cputeq wrote:
I feel ya -- I shot with 42MP Sonys before getting my R6 and so dropping to 'only' 20MP was a big mental challenge.
Honestly, though, I really don't print all that much any longer and even if I did, 20MP is plenty. Most of my stuff is just shared online and maybe one day I'll make a big 5x7" photo album but otherwise, the big resolution goes to waste most of the time for me.
I mean yes, I have a few shots that are big crops (from my 42mp bodies) and then still really usable (for whatever reason the crop was a better composition than the original shot) but honestly the 20MP isn't as big of a deal breaker as I thought.
Also helps I've been shooting exclusively with the RX 10 IV (also 20MP) for a few months, so I sorta adjusted to the pixel count already.
I could see people with high-res monitors having a really hard time because going to 1:1 with a high res monitor + 20MP sensor would barely be a crop -- I'm still rocking a 1920x1200 (16:10) IPS monitor, so zooming 1:1 on a 20MP image still gives a good sense of cropability. ...Show more →
I know what you mean. When I shot the wedding of my daughter, I purchased the R because of the amount of images and and what she would be using them for. I also shot many posed shots with the a7R4, and found them better to work with and final outcome -- but (and a big but) files were cumbersome to work with. I do find the larger files produce better results after PP, so I tend that direction, even for smaller uses. This comes in particularly handy with subjects like buildings, where images are frequently edited to fix tilt, resulting in a fair amount of image cropping (around 20% image loss with wide angles). I also frequently use two (or more) images as composite photos, for more striking fine details and smoother transitional tones. So the net result is a considerably larger than an individual a7R4 61MP image -- yet most times it is reduced to something much smaller for web publishing.
On the other hand, I just purchased a used 16MP APS-C camera, the tiny Canon T3i, here on the B&S. This is just for fun and use in inclement weather. With EF-S 18-135 lens, the total came to just over $200. It is a great little camera to play around with, and with decent imaging (I used to own a T2i, which was a image and technology upgrade from my then bread and butter 5D, used for events and even some architecture). This time, I wanted something a little more detailed than a recently re-acquired Canon 20D, with its 8MP sensor. So, I am not immune to the lure of smaller images. (And maybe showing my crazy side a little!)
I do still have the 21MP 1Ds3 when I get the craving for nice images in that range, and who knows -- after all this blather, it should not surprise anyone to see me get an R6 in a year or two!
I really appreciate all the great examples and testimonials posted here. Thank so much for keeping the forum fresh with your images and insights.
Gunzorro wrote:
I really appreciate all the great examples and testimonials posted here. Thank so much for keeping the forum fresh with your images and insights.
I hear ya man, thanks for the input. Honestly if the R5 was like $3000, I would have jumped on it. I like the look of downsampled hi-res sensors (even if just 1600px for FM).
That said, the 45MP is literally the only thing I want from the R5 vs the R6 -- don't care about top plate, 8K, EVF, and prefer 2x SD of the R6, so paying $1300 just for 25MP, while nice, was just too much of a stretch for me.
And from what I've seen, even after downsampling, the R6 has the slight edge on High ISO. I usually don't shoot ISO-ludicrous, but I found that interesting.
So as someone who swapped over from an A7III, I can confidently say the R6 can easily match the Sony in terms of DR and I don't feel any difference when editing the files in terms of DR/Shadow recovery. For example the image below is at ISO 100 and only adjusted in LR and not much usual full edit in PS.
Before
After
The adjustments
I was really impressed with the tiny amount of noise from such a large push which I usually wouldn't do, but wanted to as a test.
Just getting out to try this out for three second time after messing with a few setting to test out. All taken at the dog park this morning with frost on the ground. Got the ef adapter for the r6 so all these are with the canon 135mm f2.0 shot at 1/1250 f2.5 and between 100-160 iso.
dhracer1067 wrote:
Just getting out to try this out for three second time after messing with a few setting to test out. All taken at the dog park this morning with frost on the ground. Got the ef adapter for the r6 so all these are with the canon 135mm f2.0 shot at 1/1250 f2.5 and between 100-160 iso.
cputeq wrote:
These are nice. Were you using servo or single-shot for AF mode? Curious to know how the 135 did with tracking if you were using servo.
I was using servo tracking af with animal eye detection enabled. I got a pretty good hit rate. Much better than I would have gotten with the 6d mk2. They are all over the place so it's basically impossible to position yourself for a good angle. Just having them in focus is really nice.
Nothing amazing here. I'm just crazy about how well and easy it is to get focus on the eye. The r6 has worked quite well with action but even just a picture of my dog on the couch is so much easier. The 6dmkii made these pictures look hard to get compared to the r6. Only thing I can say is eye focus is hard to use with a sleepy subject with eyelids closed. It gets confused but once I can get the doggy to open her eyes it finds it and sucks with it faster then I can hit the button to catch her yawning. I haven't been able to try this body it much but I can't wait for some mtb races I can test it on.
Photo canon 135mm f2.0 at iso100 f2.8 1/160 speed light shit into a relative umbrella.
Not the best angle but the sharpness right on the eye has me super stoked
dhracer1067 wrote:
Nothing amazing here. I'm just crazy about how well and easy it is to get focus on the eye. The r6 has worked quite well with action but even just a picture of my dog on the couch is so much easier. The 6dmkii made these pictures look hard to get compared to the r6. Only thing I can say is eye focus is hard to use with a sleepy subject with eyelids closed. It gets confused but once I can get the doggy to open her eyes it finds it and sucks with it faster then I can hit the button to catch her yawning. I haven't been able to try this body it much but I can't wait for some mtb races I can test it on.
Photo canon 135mm f2.0 at iso100 f2.8 1/160 speed light shit into a relative umbrella.
Not the best angle but the sharpness right on the eye has me super stoked
cputeq wrote:
Yeah i am thinking about setting up the camera to change from eye to spot af using 2 back buttons to avoid situations where eye af goes wonky!
Also, don’t let your speed lights shit in your umbrellas (lol). (Your second to last sentence)
Ha should have been shot into reflective umbrella.
I've been playing with having one back button toggle eye focus on or off, and another one that toggles between focus tracking, spot focus, and multi point focus. I only have 3 of the 5or 6 options selected. If I move away from tracking then the joystick is really easy to pick a spot or kind of move the multi point to a certain zone or area. I tried using the control ring to change the focus types but the feedback isn't there. So right now the three back buttons are set to toggle servo/single shot, eye tracking on or of, then toggle between the 3af modes I have checked off. Trying to minimize having to use the back screen to change settings. Then I just have the m.fn button how it came to change between drive modes. Still don't think there is a way to set the camera to use the view finder and rear screen how I would prefer it to work
