I’d opt for higher bitrate 4k content over 8k content. My 1080p blu-rays still look better than their 4k streaming counterpart in places, the 4k discs almost always look better.
Upvote
0
The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is “definitely” coming in Q1 of 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Probably the same way that I proved that I'm a faster runner than Usain Bolt.
Some people like stopwatches and they are nice gadgets to have, but I'll take my real world experiences anyday over some measurements done by a machine.
Upvote
0
No the difference is noticeable. Same with computer monitors (but I've only seen 6K, not 8K monitors). But further increase from 8K to higher resolutions doesn't make much sense in terms of the human vision.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The conclusions you make from your real world experiences may be flawed.
@m4ndr4ke made a claim above that ISO 6400 in EFC shutters has about the same noise as ISO 1600 in Electronic shutter mode.
That's a very specific claim, so I'm asking how those measurements were done exactly. What was the scene in both cases, exact camera settings etc. It's not just about some emotional experiences, those measurements have very real practical implications.
Upvote
0
My gut feeling tells me 2+2 is 5 today. Maybe it'll be 3 tomorrow.
... following your gut may lead you to technically wrong conclusions and suboptimal settings in your camera.
Seriously, it’s always fun when someone is posting intending to not be taken seriously, and someone else takes them seriously anyway. I mean, seriously!
Upvote
0
Yeah, but with a global forum and English as a second etc language for many (let alone Oz vs UK vs US etc English) then it is tricky to indicate tone via text alone (even with /s or emoji ). Take your choice of studies for % of misunderstanding for text vs speech for non-verbal cues.
British irony can be more dry understatement whereas we have more "yeah, nah" attitude
Upvote
0
I've seen many people talking strange or illogical things on forums, so unless I know the person very well from the previous conversations, my sarcasm sensor is set at a low sensitivity. Like ISO 12 or so.The ‘proved I am a faster runner than Usain Bolt’ was too subtle?
Upvote
0
but I am also faster than Usain /s... when he is sitting downThe ‘proved I am a faster runner than Usain Bolt’ was too subtle?
Upvote
0
Real world experience is the most important stage of testing, or is it not?
Why do cars go from the dyno to the track, and then to the road?
Why do cameras go from the factory to the hands of brand ambassadors under NDA?
They go out for final tests, don’t they?
Test charts are our first criteria when comparing devices (after specifications, that is), but the real world usage is the last one, otherwise we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation on a Canon-related forum, we’d all be using another brand that sells numbers.
Actually I don’t, but you also don’t have to trut me, you’re free not to and that’s fine.
When using the device in the field, we want those variables. It’s no use a device that performs in the test room but underperforms in real world environments.
I don’t care how the camera performs in a controlled room, with controlled lighting and temperature. I care, however, how it performs in my warm hands when it’s 35°C outside, or when I have to shoot for two hours at high ISO with crappy lighting, because those are the pictures that I’ll have to deliver, not test charts.
No two-week-controlled-room-review is gonna tell me as much about the camera as 100k pictures in the real world do.
I do know that if I’m gonna shoot for one or two hours at ISO 3200 and above, I better go with EFC or mechanical shutter, because the difference will be significant in post-production.
I also know that with ES I can get files that are “deliverable to client” at up to about 8~10k ISO or equivalent exposures, but with EFC or MS I can raise that limit to 16 to 25k, sometimes a little more.
Is it due to sensor heat? Perhaps, I don’t know, but I’m definitely not gonna waste my time in a room finding that out. I’ve had the camera for almost four years, I know what to expect from it, and how to deal with its limitations.
Upvote
0
"Real world testing" is the one that may provide a lot of data, but only of it's done right. Performance of cars is not tested by how some random people 'feel'. The 'feel' is also important but we're talking about very specific technical measurements.
And what do you think they test exactly? Usability or number of stops between ES and EFCS? Those pre-production cameras under NDA also collect a lot of pretty formal data.
Yes you do; and not for me but for yourself, if you want to get valid results from your tests.
No it won't. ES in the R5/R6/R6II has other problems such as rolling shutter, but not the 2-stop higher noise in the ES mode at ISO 3200.
It's fine if it's 35 outside. You probably don't understand what 'controlled' means here. In this case we're talking about a classic A/B test. That means you have to eliminate a lot of variables, but you can have 35C outside and crappy light, only it has to be the same temperature and light for both cases.
Have you shot exact same scene in the same conditions, with the same exposure settings, only one time with ISO 1600 ES, and another time - ISO 6400 EFCS?
Upvote
0
I suspect this hinges a little on the different meanings of "testing". We all test things for ourselves, and our personal conclusions are valid for us. But it is not the same as empirical/"scientific" testing. Goldilocks can legitimately think the middle bowl of porridge is just right, but it might only be true for her (and the bear whose meal it was); if she were to assert that it was saltier than the saltiest bowl (which can be measured independently) then she would be wrong.
Upvote
0
Higher...
1600 is totally fine.
It's not up until 6400~8000 ISO, with electronic shutter, that I notice the difference — in post-production, that is (I can't obviously see anything in-camera).
Not on tripod, but I've shot similar compositions, with equivalent exposure settings (constant ambient lighting), during the same concert.
It's not like the camera suddenly becomes terrible, this is a beast of a camera, but specially when recovering shadows I get very quickly to high ISO banding in these situations. If I change to EFC or mechanical shutter, I can go further. Shooting at 8000 ISO with EFC or MS allows me about the same editing flexibility as 3200 ISO with ES, or 16k EFCS vs 6400 ES. It's a very decent performance boost.
I found this I think last year, when shooting a few underground concerts at a extremely dark venue. Very poor, constant lighting, like 8~16k ISO, 1/250 to 1/500s, f/1.4, still underexposed (I still had my two Sigma Art lenses), flash not allowed. ES was not required, but I usually had my camera set to use it. Then, on one of those gigs, there was this lead singer who moved very quickly, and a few pictures of him seemed to have rolling shutter, so I decided to change to MS or EFCS. Later, when I was editing those pictures, I noticed from the moment I changed the shutter mode, the overall quality of the files improved nicely.
I shot a few more concerts at that location, decided to go with MS or EFCS, and again, the files were better than those shot with ES.
Since then, whenever I'm shooting at dark locations and don't forget to do so, I change to EFCS. There have been several times where I only remembered after shooting for a certain period of time, but was able to perceive the difference in post-production. It has been consistent.
I'm not even testing this lol. If a new camera comes, I may try to get my hands on it without purchasing, take it to the field and compare the results later...or maybe not. I'm not too concerned, I found a limitation and dealt with it, the camera did and still does the jobs required.
I would like to move to a camera with 14 bit RAW on ES, as well as x-sync with ES, and being able to shoot sports with ES wouldn't hurt, even though I rarely do so. High frequency anti-flicker would be nice to have too.
The R3 has all the specs I would desire, but its price tag is way out of my range, and I prefer a camera without a vertical grip, so I'm looking forward to a R6 with a stacked sensor. I've been wishing for such a camera for years.
Upvote
0
First you claimed that ISO 6400 in EFCS looks the same as ISO 1600 in ES. Now you're saying it's not up until ISO 6400-8000.
And now you're saying it's 3200 in ES mode. How do you compare ISO 8000 with EFC vs ISO 3200 with ES? Do you make sure the shots receive exact same exposure? If it was the same, the ISO 3200 shot would probably be underexposed (very dark).
Ok, here you have the tests done with an R5. The vey same flat grey wall, same illuminance, same lens, focal length, shutter speed and f-number, and same ISO 3200.
One part is ES, another - EFCS. I'm not telling you which one is which. Can you see a difference? Note the shots were underexeposed by 2.5 stops below middle grey and then "exposure" lifted in ACR by 2.5 stops. So what you see is basically lifted shadows.
Now the same conditions as above, but at ISO 25600. Also lifted shadows.
Where's Electronic Shutter in the first comparison and where's ES in the second?
You're saying you're not testing but you're making technically wrong decisions. In this case - you're not using ES where it could've been used without compromising the image quality.
All of the above is completely different story. We were discussing the noise level in the shadows and 'editablity' of ES vs EFCS.
In the R6/R6II/R5, the electronic shutter has other limitations that make it usable only in narrow range of shooting scenarios.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
