rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #12 · R5 Mark II vs. R6 Mark III | |
aCuria wrote:
I think the R5ii is better for photography.
The R6iii sensor readout is roughly 1/74 s, which is far slower than the effective readout of a mechanical shutter (around 1/250 s). For subjects that demand shutter speeds faster than 1/74s to prevent motion blur, the slow electronic readout introduces rolling-shutter distortion. In those situations, mechanical shutter should be used.
The trade-off is that the mechanical shutter caps the burst rate at 12 fps instead of the 40 fps offered by the electronic shutter. But in practical terms, any subject that actually benefits from 40 fps is also moving fast enough that rolling-shutter artifacts become problematic.
So for real-world action shooting, the R6iii effectively behaves like a 12 fps camera, because using 40 fps comes with substantial rolling-shutter drawbacks.
While the R6iii is far and away less gimped than expected from Canon (remember the 6Dii?), the R5ii is clearly the more capable camera by a wide margin....Show more →
I would also love a faster sensor in the R6III and that it's spec-wise not a significant gain over the R6II in this respect, likely means I won't get one.
That said, a couple points:
1) The R6III is currently very competitive in its price category. Ignoring used options, there is nothing better with respect to sensor readout speed in FF in its category. Nikon closed the gap with the Z6III and Sony is still way behind with their a7 non-r line (who knows what the a7V will bring, though rumors suggest it won't be stacked).
2) "So for real-world action shooting, the R6iii effectively behaves like a 12 fps camera, because using 40 fps comes with substantial rolling-shutter drawbacks." On paper, such a black and white statement would appear to be true. From my experience in real world situations shooting sports with the R6II at 40fps in e-shutter, which has a sensor nearly as fast as the R6III, there are a lot of shades of gray.
Yes, there are definitely situations where rolling shutter can be seen. But because it can be seen doesn't necessarily mean it will be noticed or even ruin a given photo. Often times it's impossible to identify rolling shutter distortion in single, isolated images, without access to the entire sequence from which they originated. Naturally this is not a blanket statement as there are sports where it would be more easily noticeable, such as a curved baseball bat, or an oblong soccer ball or basketball. Yet in football (American), the ball is already oblong. Slap shots with composite hockey sticks have huge flex.
"While the R6iii is far and away less gimped than expected from Canon (remember the 6Dii?), the R5ii is clearly the more capable camera by a wide margin."
Yes, the R5II is definitely the more capable camera. It's also more expensive and thus in a different product category. For pretty much all of my non-sports work, the R6III would be perfectly fine and the R5II's advantage would not make much practical difference in my ability to create the types of photos I do. Therefore the margin would be very small and actually more about 'quality of life' conveniences for me. I've shot with the R6, R6II, R7, R3 (only a little), R5 (only a little), R5II and R1. I enjoy photographing what I do most with the R1. It's simply the most responsive camera I've ever used. The R5II is pretty close in many situations. With these two cameras, 'work' feels easier and I'd prefer to stretch for an R5II for this reason (resolution isn't even a consideration) if the decision was between the R6III and R5II. But the reality is that I could also do most of that work more than acceptably with the R6III because I already do so with the R6II.
One last thing: in the R5II class, the Nikon Z8 has a much faster stacked sensor. So why even bother with the R5II?
|
