turbodude wrote:
hes likely not shooting in electronic shutter. which nets about 12fps. as stated if using electronic shutter, the r5 is almost useless for sports that have a ball. What sport do they shoot? and is it at the Pro level, as in MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA
Read the post above yours. HS and high level D1 and a smidge of motor sports. not sure if he has shot nfl yet. All ES.
timgangloff wrote:
Read the post above yours. HS and high level D1 and a smidge of motor sports. not sure if he has shot nfl yet. All ES.
ahh, i believe that could be the reason he hasnt seen any issues yet. at the pro level, stuff gets funky. its really cripples an otherwise fantastic camera for pro sports use.
As far as R5 distortion, I've actually been pleasantly surprised with how infrequently it shows wing distortion. But it still does and it still can ruin shots. A bigger issue for me is the leaning vertical lines of trees or grass in my bokeh with panning BIF. I still use ES most of the time on the R5 but it can catch you out.
I truly was amazed by the A9 when I tested electronic shutter shots up to 1/32,000 sec without noticeable rolling shutter. I'm surprised Sony doesn't emphasize that more. They seemed to be with the A1, but that same technology exists in both A9's.
Simply amazing. I can't remember ever needing the mechanical shutter.
turbodude wrote:
ahh, i believe that could be the reason he hasnt seen any issues yet. at the pro level, stuff gets funky. its really cripples an otherwise fantastic camera for pro sports use.
Yes, I think it has more to do with the sports he is shooting, basketball and football, than the level as these d1 players are often pro sports guys the next year. He's making it work and the other big 3 wire service guy I am friends with just got the r5. He is in a bigger city and will shoot just about all of the HS, D1 and pro level sports. I'll be curious to hear his take. I think he recently sold the 1dxII I sold him a couple years back when I went Sony.
But, many people don't realize that there are many "sports" guys who make a living shooting sports at a level less than pro and their cameras serve double duty, action and sportrait type images and they simply can't afford the 1dxIII. Many guys make substantial portion of their income shooting youth sports and there are probably a lot more of them than there are guys who shoot pro sports exclusively.
And "sports" doesn't always mean action stuff. Lots of money is made in the team and individual arena (where I make most of my money) and having a fast and accurate eye AF is more important than capturing fast action. So, the r5 successfully fills that gap. Sure, it has some compromises, but it's still a fantastic "sports" camera. In fact, I would never go back to a DSLR for this kind of paid work.
Also, I'd suggest that in this covid era where on field shooters have largely been eliminated, having more MP has become even more important as shooters are capturing images from the stands and are even more focal length challenged. This is one reason the Alpha 1 is on order for me. Our local D1 basketball teams has the media shooting from 4 positions in the stands in a large 18,000 person arena. One of those positions in on the second tier...a long ways from the court. No more baseline shooting.
Bottom line is that I do like the sensor readout speed of the Sony's over the R5, but the R5 is being used to shoot sports professionally even with it's limitations. On the flip side, Canon has some fantastic glass for the R5 that Sony doesn't have, yet. The 300 and 500 come to mind. Many Canon shooters have these lenses already, so the R5 is a better choice for them.
turbodude wrote:
the r5 electronic shutter readout is atrocious. every pro sports photog i know thats tried it immediately switched back to their 1dxmk3. the r5 distorts footballs, soccer balls, and basketballs to a level where no editor will take it as a usable frame.
I have not seen a really good measurement, but it seems that the ES curtains in the 1DX3 and R5 move at approximately the same speed, ~1/60 sec to sweep the sensor. Consequently they will see the same distortion in ES mode.
I don't know if this is of interest to anyone but here is a Google Drive link to the 3200 through 25600 jpegs processed out of LR with all Sharpening, NR and Color NR turned off. Also no output sharpening.
dclark wrote:
I have not seen a really good measurement, but it seems that the ES curtains in the 1DX3 and R5 move at approximately the same speed, ~1/60 sec to sweep the sensor. Consequently they will see the same distortion in ES mode.
moved back to there 1dx for the fast mechanical shutter
arbitrage wrote:
I don't know if this is of interest to anyone but here is a Google Drive link to the 3200 through 25600 jpegs processed out of LR with all Sharpening, NR and Color NR turned off. Also no output sharpening.
i find 12800 in these conditions perfectly acceptable, and honestly on par with the z6iiwhich was on par with my d5 up until 12800. i rarely go above that, so if i can get that type of high iso performance and 50MP, im all in. i preordered two.
twodees wrote:
Thanks Geoff. As you can compare the files to both a9ii and R5, what do you think?
I think they look really good. Just turning on Color NR improves them a lot even without adding luminance NR. But to compare directly to R5 and A9II I'd probably have to wait to shoot the same scene. Maybe DPR will get their comparison widget updated if they now have access to the Adobe Prerelease. I think they always use ACR for that comparison so they are probably waiting for ACR support. Of course if they would just post up the RAW files for the studio scene then I could download them and download the A9II/R5 and compare that way.
"I do expect that there will be a fair number of people complaining about this feature (bird eye auto-focus), as we should have reasonable expectations:"
Better not to expect miracle here.
From Chris- ', and it was able to maintain the 30FPS capture rate with the 2X in APS-C mode'
I've really not used the 200600 with the 2.0tc on my a9, the 1.4 all the time. The better-half
took over the 2.0 for the FE100400 when she claimed it, post my 200600 acquisition. If I were a betting man I'll need
to add another FE 2.0 TC.
That does get me excited again for the camera. And guess what everybody...the R5 drops out of Eye-AF on dark birds with dark eyes also. Maybe the A1 will drop out a little more but we already know the A9 can nail a dark bird 90% of the time just in Zone so who cares if the Eye-AF drops out some of the time?
Come on March 4th...fingers crossed for no delay and that I'm in first shipment
Daran wrote:
Given how this works, it should be obvious that at least some fraction of the time the camera can not confirm focus, even though the focus is fine. E.g. due to vibration or excessive motion blur, that may or may not affect a shot taken at that time. For the A7R4 you will not get many BIF shots at all if you set this to focus priority. This is worse in low light, and it's likely worse still when using a TC.
Sure, that would explain some scenarios where they are equivalent. But randomguy said they never see a higher percentage of shots in focus with balanced or focus priority.
"I am glad I waited because a lot of attention went to a review video that states that the camera is not capable of shooting 30FPS. It turns out that they used the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 GM lens which needs a firmware update to achieve the full 30FPS that will be released sometime soon. I tested the a1 with my workhorse lenses (and teleconverters) and can confirm that the following lenses and teleconverters are all capable of capturing 30FPS in COMPRESSED RAW (The capture rate is slower using uncompressed RAW):
Sony 600/4 GM
Sony 600/4 GM with 1.4X
Sony 600/4 with 2X
Sony 200-600
Sony 200-600 with 1.4X
Sony 200-600 with 2X"
An interesting find was how well the affordable 200-600mm worked with both the 1.4X and 2X, and it was able to maintain the 30FPS capture rate with the 2X in APS-C mode which resulted in a 23-24MB file during my tests. The 200-600 is a great and affordable lens that costs about 20% of the prime 600/4 GM, so there are trade-offs. The AF acquisition and tracking speed are slowed down and the image quality is slightly degraded when the 2X is used, but it still offers remarkably good results."
--Christopher Dodds
Good to hear. Yes, the studio scenes would be perfect.
arbitrage wrote:
I think they look really good. Just turning on Color NR improves them a lot even without adding luminance NR. But to compare directly to R5 and A9II I'd probably have to wait to shoot the same scene. Maybe DPR will get their comparison widget updated if they now have access to the Adobe Prerelease. I think they always use ACR for that comparison so they are probably waiting for ACR support. Of course if they would just post up the RAW files for the studio scene then I could download them and download the A9II/R5 and compare that way.
