Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:50 am
Adapted glass example in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okeedXc ... ploademail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okeedXc ... ploademail
NatureScapes.net Nature Photography Resource - Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums, Nature and Wildlife Photography Articles and Tips
https://www.naturescapes.net/forums/
Hi JanJan Wegener wrote:I managed to put together a video with my first impressions of the camera. For stills, it's simply amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyq304j4wE
The high ISO performance at 45 mpix is basically unheard of. In the video, you can see sample shots at 12800 ISO, which have less noise than my Mark IV at 3200.
Animal-eye Af is the real game-changer for me, it works well and opens up so many more possibilities. And for BIF it's simply next level, my keeper rate has gone through the roof.
In the video, there are a few examples, where the bird flies behind branches and grass and in front of busy backgrounds and the camera doesn't lose focus at all. It never fully loses the birds, not every shot is sharp on the head, but it basically never jumps onto the background and fully loses focus. So far, I am amazed by this camera and it will allow me to take better & more images.
Does it overheat? Yes! And it's kinda bad. The worst issue I had was when the camera was simply idling with the screens running. Within one hour all video recording was essentially gone. So that's disappointing, as I can see this being an issue in the field for sure. Taking a lot of photos takes less toll on the video time than just letting the camera sit somewhere. I will have to remember to turn it off at all times. So it's quite likely that after a few hours of taking images most video functions will be unavailable.
For me personally, the camera makes up for it with its insane stills capabilities, but it was heavily marketed as hybrid and while the video quality and features are great, it's very limited due to overheating.
Thanks, Jan, for the first impressions review aimed at still photographers. It's the best I've seen so far from someone who has actually used it in the field.Dan Wolin wrote:Hi JanJan Wegener wrote:I managed to put together a video with my first impressions of the camera. For stills, it's simply amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyq304j4wE
The high ISO performance at 45 mpix is basically unheard of. In the video, you can see sample shots at 12800 ISO, which have less noise than my Mark IV at 3200.
Animal-eye Af is the real game-changer for me, it works well and opens up so many more possibilities. And for BIF it's simply next level, my keeper rate has gone through the roof.
In the video, there are a few examples, where the bird flies behind branches and grass and in front of busy backgrounds and the camera doesn't lose focus at all. It never fully loses the birds, not every shot is sharp on the head, but it basically never jumps onto the background and fully loses focus. So far, I am amazed by this camera and it will allow me to take better & more images.
Does it overheat? Yes! And it's kinda bad. The worst issue I had was when the camera was simply idling with the screens running. Within one hour all video recording was essentially gone. So that's disappointing, as I can see this being an issue in the field for sure. Taking a lot of photos takes less toll on the video time than just letting the camera sit somewhere. I will have to remember to turn it off at all times. So it's quite likely that after a few hours of taking images most video functions will be unavailable.
For me personally, the camera makes up for it with its insane stills capabilities, but it was heavily marketed as hybrid and while the video quality and features are great, it's very limited due to overheating.
Do you happen to have (or have tried) one of the new lenses- I was curious about the 100-500. If not no worries. Thanks for your reviews so far:)
It is appeared that the sensor is better than D850 which is still one of the benchmark sensor. It is matching with Sony 7R mark IV , that is impressive achievement.E.J. Peiker wrote:Studying the dynamic range for the R5 camera, it is quite good but basically ISO 200, 250 and 320 are useless. It is absolutely pointless to use those ISOs because they are worse than ISO 400 (it would indicate that they are also worse for noise) due to the dual gain design of the sensor. If you need a higher ISO than 160, your next step should be 400, after that it decays as expected as you go higher:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/ ... 20EOS%20R5
You have to be careful with that. The D850's base ISO is 64 not 100 so you have to shift the graph 2/3 of a stop to make an actual DR comparison and when you do that it is virtually identical. Also it seems that the R5's dual gain has a much stronger secondary gain stage that kicks in at 400. The a7R3 kicks in at 640 and the a7R4 at 500. Here's a comparison of the D850, a7R4 and R5. I've also added the best camera there is, the Phase IQ150 for reference. Of course it costs more than 10 times as much:absu wrote:Dual gain for Nikon D850, D750 and also Sony 7R mark IV & A9 is kicking in at ISO 800 for R5 it is in ISO 400. So no of unusable ISO in Nikon & Sony is more than Canon IMHO. It is also may be noted it is the first time I have seen dynamic range of Canon camera is higher than Sony & Nikon at Base ISO. It is remarkable achievement & good news for Canon landscape photographer .
Yes, you are right EJ. I overlooked the 2/3 correction as base ISO for both camera is not same. But in essential via R5 Canon improved the DR performance in lower ISO significantly which is handy for landscape photographers as you have mentioned. Sony is still ahead in this game.E.J. Peiker wrote:You have to be careful with that. The D850's base ISO is 64 not 100 so you have to shift the graph 2/3 of a stop to make an actual DR comparison and when you do that it is virtually identical. Also it seems that the R5's dual gain has a much stronger secondary gain stage that kicks in at 400. The a7R3 kicks in at 640 and the a7R4 at 500. Here's a comparison of the D850, a7R4 and R5. I've also added the best camera there is, the Phase IQ150 for reference. Of course it costs more than 10 times as much:absu wrote:Dual gain for Nikon D850, D750 and also Sony 7R mark IV & A9 is kicking in at ISO 800 for R5 it is in ISO 400. So no of unusable ISO in Nikon & Sony is more than Canon IMHO. It is also may be noted it is the first time I have seen dynamic range of Canon camera is higher than Sony & Nikon at Base ISO. It is remarkable achievement & good news for Canon landscape photographer .
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Nikon%20D850,Phase%20One%20IQ4%20150MP,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4
The differences between the three (not including the Phase One) are essentially negligible which means that Canon has finally caught up in DR on the R5 after trailing significantly since 2008 but it must be noted that Sony does it with significantly higher resolution so their sensor design is still about a generation ahead as the Canon more or less matches the older a7R3 in resolution:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/ ... 0ILCE-7RM3
Note: For those wondering why the numbers depicted in the graphs are about two stops lower than what is claimed by the manufacturers, it is because this is photographic dynamic range not theoretical dynamic range. Photographic dynamic range is defined as the point where the signal to noise ratio is 20:1 which is about the minimum useable before noise overpowers detail. Manufacturers use theoretical dynamic range which is a where the signal to noise ratio becomes 1:1 - of course if the signal and the noise are the same, you can not discern the signal from the noise. For this reason, the photographic dynamic range is a much more useful measure to photographers.
Note 2: Some may ask how does a 150 megapixel back with a similar pixel size to the 61mp a7R4 have so much more dynamic range? This is primarily due to two things: 1. 16 bit readout rather than 14 bit readout; 2. active cooling of the sensor and CPU rather than passive cooling.
1) Pretty sure the A7R4 secondary gain kicks in at ISO 320 not 500.E.J. Peiker wrote:You have to be careful with that. The D850's base ISO is 64 not 100 so you have to shift the graph 2/3 of a stop to make an actual DR comparison and when you do that it is virtually identical. Also it seems that the R5's dual gain has a much stronger secondary gain stage that kicks in at 400. The a7R3 kicks in at 640 and the a7R4 at 500. Here's a comparison of the D850, a7R4 and R5. I've also added the best camera there is, the Phase IQ150 for reference. Of course it costs more than 10 times as much:absu wrote:Dual gain for Nikon D850, D750 and also Sony 7R mark IV & A9 is kicking in at ISO 800 for R5 it is in ISO 400. So no of unusable ISO in Nikon & Sony is more than Canon IMHO. It is also may be noted it is the first time I have seen dynamic range of Canon camera is higher than Sony & Nikon at Base ISO. It is remarkable achievement & good news for Canon landscape photographer .
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Nikon%20D850,Phase%20One%20IQ4%20150MP,Sony%20ILCE-7RM4
The differences between the three (not including the Phase One) are essentially negligible which means that Canon has finally caught up in DR on the R5 after trailing significantly since 2008 but it must be noted that Sony does it with significantly higher resolution so their sensor design is still about a generation ahead as the Canon more or less matches the older a7R3 in resolution:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/ ... 0ILCE-7RM3
Note: For those wondering why the numbers depicted in the graphs are about two stops lower than what is claimed by the manufacturers, it is because this is photographic dynamic range not theoretical dynamic range. Photographic dynamic range is defined as the point where the signal to noise ratio is 20:1 which is about the minimum useable before noise overpowers detail. Manufacturers use theoretical dynamic range which is a where the signal to noise ratio becomes 1:1 - of course if the signal and the noise are the same, you can not discern the signal from the noise. For this reason, the photographic dynamic range is a much more useful measure to photographers.
Note 2: Some may ask how does a 150 megapixel back with a similar pixel size to the 61mp a7R4 have so much more dynamic range? This is primarily due to two things: 1. 16 bit readout rather than 14 bit readout; 2. active cooling of the sensor and CPU rather than passive cooling.
You are correct and the graph appears to have changed since the camera was originally released, the original ones may have not been based on a production level camera. I failed to float over the jump point just going with what was the case a year ago. Sorry about that.sdaconsulting wrote:1) Pretty sure the A7R4 secondary gain kicks in at ISO 320 not 500.
Is it normal for the dynamic range to be that much lower when shooting using an electronic rather than a mechanical shutter at lower ISOs? The photonstophotos site indicates this is the case for the R5 though does not publish electronic shutter readings for most other cameras.E.J. Peiker wrote:Studying the dynamic range for the R5 camera, it is quite good but basically ISO 200, 250 and 320 are useless. It is absolutely pointless to use those ISOs because they are worse than ISO 400 (it would indicate that they are also worse for noise) due to the dual gain design of the sensor. If you need a higher ISO than 160, your next step should be 400, after that it decays as expected as you go higher:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/ ... 20EOS%20R5