Thanks Jeff! Quite an about face, because I was really looking forward to shooting with it, but in the final analysis I wasn't gaining much but some bulk. We'll see, better to regret not having it than to regret spending 8 grand and not liking/using it. Canon is going to send me one to play with, I'll have a better feel for it after that. I put the 25-105/2.8 on the R5C this afternoon and shot some video, it's a bit heavy, but seems to perform very nicely. Just discovered that the lens can be controlled by an app on my phone, think of the possibilities there.
Funny how the mind works, isn;t it? I was sound asleep and worked through that whole thing.......kind of scary. When I was building th biplane I'd come in from the garage completely stumped by some problem I had encountered. More often than not, I'd solve it in my sleep. Maybe I should sleep more...............
Long day yesterday, but it was worth it...........................one down 8 to go. The homeowner owns a big landscape design firm and has been looking for a photographer that he can trust to make his projects look their best..................
Did a little work yesterday with the RF24-105/2.8. The lens is a bit bulky, which I understand because of the extra reach, and wide aperture . Sharp as a tack and the reach to 105 is pretty nice to have. I bought this mostly for video work, but it will fill in nicely for stills too.
On a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being equal to your 85mm, where would you place the 24-105 for quality photo? It looks like it has an 11 blade aperture, so the background blur should be great.
That's the same lens I talked about quite a few pages back that I was going to buy, seemed like a great air show front line lens, short and long...But looked like it was really geared more for video than picture takin.
Wow! I haven't shot enough with it to make the comparison. I would say that it is as sharp as the 85mm, but the difference between 2.8 and 1.2 is a world apart as far as impact. More as I get to know it.
Bill Gass wrote:
That's the same lens I talked about quite a few pages back that I was going to buy, seemed like a great air show front line lens, short and long...But looked like it was really geared more for video than picture takin.
I think it has great features for still and video Bill. The RF24-70/2.8 is a great lens, but the extra reach to 105 is going to be nice. The lens is sharp and fast, but the reason I picked it up was definitely the declicked aperture and the power zoom add on. You just can't manually zoom a lens shooting video and I think this lens will cover a lot of video work. They are hinting at an RF70-200/2.8 Z that will have the same features, I'd probably bite and sell my RF70-200.
Hi Jim,
You probably don't remember this, but last summer I had asked a question regarding trading in both my 1DX and 5DS R for an R5, questioning of the R5 would be a good replacement for both. The goal here is reducing the weight of the backpack I carry with both bodies along with a couple of lenses, as well as the weight of what I have in my hand when I shoot. And all of that without sacrificing the quality I look for in shooting both airshows/birds in flight as well as detailed landscape stuff. You sent me the is very detailed answer and suggested that I query you back once you got your hands on the R5 II. Sooooo...., now that you have been using one for several weeks, would you mind so much revisiting your answer? Also, true to your generous nature, you had offered to loan me an R5 to try out. If you would like to do so now with the R5II, feel free! (only kidding on that request)
Thanks as always,
Chas
JWilsonphoto wrote:
Good morning Chas,
The focus attributes of the 1DX series are obviously about the best available, sequentially better as they released the II and III versions. You will be very pleased with the AF on the R5 except for those occasional situations where the slight lag in the EVF causes you to lose capture and you chase the subject all over trying to get it back. Admittedly it's frustrating and I wish it didn't happen, but all the other capabilities of the camera outweigh that hiccup. That is one of the reasons I mentioned holding off, they will fix the problem in the next versions. Nikon has eliminated it with their Z9 by designing an EVF that has a very fast refresh rate which acts like an optical finder. AF on the R5 series for anything other than aircraft doing zooms is nothing short of amazing. File size? You will never look back, moving the rear element of the lens (EF/RF) slightly closer to the sensor results in a wonderfully sharper image. I've used electronic shutter once, while shooting that wedding in Illinois, and the only reason was to achieve truly silent operation. The frame rates are so great I just never have felt the need to shoot any faster than "H+" with the mechanical shutter. Remember when you lit up the 1DX for the first time and everyone around looked at you like you pulled the trigger on a machine gun? That's exponentially more fun with the R5. Something that slightly negates the weight advantage of going mirrorless is the battery grip. I'm so used to the form factor of the 1DX series that I put grips on all my R5's, plus the added advantage of more power for very thirsty cameras. You can always take the grip off if you aren't going to be shooting intensely and want something a little lighter.
Last weekend I got Canon to loan me an R6 II for a buddy that I was shooting with, I had gotten him an R6 a year ago and he needs a second body. He really liked it and it's pretty economical, but it drops you back to half the file size of the 5DSR and I just can't imagine doing that. Weigh all this and I will keep you posted with any inside info that I might get from my sources.
Let me know if you think of any more questions and I'll help where I can. I'd send you my R5 for a few days to play with, but I need it as a back up right now.
chas,
The R5 is an incredible camera and I am still using an adapter for my EF lens and quality is amazing.
No comparison to a regular DSLR in my opinion. If I had RF len's I think the quality of images would be a little bit more maybe. I'm sure the R5II is even better. I would get the R5 or R5II and with the holidays and Black Friday coming, good deals await.
A couple of weekends ago, I had a little break from all the work I've been doing lately, and joined some friends at DFW Airport for an afternoon of photography and swapping tales.
Seems like it was "Retro Sunday" with two of American Airlines Retro Schemes coming in and departing. Still need to get the TWA 737, the Reno Air, AirCal and America West birds, one of these days.
Bill Gass wrote:
My new toy !
I have had a Toyota truck since the late 1970's Bill! No not the same truck but same company!
They are built to last! The Tundra is too big for me so I go to the Tacoma..which used to be the SR5..
Great images!!
Dan
chas wrote:
Hi Jim,
You probably don't remember this, but last summer I had asked a question regarding trading in both my 1DX and 5DS R for an R5, questioning of the R5 would be a good replacement for both. The goal here is reducing the weight of the backpack I carry with both bodies along with a couple of lenses, as well as the weight of what I have in my hand when I shoot. And all of that without sacrificing the quality I look for in shooting both airshows/birds in flight as well as detailed landscape stuff. You sent me the is very detailed answer and suggested that I query you back once you got your hands on the R5 II. Sooooo...., now that you have been using one for several weeks, would you mind so much revisiting your answer? Also, true to your generous nature, you had offered to loan me an R5 to try out. If you would like to do so now with the R5II, feel free! (only kidding on that request)
Thanks as always,
Chas
...Show more →
Chas I have the same bodies! Great question also....I am in your same predicament!!
But I have hand tremors pretty bad! I will need IBIS!!!
Thanks Jim!!
Dan
Danpbphoto wrote:
I have had a Toyota truck since the late 1970's Bill! No not the same truck but same company!
They are built to last! The Tundra is too big for me so I go to the Tacoma..which used to be the SR5..
Great images!!
Dan
Today's Tacoma is nearly the size of my 2001 Tundra. The Tacoma SR5 has half the cylinders producing 13 more hp (278) but it cost twice as much as my Tundra did when I bought it 9/11/2001 ($20k).
