Still waiting for my R5, although the adapter came in.
This may be a silly question, but:
Why would I use crop mode on the R5 which has a 17Mp resolution vs just shooting at 45Mp and cropping in Light Room?
Is it just a work flow thing?
Maybe it's for photojournalists who can't crop in post but need more "reach". Personally, I've never used any camera's crop mode because I can do a much better job composing on a 27" monitor than 0.5" viewfinder or 3" LCD.
The main advantage, considering that there is one, is considerably lower file size, resulting in faster data transfer with less of a 'load" on the Processor, equating to some degree, however marginal, of reduced heat buildup, and less Battery power consumption.
Not at all a silly question. I often wondered about that too. Sy Sez offered some good reasons. Also, I believe eye AF is more reliable because the image is larger in the VF and especially when the subject is in deep shadow or backlit.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Still waiting for my R5, although the adapter came in.
This may be a silly question, but:
Why would I use crop mode on the R5 which has a 17Mp resolution vs just shooting at 45Mp and cropping in Light Room?
Is it just a work flow thing?
As one who has shot crop bodies for 16 years and shoots mostly wildlife, here are my reasons:
* smaller files being written to the card (more photos on the card)
* smaller files being written to the card (faster clearing of the camera buffer)
* Faster download of images to computer (particularly valuable when on a high-intensity trip & little free time)
* Less space consumed on computer
* Faster backups of files from computer (both offsite and external (or internal) onsite)
* Faster processing on the computer (such as initial LR rendering)
* More representative in viewer of what the photo will look like after PP
* Easier to see in-camera any small obstructions (eg. fine branches) in front of object (so can change position)
* AF may be better (perhaps depends on the camera)
One thing that is intriguing about the crop mode on the FF is the ability shoot an environmental or animalscape photo in FF and then switch to crop mode to compose and capture that tight shot.
I would see crop mode being used when there is no doubt that photo would be cropped in PP. If there is any doubt, then don't go in that mode. For example, if taking images of something stationary, crop mode might be great. If now preparing for flight shots from the perch, FF may be a better choice so there is no chance of clipping wings.
bobbytan wrote:
I believe eye AF is more reliable because the image is larger in the VF and especially when the subject is in deep shadow or backlit.
This sounds like a truly practical reason someone might switch to crop-mode while in the field! Can anyone confirm that this is indeed the case & save me from having to stalk the neighbor's cat...
Lately, I was considering the 60mm macro because it's lighter and smaller than most other macros lenses, has good quality, and is 90mm-like for portraits if substituted for that.
If that's adapted, I think those bodies go into crop mode automatically.
JustMeOregon wrote: This sounds like a truly practical reason someone might switch to crop-mode while in the field! Can anyone confirm that this is indeed the case & save me from having to stalk the neighbor's cat...
Definitely works. Crop mode will definite pick up the eye easier. I have used it a bit. No need to stalk the cat
And why would you want to import 45MB files, slow down your work flow, and store very large files when you know that you will have to crop heavily in post and throwing a lot of the unwanted pixels anyway - to get the crop that you want? Sure makes a lot more sense to shoot in the APS-C when you need the extra reach ... vs cropping. The argument is settled as far as I am concerned.
I came from a 7D mk and started cropping to 1.6 on my new R5. Now I use the full frame as I realized that often I was missing out on the full frame of 45 MP.
Have played around a bit and now never crop. If you use C.raw the file sizes are ok.
Obviously if you don’t need the reach you would want all 45MP. That is the only reason why anyone would choose the R5 over the R6. But if your reach with your longest lens is still short, it’s just great to have a useable 1.6x crop mode in the R5.
Premnathbates wrote:
I came from a 7D mk and started cropping to 1.6 on my new R5. Now I use the full frame as I realized that often I was missing out on the full frame of 45 MP.
Have played around a bit and now never crop. If you use C.raw the file sizes are ok.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Still waiting for my R5, although the adapter came in.
This may be a silly question, but:
Why would I use crop mode on the R5 which has a 17Mp resolution vs just shooting at 45Mp and cropping in Light Room?
Is it just a work flow thing?
I use cropper mode on the A7Riv 90% of the time.
I'm not worried about file size, upload speeds or any of that. Cropper mode on the A7Riv still gives me a very usable 26mpx AND even better an almost endless buffer in RAW.
I plan to not use cropper on the R5 when it gets here but do plan on shooting in CRAW. Me thinking on the R5 CRAW and the CFe cards will offer plenty of buffer.....but not actually knowing since it is not in hand yet.
CRAW is great for compressing file size. I will probably do that too. The APS-C mode is strictly for the extra reach. You don’t use that mode simply to reduce your file size. If don’t want or need big files get the R6.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
I use cropper mode on the A7Riv 90% of the time.
I'm not worried about file size, upload speeds or any of that. Cropper mode on the A7Riv still gives me a very usable 26mpx AND even better an almost endless buffer in RAW.
I plan to not use cropper on the R5 when it gets here but do plan on shooting in CRAW. Me thinking on the R5 CRAW and the CFe cards will offer plenty of buffer.....but not actually knowing since it is not in hand yet.
Bobby I'm just now seeing CFe cards get faster and faster write speeds the larger their capacity. Kinda wish I'd noticed that earlier perusing cards at B/H. I ordered the 256gb Prograde as main, it gets 1400 write speed...my backup CFe to keep in the wallet is the Lexar 128gb and it has a paultry 1000 write speed. Buy bigger or stay at home
I doubt I'll need the 128gb since 256gb divided by 45mb is over 5000 images but I'll keep a spare regardless.
Hey Robert! I got the ProGrade 256GB card too when it was on offer for $199. And I got the Delkin Devices card reader which is pretty nice.
MedicineMan404 wrote:
Bobby I'm just now seeing CFe cards get faster and faster write speeds the larger their capacity. Kinda wish I'd noticed that earlier perusing cards at B/H. I ordered the 256gb Prograde as main, it gets 1400 write speed...my backup CFe to keep in the wallet is the Lexar 128gb and it has a paultry 1000 write speed. Buy bigger or stay at home
mdvaden wrote:
How about also choosing an EF-S lens.
Lately, I was considering the 60mm macro because it's lighter and smaller than most other macros lenses, has good quality, and is 90mm-like for portraits if substituted for that.
If that's adapted, I think those bodies go into crop mode automatically.
If you don't need 1:1 macro and are fine with 1:2, the upcoming RF85 f/2.0 might be a good substitute for the EF-S 60mm. Having said that, on the M6II my copy of the 60mm is sharper sharper than the 100L.
bobbytan wrote:
And why would you want to import 45MB files, slow down your work flow, and store very large files when you know that you will have to crop heavily in post and throwing a lot of the unwanted pixels anyway - to get the crop that you want? Sure makes a lot more sense to shoot in the APS-C when you need the extra reach ... vs cropping. The argument is settled as far as I am concerned.
Well, being retired and having all the time in the world (and I am not a professional photographer) work flow is not an issue for me. Further, I have plenty of storage space and a fast computer. I often go back and "play" with pics rather than clean the house or do the dishes.
Thanks for all the replies. I wish i could have gotten that deal on the CFExpress 256Mb at $199. I paid $199 for a 128MB.
koenkooi wrote:
If you don't need 1:1 macro and are fine with 1:2, the upcoming RF85 f/2.0 might be a good substitute for the EF-S 60mm. Having said that, on the M6II my copy of the 60mm is sharper sharper than the 100L.
The realm of 1:2 best fits my needs and style. Partly why I can improvise with the close focusing distance of the Tamron 35mm.
But I've been curious about the RF 85mm 2.0 macro. And it's odd that there are so few reviews on Youtube. Venessa Joy shared a little. But I'd like to see more outdoors, more macro, etc..
Isn’t this because the lens is still on pre-order?
mdvaden wrote:
But I've been curious about the RF 85mm 2.0 macro. And it's odd that there are so few reviews on Youtube. Venessa Joy shared a little. But I'd like to see more outdoors, more macro, etc..
