Imagemaster wrote:
OM-1 and other Olympus cameras are not the only cameras that have this feature:
?si=GpLYuAE87tegjfyj
Yes and no. The Canon implementation is a PITA with the special "raw burst file" format. The A9III is just saving straight out raw files that you can treat just like any other raw file. That's not a small thing either, as you don't have to change anything in your workflows to deal with them. On the other hand, its better than NOT having that function at all, as it can be crucial for getting "the shot."
jhapeman wrote:
It's a special stack of files you have to either sort through on the camera or in Canon's software--Lightroom and other apps won't work.
A real hardship. You get to immediately review your shots and delete any shots, or save them as RAW, jpeg, or HEIF files. Or you can do that later. Or you can just download the RAW images in that stack just like all the other RAW images from your camera, and you can open them in Photoshop to do what you like with them.
Imagemaster wrote:
A real hardship. You get to immediately review your shots and delete any shots, or save them as RAW, jpeg, or HEIF files. Or you can do that later. Or you can just download the RAW images in that stack just like all the other RAW images from your camera, and you can open them in Photoshop to do what you like with them.
What a terrible feature Canon.
Honestly culling shots on a tiny screen is a really bad idea and a waste of time. You can't really judge critical sharpness, for example. A hardship? No, but not exactly a smartly-implemented feature either.
jhapeman wrote:
Honestly culling shots on a tiny screen is a really bad idea and a waste of time. You can't really judge critical sharpness, for example. A hardship? No, but not exactly a smartly-implemented feature either.
So if you can't cope with it, don't use it. What part of having the option of downloading the images and culling in Photoshop did you miss?
It is a great feature and accomplishes what it is supposed to. Bad Canon for giving us the two options.
Imagemaster wrote:
So if you can't cope with it, don't use it. What part of having the option of downloading the images and culling in Photoshop did you miss?
It is a great feature and accomplishes what it is supposed to. Bad Canon for giving us the two options.
Last I checked this was a thread on the Sony A9III? Is there a reason you're trolling the thread with pointless comments about other systems? Or you can admit that the issue was never whether Sony did it first or not, but rather that they have implemented it and implemented it very well. It's highly flexible, doesnt require any in-camera fiddling around and can even handle 120fps with ease. All great stuff. What Olympus or Canon do on some camera models is kind of irrelevant to the thread at hand.
Imagemaster wrote:
A real hardship. You get to immediately review your shots and delete any shots, or save them as RAW, jpeg, or HEIF files. Or you can do that later. Or you can just download the RAW images in that stack just like all the other RAW images from your camera, and you can open them in Photoshop to do what you like with them.
What a terrible feature Canon.
How do you download the RAW images in the stack like all other RAW images and open them in other software ?
As far as I can tell the only software that can extract the individual RAW files from the stack file is the Canon software - did I miss something ?
jhapeman wrote:
Last I checked this was a thread on the Sony A9III? Is there a reason you're trolling the thread with pointless comments about other systems? Or you can admit that the issue was never whether Sony did it first or not, but rather that they have implemented it and implemented it very well. It's highly flexible, doesnt require any in-camera fiddling around and can even handle 120fps with ease. All great stuff. What Olympus or Canon do on some camera models is kind of irrelevant to the thread at hand.
Just ignore them - times like this I go and read the Desiderata.
RoamingScott wrote:
Came to look at pics, see nothing but a pointless, off topic argument about...Canon...
Glad this stupidity isn't just contained to the Nikon forum.
. I would like to upload shots here but the system and constraints here make it too much of a PITA. All of my bird photos go on eBird, which can't be embedded here, and I save at a resolution that FM can't handle either. I wish they changed the settings here to keep up with the larger file sizes we have today.
Let's see if I can embed a shot or two here from Flickr.
jhapeman wrote: . I would like to upload shots here but the system and constraints here make it too much of a PITA. All of my bird photos go on eBird, which can't be embedded here, and I save at a resolution that FM can't handle either. I wish they changed the settings here to keep up with the larger file sizes we have today.
Let's see if I can embed a shot or two here from Flickr.
Ditch everything in your photo link except the exact URL of the jpg, like this (quote this to see). The way you did it makes the entire thread stretch stupidly wide off even a 5k monitor. Plus it makes the noise look horrid and we don't need fuel for that conversation, do we?
RoamingScott wrote:
Ditch everything in your photo link except the exact URL of the jpg, like this (quote this to see). The way you did it makes the entire thread stretch stupidly wide off even a 5k monitor.
Anddddd this is why I don't post photos here. It's 2024. Everywhere else auto-fits stuff but this is on such ancient code. I don't need to spend my time figuring out the quirks of linking here and I don't want to make tiny images just to share here.
jhapeman wrote:
Anddddd this is why I don't post photos here. It's 2024. Everywhere else auto-fits stuff but this is on such ancient code. I don't need to spend my time figuring out the quirks of linking here and I don't want to make tiny images just to share here.
I literally just told and showed you how to easily do it. No need to be a drama queen about it.
RoamingScott wrote:
I literally just told and showed you how to easily do it. No need to be a drama queen about it.
Yeah that didnt work either. I upload even my small images at 4K. I figured it out on the Flickr side but come on, being a drama queen is half the reason for the existence of Internet forums. Maybe more than half.
RoamingScott wrote:
Ditch everything in your photo link except the exact URL of the jpg, like this (quote this to see). The way you did it makes the entire thread stretch stupidly wide off even a 5k monitor. Plus it makes the noise look horrid and we don't need fuel for that conversation, do we?
jhapeman wrote:
Yeah that didnt work either. I upload even my small images at 4K. I figured it out on the Flickr side but come on, being a drama queen is half the reason for the existence of Internet forums. Maybe more than half.
What do you mean it didn't work ?
Bear in mind if it is in quoted text it won't show the image.
jhapeman wrote:
The Canon implementation is a PITA with the special "raw burst file" format.
As an R7 user myself I don’t understand this thing either. It looks like a lazy engineering to me. Someone at Canon saved 10 minutes of their software development time by dumping everything into one file instead of storing each file individually.
Imagemaster wrote:
OM-1 and other Olympus cameras are not the only cameras that have this feature:
?si=GpLYuAE87tegjfyj
I just wanted to clarify my post was not about OM-1 ProCapture but about predictability that helps with whatever pre/pro/etc-capture is available on a particular system.
I spent a couple of days trying to figure this thing out and here's what I got so far:
- On small erratic birds pre-capture works if the bird is not moving significantly on the Z axis
- For the Z-axis movement it pretty much always loses focus at first and needs about ~1/5-1/4s to grasp focus again
I tried with the 600/4 and 400/2.8+1.4x TC, relatively close to MFD (in a blind). Apparently it would work better if there is more space / deeper DoF.
I would love to hear from other A9III users about their observations.
docusync wrote:
As an R7 user myself I don’t understand this thing either. It looks like a lazy engineering to me. Someone at Canon saved 10 minutes of their software development time by dumping everything into one file instead of storing each file individually.
I just wanted to clarify my post was not about OM-1 ProCapture but about predictability that helps with whatever pre/pro/etc-capture is available on a particular system.
I spent a couple of days trying to figure this thing out and here's what I got so far:
- On small erratic birds pre-capture works if the bird is not moving significantly on the Z axis
- For the Z-axis movement it pretty much always loses focus at first and needs about ~1/5-1/4s to grasp focus again
I tried with the 600/4 and 400/2.8+1.4x TC, relatively close to MFD (in a blind). Apparently it would work better if there is more space / deeper DoF.
I would love to hear from other A9III users about their observations....Show more →
Yes, I have been able to spend about 3 hours out near my feeders (in the freezing cold) and I 100% would concur with you--if they come towards you there is a delay to capture focus again, however I'd say its more like 1/15-/130s after I turned the Bird setting to be head-eye only and the stickiness to 5. Before that it was more like what you were seeing.
Further away it's much better. I was also using my 600/4 and also close the the MFD. One thing I would add is that you need shockingly high shutter speeds at the MFD with small birds. Even 1/4000s was often not enough.
. I would like to upload shots here but the system and constraints here make it too much of a PITA. All of my bird photos go on eBird, which can't be embedded here, and I save at a resolution that FM can't handle either. I wish they changed the settings here to keep up with the larger file sizes we have today. 