rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Rudy Pohl wrote:
I know what you mean. If it wasn't for the amazing capabilities of digital stabilization in Davinci Resolve, I probably would have packed it in with the R5 for video by now.
The news gets even worse when shooting video with an R5 on a tripod when using the RF100-500 lens. After 10 seconds the lens detects that it's on a tripod and shuts off the IS which in turn shuts of the IBIS. Your rig is now left without any stabilization at all and the minute you touch the camera to make any kind of adjustment or movement, the image shakes like it's in an earthquake. Very bad and happens all the time. Thankfully Davinci Resolve's "Classic Stabilization" method makes this kind of footage rock solid like its on a locked down tripod. DR saves the day again....Show more →
I just tried the 100-500 over the weekend for the first time, both stills and some video. One thing that turned me off a bit is that the zoom ring had uneven resistance through its range, which pretty much made zooming by hand difficult to do smoothly for video. How do you deal with this, or do you just not zoom it? And yes, I had it set to the smoothest, least resistance setting.
Optically though, I was pretty impressed with it. It seemed at least as good/sharp as my 200-400.
tomasr wrote:
40 fps is where it gets interesting. I personally find 20fps to be overkill, like I have to spend serious time picking The shot from like 60 frames. Imagine 1 out of 120. The good news is II can be customised and be set at less than 20fps while mk1 is stuck at either 1 or full 20. Curiously I have seen reviews claiming mk1 has a larger buffer and I can shoot a few good s to a fairly slow gen II SD card, whereas mkII just stops after 2s if that is correct. Anyway I am not a sports shooter, so that's only relevant if I want to be able to pick the sharpest shot at marginal settings or avoiding blinkies in a group shot.
The sensor upgrade is very relevant if it significantly improves 1) SNR, 2) rolling shutter 3) removed AA filter. +4MP is nice but has a long way to go to match even A7IV, let alone R5, and sometimes smaller files just means lower overhead for editing when clients just need images for web, and that's a lot of my work.
So maybe Canon just ran out of 20MP sensors, or 24MP one is much cheaper to make and they just threw in a few minor upgrades along the way.
...Show more →
This risks further sidetracking the thread, but it's a rumor thread and going in circles anyway... 
I've recently been using 40fps for sports more and it does actually make a difference, for the better, if you want/need more selection of a given moment. If a play is only half a second, that's about 10 extra frames compared to 20fps and 15 extra frames compared to 10fps. Yes, I'm shooting 2x more images at a game, but because focus is generally spot on, I just find relevant sequences and quickly scan thumbnails to pick best peak action and it's usually perfectly sharp. Compared to DSLRs I'm actually spending less time selecting images because I don't have to check each frame in a sequence to find those sharper than the rest.
Regarding buffer, I believe the R6 and R6II have identical buffer size but the R6II has a higher resolution sensor which means fewer images in the buffer before it fills. If there is one more thing I wish Canon had improved with the R6II, it's buffer size. 50% more would have been nice. 2x would have been great.
While the R6II might not compete against the a7IV in terms of sensor resolution, it blows it away if you want to shoot action in e-shutter (to take advantage of 20/40fps) because rolling shutter distortion is much less noticeable. With Sony I'd feel compelled to get into the a9 space, which perhaps a used a9 might not be that far off a new R6II... But the other 'problem' with Sony is they don't have the sports lens I find most useful (200-400/4 with internal 1.4x TC).
Before 'settling' on the R6II, I also demoed the R5 at sports events and while the higher resolution was nice, I felt that it also required a lot better technique to benefit from it. And that's just difficult to do under less than ideal circumstances. Often working at higher ISOs also robs some resolution, micro motion blur, camera shake, etc. But if an R5II brings similar improvements to that of the R6II, plus maybe a few more, it would be a compelling camera and I could still live with it if not stacked sensor.
|
