gilgabo wrote:
Eye focus, especially animal eye focus, is the real deal....very impressive
That's been my experience too in the very brief time I used the R5 tonight alongside my A7RIV.
So far,
Pros:
-Eye-AF and general AF tracking in low light in vastly superior to the A7RIV
-Shutter sound and feel is much better than A7RIV
-Better colors even after WB adjustment, particularly in raised shadows. The A7RIV has a lot of green color noise. R5 is more magenta which is more pleasing in the few tests I did. I'm assuming this will translate to better skintones when pulling shadows too.
Cons:
-A7RIV + 135mm GM unsurprisingly outresolves the R5 + 70-200mm RF by a fair margin.
-I really miss having a 4-way directional pad/wheel on the A7RIV. Hopefully I can get used to the spin-only R5 dial.
-Not sure if I'm going to like the fully articulating display as much being off-axis and needing an extra step to tilt.
-Strange banding/moire at high ISO after using one of my Lightroom presets with sharpening, contrast, etc. Not sure what exactly is causing it or if it'll be an issue. Downsized JPEG's below and I made another thread about it. The full size JPEGs + edited DNGs in Lightroom show the issue more: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qwpOj2mXc51CtHBkhMqJ5m6PpJ9OiJdU?usp=sharing
Overall the AF is the biggest improvement and I'm excited about the size of the RF 70-200mm for travel. But I still wonder how an A9/A9II would compare at 24mp, high ISO performance, AF, etc. I now have an A7RIV, R5, A7SIII on pre-order, and still wonder if I should ever try out the A9/A9II to see how it compares. RF 15-35mm f2.8 comes in tomorrow and I'll be comparing it to the 16-35mm GM. The GAS is real
AlphaPhotography wrote:
RF 15-35mm f2.8 comes in tomorrow and I'll be comparing it to the 16-35mm GM. The GAS is real
Please write about your thoughts on comparing those two! Either I stay with Sony and get the 16-35 GM or I switch to R5 and get the RF 15-35. A key lens for me.
Stoffer wrote:
Please write about your thoughts on comparing those two! Either I stay with Sony and get the 16-35 GM or I switch to R5 and get the RF 15-35. A key lens for me.
Will do. Based on what I've seen and read so far I think the A7RIV will still be the better/best landscape choice in terms of sharpness and resolution. The 15-35mm will be wider but I've read that it vignettes heavily at 15mm. I'm not sure how much of an issue this will be but I'll be testing it this week to find out. I think I'll end up needing the A7RIV for landscapes, R5 for portraits and general wildlife, A7SIII for reliable 4k 120fps video, and the A9II + 200-600mm + 1.4x TC for birding with 20fps electronic shutter with no rolling shutter warping...
