I'm usually at iso 800 and above. So, iso 100-200 aren't on my priority list either.
Upvote
0
PhotonsToPhotos Results for the EOS R1
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Unfortunate about your friend, but I am personally very surprised at how sharp my 200-800 is at the long end, wide open. Granted, I am using it on a 24 MP R8, not the R5. Now, maybe I have a really good copy, maybe your friend had a poor copy. But to say "we all know now that this lens is a bit soft at the long end, so did Canon, but they really wanted to keep this quiet for as long as they could," is just not accurate, in my experience, and also according to some of the other wildlife reviewers.
Upvote
0
I'm sure that as time goes on there will be improvements in these areas, I cannot imagine the tradeoff is unavoidable. Technology is only getting better, honestly, some of it is getting too good in my opinion. I say this as I watch technology make man more and more replaceable.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
It's good to see these charts. They happen to be with mechanical shutter (I only use full Electronic shutter, which I absolutely *love* to use), so I'd be interested in charts for that. I wish there were image comparisons to show us as they're easier to me to decide what I like.
But there's something just as important or more (well, to me) to these dynamic range charts, which is the R1 having cross-green AF sensors in the entire image. It can now sense focal information along both up & down planes while the others (AFAIK) only sense 1 and are blind to the other. A sharper/high focus rate image is much more important to me than one with just a slight touch more dynamic range. A poor focused image is just poor. It'd be nice to see how the AF (and in-focus %) compares between them.
And where is the focus trap firmware? EG: I want to catch my hummingbirds near a feeder for photos, and stop taking photos when they're not there, over many hours of time on a tripod. This is more important to me than it just following a basketball played in a game.
But there's something just as important or more (well, to me) to these dynamic range charts, which is the R1 having cross-green AF sensors in the entire image. It can now sense focal information along both up & down planes while the others (AFAIK) only sense 1 and are blind to the other. A sharper/high focus rate image is much more important to me than one with just a slight touch more dynamic range. A poor focused image is just poor. It'd be nice to see how the AF (and in-focus %) compares between them.
And where is the focus trap firmware? EG: I want to catch my hummingbirds near a feeder for photos, and stop taking photos when they're not there, over many hours of time on a tripod. This is more important to me than it just following a basketball played in a game.
Upvote
0
I only use full ES as well for almost all of my shooting. I would only use mechanical for something like landscape or waterfalls and if I'm shooting those, I am using my R5m2.
Upvote
0
My only beef was that they make it a Mark III of an existing line, so it's less obvious that you would take both a dynamic range and a significant noise hit upgrading to a new model.
Upvote
0
Personally, I didn't think 1-1.5 stops of DR was big deal over a decade ago when Canon was 'behind' Sony and Nikon, and I don't think it's a big deal now. I do criticize Sony for claiming there was no less DR on the a9 III (even though I get their logic was the DR is essentially the same at ISO 250 on the a9 II, that's disingenuous at best).
The only difference between the R1 and R3 is at ISO <200 (and as I stated, 1-stop is not a big deal). For me, 6% of my shots with the R3 are at ISO <200 anyway. If someone wants to choose the R3 over the R1 for an extra stop of DR at low ISO, that's their choice. IMO, saving 1/3 of the cost is a far better reason to choose the R3.
Upvote
0
Looks like a drop from 10.9 to 10 between A92 and A93 in maximum DR, and for equivalent ISOs maybe 1/3-stop at worst.
In fact this is almost the same performance drop between the R3 and the R1 (11.9 to 10.8 in maximum DR, and 1/3-stop drop at equivalent ISOs -- with worse results in the intermediate ISOs because of the higher 2nd gain step and lack of a 3rd gain step in the R1).
I guess technically the R1 is a new line instead of an existing line, but still at least Sony got a global shutter sensor out of it of the large DR drop.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The R5II is a good upgrade over the R5 but maybe not for the money based on the R3 and A1 price drops. It almost seems like Sony built the A1 with so much tech that the other companies cannot beat it. This also includes the R3. With the R1 and R5II Canon seems to have had to make sacrifices that the previous models did not have in photo and video. I wish Canon would fix the overheating issues because I think the R1 will overheat like the R5II and R3 does.
Upvote
0
please show me where R3 and R1 share the same model number and get back to me, there's no "technically" about it.
like i said, which for some reason you ignored, my entire criticism which has been publically written about on this site is calling it a Mark III.
I also think that Sony could have done a better job on that sensor, but it was probably cost prohibitive to do so, they have the technology.
Upvote
0
I've always maintained that it doesn't really matter to me what Canon or Sony or whoever calls a camera in terms of model number or "flagship" status. I think the A9III is intended as a successor to the A9II in the same way that the R1 is intended as a successor to the R3, and as their sensors get faster, both of the successor cameras seem to pay a penalty in terms of max DR. That's fine.
In any case, I don't think the people who are actually in the market buying these $6k cameras would be unaware of their limitations.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
