gkinard1952 wrote:
I am new to mirroless cameras. Going from a 7D II to the R5 II has been a lot of fun for me. But, if the readout speed is that slow it will make for a pretty poor birding camera IMO. I just shot a day of hummers and I would say 50-75 percent of the photos in electronic shutter with the R5 II were trashed due to weird warping of the wings. It was really bad.
Personally the next camera I buy will have to have a much faster read out speed or I will pass.
I guess when you go after extremes you will find some limitations of the tool for sure. Hummers...! The F1 of birds, yes. Razorbills and Black Guillemots destroyed my R7 experience. Dragonflies in flight a total disaster. I doubt my R52 will do well with the flying dragons when that season arrives within eight months or so. Damn these winters...
If DIF, or Hummers, was my main interest I would go for a global shutter, from what Iīve read. It is all about choosing the correct tool for the job. Being in photography since the 70īs, I tend to find the present gen cameras pretty competent after all.
Z250SA wrote:
I guess when you go after extremes you will find some limitations of the tool for sure. Hummers...! The F1 of birds, yes. Razorbills and Black Guillemots destroyed my R7 experience. Dragonflies in flight a total disaster. I doubt my R52 will do well with the flying dragons when that season arrives within eight months or so. Damn these winters...
If DIF, or Hummers, was my main interest I would go for a global shutter, from what Iīve read. It is all about choosing the correct tool for the job. Being in photography since the 70īs, I tend to find the present gen cameras pretty competent after all....Show more →
I use Canon because it is so cheap. Definitely not an all in one camera system. If I wanted the best I would have to pay for it. And I am not willing to do that. Sounds like you are the same. If you want to shoot with second tear gear, then it has its limitations. Looks like you know that better than I do.
thedruid wrote:
It will be interesting to see what choices people make. A R6iii with tax in my state is a few dollars short of $3k, a 9+ condition used R5ii can be had for a few hundred more.
Like so many advice request's, another totally absent of any pertinent information, as to any personal preferences, pros & cons, leaving each member to likely recommend what they would choose for their type of photography, which in many cases would be of little to no interest to the advice seeker, and a waste of time for the advisor. .
gkinard1952 wrote:
I am new to mirroless cameras. Going from a 7D II to the R5 II has been a lot of fun for me. But, if the readout speed is that slow it will make for a pretty poor birding camera IMO. I just shot a day of hummers and I would say 50-75 percent of the photos in electronic shutter with the R5 II were trashed due to weird warping of the wings. It was really bad.
Personally the next camera I buy will have to have a much faster read out speed or I will pass.
The E Shutter may not the best for Hummers, due to rolling shutter effects.
The 5D Mechanical Shutter did fairly well with Hummers.
patotts wrote:
Exactly. I could pay extra for a minty used R5 II to get the better EVF, more MP and black-out free burst shooting.
Yeah, you can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make them drink....
At least Canon has found a few people here who think this camera is a good value, but I don't get it knowing you could have an R5II for a few hundred bucks more.
artsupreme wrote:
Yeah, you can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make them drink....
At least Canon has found a few people here who think this camera is a good value, but I don't get it knowing you could have an R5II for a few hundred bucks more.
I can see it if one biases toward video since its coming out of the gates with Open Gate. The only other thing I could imagine preferring it for is if the files are in fact cleaner at higher ISO when normalized to equivalent resolution.
Outside of that, Im right there with you guys. Lol
Sy Sez wrote:
Like so many advice request's, another totally absent of any pertinent information, as to any personal preferences, pros & cons, leaving each member to likely recommend what they would choose for their type of photography, which in many cases would be of little to no interest to the advice seeker, and a waste of time for the advisor. .
artsupreme wrote:
Yeah, you can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make them drink....
At least Canon has found a few people here who think this camera is a good value, but I don't get it knowing you could have an R5II for a few hundred bucks more.
The same was said when the R6II was released: you could buy a used R5 for not a huge amount more.
So yes, this is also true now relative to the R5II - a well priced used one. Every product at time of release is at full MSRP, but as we all know, it will sooner or later settle down to a 'street price' that will reestablish more distance between the street price of a new R5II or any other camera in a different category.
I noticed that the R5 (original version) now sells new for the same price as the R6III... But again, it will depend on what features you value most. When I had the choice between an R5 and R6II, I chose the latter for specific performance related reasons. And it would be the same with the R6III (vs. the R5). But the R5II really was a significant performance improvement over the R5 in a way that the R6II was not over the R6. And I think this is what disappoints me about the R6III. It's ~5 years since the R6 and while there clearly are performance improvements with each version, the sum of those improvements is not in line with what the R5II brought over the R5.
I know there are some who feel the R5II did not bring much compared to the R5... and that seems to be fixated on MP and DR/noise performance. That misses just how much faster the R5II is with respect to fps, AF, sensor speed and overall feeling of responsiveness (especially the lack of EVF lag). And for these reasons, I now think the R5II is clearly the better 'action' camera compared to the R6III. Admittedly I have not used one yet and I don't think I will buy one just to try. My Canon rep says he won't have one until the new year at the earliest because they won't be able to pull any for samples/demos because of the high demand based on preliminary orders.
rscheffler wrote:
The same was said when the R6II was released: you could buy a used R5 for not a huge amount more.
So yes, this is also true now relative to the R5II - a well priced used one. Every product at time of release is at full MSRP, but as we all know, it will sooner or later settle down to a 'street price' that will reestablish more distance between the street price of a new R5II or any other camera in a different category.
I noticed that the R5 (original version) now sells new for the same price as the R6III... But again, it will depend on what features you value most. When I had the choice between an R5 and R6II, I chose the latter for specific performance related reasons. And it would be the same with the R6III (vs. the R5). But the R5II really was a significant performance improvement over the R5 in a way that the R6II was not over the R6. And I think this is what disappoints me about the R6III. It's ~5 years since the R6 and while there clearly are performance improvements with each version, the sum of those improvements is not in line with what the R5II brought over the R5.
I know there are some who feel the R5II did not bring much compared to the R5... and that seems to be fixated on MP and DR/noise performance. That misses just how much faster the R5II is with respect to fps, AF, sensor speed and overall feeling of responsiveness (especially the lack of EVF lag). And for these reasons, I now think the R5II is clearly the better 'action' camera compared to the R6III. Admittedly I have not used one yet and I don't think I will buy one just to try. My Canon rep says he won't have one until the new year at the earliest because they won't be able to pull any for samples/demos because of the high demand based on preliminary orders....Show more →
Agreed. I always look at the best price something can be had for whether it be new or used and go from there. I have no issues buying used as that's what I've mostly done in the past, and I rarely buy new at release, but I did this time around with the R5II's. I actually had them before release and I got a decent deal on them. I was headed out on a trip and wanted the R5II's for my travels, and I ended up keeping them instead of reverting back to my R5's. The R5 is a really amazing value right now for around $1600-$1700. I could still happily shoot R5's for several more years if I had to. I think the precapture marketing gimmick is tricking a lot of people into thinking it's something they have to have in the newer bodies, but it's results have been very underwhelming in the precapture thread I started. There's a few good images in there, but the feature is definitely not a game changer unless you want to shoot birds jumping off perches all day long, and your birds fly sideways. And AF improvements too....although the AF is definitely better on the R5II, the R5 is no slouch.
I'm also a two body shooter, so I would rather have an R5 and R6II for not much more than an R6III, and have the best of both worlds. Some people don't like buying used though, but at least there's something for everyone in all budget ranges now.
It's quite strange to compare a used price of one product to new of another. New should be compared to new and used to used. I've had nothing but problems with used cameras and would not ever buy one again.
artsupreme wrote:
Agreed. I always look at the best price something can be had for whether it be new or used and go from there. I have no issues buying used as that's what I've mostly done in the past, and I rarely buy new at release, but I did this time around with the R5II's. I actually had them before release and I got a decent deal on them. I was headed out on a trip and wanted the R5II's for my travels, and I ended up keeping them instead of reverting back to my R5's. The R5 is a really amazing value right now for around $1600-$1700. I could still happily shoot R5's for several more years if I had to. I think the precapture marketing gimmick is tricking a lot of people into thinking it's something they have to have in the newer bodies, but it's results have been very underwhelming in the precapture thread I started. There's a few good images in there, but the feature is definitely not a game changer unless you want to shoot birds jumping off perches all day long, and your birds fly sideways. And AF improvements too....although the AF is definitely better on the R5II, the R5 is no slouch.
I'm also a two body shooter, so I would rather have an R5 and R6II for not much more than an R6III, and have the best of both worlds. Some people don't like buying used though, but at least there's something for everyone in all budget ranges now. ...Show more →
There's a very useful role for pre-capture that will not get much mention on these boards because of the predominance of birding/wildlife photographers here: talking heads. Ever since my transition to mirrorless, I've been frustrated with getting good shots of people giving talks/speeches who have the tendency to look down at their notes and only briefly look up at the audience. Some people will literally look up for only half a second at most. And by the time this registers in the EVF and I take a picture, I've already missed the actual moment because of the combination of EVF and my own reaction lag. With pre-capture, it's just a matter of reacting as usual and it will save the previous half-second, which should include at least some usable images. I've also found it useful for football coverage when I want to get the full sequence a player launching off the line of scrimmage from their crouched position, among other scenarios.
I can understand the negatives about the R63 as they are argued for here. Even the "value" part, though you just donīt hear "this image would have been far better if the value of the R63 would have been better than that of a used R52".
Speaking of value, looking att how the money is distributed through the society, a camera like the R63 is rather to very expensive for most amateurs. As an enthusiast you stretch your budget, you ok three months of oat porridge just to get to the next level. Any e-bay find for a "just" 200 more? Congrats to you, but you will likely find it difficult to understand why some could find the R63 really exciting.
Z250SA wrote:
I can understand the negatives about the R63 as they are argued for here. Even the "value" part, though you just donīt hear "this image would have been far better if the value of the R63 would have been better than that of a used R52".
Speaking of value, looking att how the money is distributed through the society, a camera like the R63 is rather to very expensive for most amateurs. As an enthusiast you stretch your budget, you ok three months of oat porridge just to get to the next level. Any e-bay find for a "just" 200 more? Congrats to you, but you will likely find it difficult to understand why some could find the R63 really exciting....Show more →
Yes, a lot of these arguments over $3000-4000 cameras are definitely "first world problems", and ones for relatively wealthy first worlders at that. Meanwhile, I'm just hoping to finally catch a good enough deal on a R6Mk2 to trade up from the Mk1.
rscheffler wrote:
There's a very useful role for pre-capture that will not get much mention on these boards because of the predominance of birding/wildlife photographers here: talking heads. Ever since my transition to mirrorless, I've been frustrated with getting good shots of people giving talks/speeches who have the tendency to look down at their notes and only briefly look up at the audience. Some people will literally look up for only half a second at most. And by the time this registers in the EVF and I take a picture, I've already missed the actual moment because of the combination of EVF and my own reaction lag. With pre-capture, it's just a matter of reacting as usual and it will save the previous half-second, which should include at least some usable images. I've also found it useful for football coverage when I want to get the full sequence a player launching off the line of scrimmage from their crouched position, among other scenarios....Show more →
I hear ya, there are some uses for it, but I'm sure you can live without it as you'll just have more frames to cull.
Z250SA wrote:
I can understand the negatives about the R63 as they are argued for here. Even the "value" part, though you just donīt hear "this image would have been far better if the value of the R63 would have been better than that of a used R52".
Speaking of value, looking att how the money is distributed through the society, a camera like the R63 is rather to very expensive for most amateurs. As an enthusiast you stretch your budget, you ok three months of oat porridge just to get to the next level. Any e-bay find for a "just" 200 more? Congrats to you, but you will likely find it difficult to understand why some could find the R63 really exciting....Show more →
Shoot, if one has to eat porridge for a few months to afford the R6III, that's definitely not the right camera for them as there are plenty of other more affordable options that will produce a similar end result. And even then if you did commit to that, you might as well eat porridge for another couple weeks and get a body that has it all and is not lacking in any area, unless 4k 60 video is all you shoot.
EB-1 wrote:
It's quite strange to compare a used price of one product to new of another. New should be compared to new and used to used. I've had nothing but problems with used cameras and would not ever buy one again.
EBH
I can heavily disagree with you on this one as I've been buying used gear for 30 years and had one bad sensor on a 1DmkIV that Canon replaced for free. I've bought every mid to high tier body at least once other than the R1 (for now), and all the mid to top lenses. My failure rate is less than 1% for used and I'll take those odds all day long for the savings. In fact my luck has been actually worse with buying new if I look at percentages. I had a bad RF 100-300 arrive DOA, a bad 1DX battery, and my memory card that went bad years ago was bought new. I have bought plenty of new gear but not nearly as much as I've bought used, so that means worse experience of buying new gear for me.
I can't imagine the luck you have if you say you've had nothing but bad problems buying used. Take a look at the B&S here and there are guys who buy/sell hundreds of bodies/lenses/etc and nothing but great feedback.
I actually bought a camera here at FM for nearly 5 grand and it had several problems; I ended up trashing it. I also bought a camera from KEH that had irreparable frame damage (somebody must have dropped it) that was not detected until later, so a total loss. There was another camera I bought many, many years ago with a shutter problem and limited wearranty, like 30 days of the store.
Anyways, I'm done with buying anything without a decent warranty. I do rent cameras sometimes as the 3rd or 4th bodies. For example, I don't need to own 3 R5 IIs.
