Well, I've finally done it, and ordered a new Canon R5.
Some of you may have seen my comments about looking into new cameras and gear in another post, A couple of days by the River Deben in Suffolk, and my apologies to Dave for the unintended hijack so I've set up a new thread to keep folks updated.
To continue from my comments, as many of you will be aware, I've been grounded by my falling apart body, but i've nothing but praise for the nurses, consultants, doctors and anyone else involved it working hard to resolve the situation.
We've all heard the old saying, the devil makes work for idle hands, well, include computer and mouse into that, and I've been researching into mirrorless cameras, which is the future, whether we like it or not.
Me, I'm intrigued and like the concept, but not the costs.....
Why the Canon R5?
Well, first and foremost, my son said go for it!
Some of you may be aware his partner walked out on him eighteen months ago, which almost rendered him homeless. While we would happily have taken him back, after a chat with my wife, his mother, I gave him a large chunk of my savings and agreed to be guarantor for his mortgage. I never gave any repayment terms, but he did ask how much, and has transferred some of the money back to me, enough to cover the R5.
I've been using Canon cameras for many decades, and I feel they are on a par with Nikon and the other big brand names, the only problem is, if you change to another brand, then you need to change all your lenses and other associated kit as well.
My research started with the cost of upgrading and also, many camera manufacturers also offer conversion kits, or adapters, so you can use your existing lenses on the new breed of cameras.
Also, my research shown that could I use my existing lenses, the cable and wireless remotes would work, so will the Speedlite flashgun. The only extra items required are the lens mount adaptor, and the memory cards, which are still the existing SD Card, or, the faster and more capable CF Express card, whereas the 5D4 will use a Compact Flash card.
Also, the battery pack for the R5 is the same is the 5D4, which I understand is the same as the 5D3.
This appealed.
However, the cost was still going to be steep.
My local postie, who we had for 20+ years, a very friendly chap, I never realised he did wedding photography, and offered to show me his cameras, which are Nikon, and how he managed to make the change to mirrorless.
We both agreed, Nikon, Canon or any of the other big names, you can't really go wrong.
After a very interesting three hours and numerous cuppas, and some time handling his cameras in the garden, and to play safe, I sat down to use them rather than stand and risk falling or dropping them, I was nicely impressed with what I saw.
There are some trade offs and caveats with electronic view vs live view, but I'm not one to be negative. Obstacles are there to be beaten, not beat you.
The one big downside, if it is a downside, is video. The final quality is good, however, when panning a moving subject, there is a noticeable lag. But then I don't do much video, and to be honest, my current 5D4 has some lag, because that in video mode uses the large TTF screen and not the optical viewer, which is live view.
I said obstacles are to be beaten, not beat you.
The video quality is superb, and a bigger plus, the electronic viewfinder shows the same as the large TTF screen, but the big bonus with the EVF, is you block out all the viewing intrusions that using a TTF screen came impose.
There will be more to this no doubt, as I start a new journey mirrorless, and I will be happy to share.
However, it is costly, and to make things more costly than desired, my nearest emporium haven't stock of the R5, so I've had to order from elsewhere, and not being able to go far, that means no trade in of my 5D4, which if I'm honest, I am reluctant to part with.
The new camera is on order, and should be with me in the next couple of days, all I need is for my leg to sort itself out.
Mike
Flickr: Peak Rambler
Billysdad said:I loaded it to an SD card as instructed and went to the Firmware tab, clicked install and the screen went black. After 5 mins or so, I re-started my camera and nothing had changed. If anyone else tries it, please let me know how you go on
did you format the card before downloading the update.? might be worth a try.
Yes, I did Bob. I formatted it in camera, then put it in a card reader in my PC and downloaded the Firmware from the Canon site. I dragged it straight to my SD card. Once back in the camera I went to the currenet Firmware tab, and clicked to update camera., clicked to start and the screen went black. I waited a good while to see that nothing was happening, then went back to the Firmware tab to see that nothing had changed. I tried several times, and different cards.
The downloaded file is often zipped & has to be extracted on the PC before transferring it to the camera. Worth checking. Otherwise, plug the camera directly in to the PC and drive the update from the EOS Utility. That's often the most reliable method
___
Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index
Thanks Joe it worked! I already had the unzipped file on my desktop, so as you suggested I plugged directly in to the PC and started the EOS Utility. It needed updating first from version 3.0 to 3.18 I think. I was then able to browse for my download file and install it. It took about 4 minutes and I could follow the percentage progress. Thanks again Joe, much appreciated ...
I updated my R7 to 1.5.0 that way and it worked a treat. I have used that method three times now.
I thought I would post these photo for your thoughts and opinions. I find on occasions my R7 and some other photos I have seen on here from mirrorless cameras have a rather flat outcome and very smooth edges. As though the camera has not been able to detect the contrast and not focused it properley. When zoomed in lacks detail, a kind of oil paint effect. I noticed this as soon as I got my R7 and have seen it on occasions since - these photo being taken a couple of days ago on a bright relatively sunny day. I have added details to help. The first one was an interesting shot and I would like it to have turned out better. It was only about 4m away, so not cropped much.
Canon R7, Canon EF 100mm L lens, Shutter 1/1000, Aperture f11 (EXP 0.3), ISO 1000. I could have used wider aperture, but I was set at that when I saw the subject, no time to change it. I was on Servo focus, and the bird was still.
1st one is RAW - I usually shoot RAW and Largest JPG
2nd one is taken from less than 1m away
Canon R7, Canon EF100mm L lens, Shutter 1/400, Aperture f11 (0.3exp), ISO 1000. Screenshot from DPP4 to show focus box. Again it was very still.
My set-up is as follows:
R7 with RF100-500 lens.
C1 Fv set to Auto White balance, Starting Shutter speed 1/1250, Starting Aperture F8.0 and Auto ISO. I use C Raw and electronic shutter with animal and eye detection on.
Servo focus and evaluative metering. At this time I do not use exposure compensation. I can alter the shutter speeds and aperture as and when I need to. I will drop to electronic first curtain shutter for birds in flight phots etc. for colour space i use Adobe RGB and picture style standard. Image stabilisation is on (I need that, blinking shakes). My lens is set to image stabilisation on and mode 2 and of course auto focus.
My R7 and me still have autofocus issues, the sensor used is not the best. Low contrast conditions are a real problem for me. I am no expert when it comes to cameras, still struggle with understanding the exposure triangle. Not much help for you I know. Just thought I would throw that in. Keep taking those lovely photos.
Ed
Billysdad said: thought I would post these photo for your thoughts and opinions. I find on occasions my R7 and some other photos I have seen on here from mirrorless cameras have a rather flat outcome and very smooth edges. As though the camera has not been able to detect the contrast and not focused it properley. When zoomed in lacks detail, a kind of oil paint effect. I noticed this as soon as I got my R7 and have seen it on occasions since - these photo being taken a couple of days ago on a bright relatively sunny day. I have added details to help.
With my very limited experience, the oil painting effect you mention isn't just with Mirrorless, even my R5 has the same issue. My old Canon 5D4 had the same issue on particularly bright sunny days with small subjects like swallows, sparrows and others, noticeable on the original RAW (CR3) files right through the processing to the end result.
Looking back at early digital images, apart from the resolution being a lot lower in pixels, the focusing and quality of the cameras used at the time are not a match for today's high-tech DSLR's and mirrorless cameras.
I have looked back at some of the earlier digital camera images, but I don't think I can fairly give a reason, other than finding the right time and near matching conditions to omit photographing in RAW and for JPG.
I will one day, change the settings to save is JPG and RAW, and if possible, try similar subjects on JPG only.
Billysdad said:I thought I would post these photo for your thoughts and opinions. I find on occasions my R7 and some other photos I have seen on here from mirrorless cameras have a rather flat outcome and very smooth edges.
A few thoughts from me, for what they are worth.
The second image. Looking at the focus box it seems as if the dark stem, the one that almost looks like a wire, seems to have been the part that created most contrast and was used for the focus. Bear in mind also that the with the blade of grass in front of the butterfly and the butterfly wings in between the blade of grass and the "dark stem", the camera could be hunting between the three as its on servo focus. If I remember correctly, even with a fairly narrow aperture like f11, the DOF is quite small at that kind of focal length and distance.
Image 1. Seems like the feet have been the main point of focus. DOF seems very narrow and given what you say the target distance was and the other settings were, I am surprised at that.
I also wonder if your lens is the 100mm f2.8 macro lens - because I think ( but am not sure) that macro lenses complicate the DOF issue because of their magnification feature, resulting in shallower DOF than standard lenses.
As for the flatness - obviously RAW images need to be processed by us. If you think your jpgs are flat than that might well depend on what setting you have your camera on for processing the jpgs. Maybe you have it set to neutral.?
I'm curious on the post-processing on image 1 - downloading the image and using PS Elements' Auto Contrast/Levels buttons immediately gives this result, which is not as flat. So that one would probably benefit from more time on the PC. With the butterfly, as you say, something has missed here. It might simply be the camera being confused over the wings (I normally use point focussing rather than the animal detect for butterflies & other insects (on my R5), I don't think the tech is trained on insects and find it somewhat hit & miss generally). Is this a single frame or one of a sequence? With Servo AF and close stuff a sequence generally helps I find - whether it's focus slightly off or tiny movements from me, it's often difficult to get multiple perfect shots (and close-focussing for a long telephoto such as the 100-500 you mention is probably the most difficult for the lens to get right)