Thanks R2 - strange stuff ! Let's hope for 1.1.2 maybe...Thanks Kevin'. These are certainly pretty pedestrian pics (artistry-wise ;-) ), but I wanted to post full-size files for people to be able to evaluate the IQ for themselves, to help determine whether or not the IQ is suitable for their needs. I've always appreciated it when folks post samples.
Your R5ii is suffering from exactly the same symptoms as mine is! It's like it's half blind!
I call this the "Firmware Update Syndrome." My R5ii was CRAZY GOOD with BIFs (RF 100-500 +/- RF 1.4x) up through Firmware v1.0.2.
Then all went to h#ll when I updated to v1.0.3.
I reinstalled v1.0.3 over itself, and it was back to normal until one day when swapping batteries. The second half of the shoot was back to cr@p.
I updated to v1.1.1 with high hopes, but it exhibited exactly the same poor behavior. Oscillating in the viewfinder when trying to pick up BIFs and many OOF in a series. Stuff that it just NAILED previously.
I've tried reinstalling v1.1.1 over itself a couple of times, to no avail. :-(
I've tried the "Power Saving/Sleep" settings that were recommended by other folks with the same Firmware issues. (There are even previous threads on this forum about Firmware update problems).
My next step is to do a complete RESET and re-load settings from an SD card.
If that doesn't work, then a complete RESET, and program settings from scratch by hand.
I have a few other things to try yet (like changing the Main AF Method), even though I use independently-programmed back buttons. Changing more of the Subject Detect properties, etc.
Interesting thing is, is that I have been shooting events and sports with the R5ii recently (v1.1.1), and the camera has been extremely good at those. Go figure.
I'll keep folks updated (in another thread) with any progress I've made. I'd really like to get this sorted! Good luck with your own efforts!
R2
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How do you benefit from 45MPix of R5?
- Thread starter s-trap
- Start date
Dick Dastardly
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,375
- Reaction score
- 1,364
Between my 20 megapixel camera and a 100 megapixel one, the larger resolution photo contains an insane amount of detail. This is helpful for pixel-peepers and of course, huge prints.
Cannot comment on 45 megapixels specifically, but with the proper optics I'm sure the amount of detail is impressive.
Note: Not every picture needs 45 or 100 megapixels, I am impressed with portraits shot at very high resolution but if you shoot flowers for example, they don't benefit as much from the increase in resolution.
And of course, if the picture is bad, no sensor or camera could save it, it would be like repainting a crashed car that hasn't been fixed, what's the point?
Cannot comment on 45 megapixels specifically, but with the proper optics I'm sure the amount of detail is impressive.
Note: Not every picture needs 45 or 100 megapixels, I am impressed with portraits shot at very high resolution but if you shoot flowers for example, they don't benefit as much from the increase in resolution.
And of course, if the picture is bad, no sensor or camera could save it, it would be like repainting a crashed car that hasn't been fixed, what's the point?
ThrillaMozilla
Veteran Member
Simple. If you don't know what it's for, you probably don't need it.
citytrader
Forum Enthusiast
People here write too much instead of doing some testing with all the free data we have, here are both pictures, R6MKII and R5MKII noise cleaned.
I prefer the results of R5MKII, are you going to see the difference in Instagram, I don't think so.
I had a R6MKII and sold it and now I own a R5MKII and for portraits I prefer the colors of the R5MKII, with the R6MKII I solved that part in post.
I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day.
R5MKII
R6MKII
Last edited:
I make portraits and shoot (photos of) people.
The large pixel count and Eye/face AF of the R5 suits my way of working and gives me freedom of mind to concentrate on the model.
The large pixel count and Eye/face AF of the R5 suits my way of working and gives me freedom of mind to concentrate on the model.
- I like the 1:1 (square) format for portrait better than 2:3 portrait orientation, which means that I at least will throw away 15 out of the 45 Mp of the R5.
- People move, I move. Making the model feel good and capturing the expression that best suits the purpose of the shot is my first priority. When I feel a good expression coming, I press the shutter and hope the framing is good. That's why I prefer to frame loose and crop tight, which can easily cost another third of the remaining pixels.
- A little rotation of the head can make a big difference in how the person is perceived, so a little headroom above the head can save me from some extra PP work on the background.
- ... and sometimes there's just a better picture hiding in a crop you didn't see in the larger frame.
Last edited:
Thanks for posting these two charts. I have the R5 (i) and R6ii. I can see from the two charts you posted that the R5 does exhibit slightly more detail, although it takes a lot of pixel peeping to see the difference. I photograph birds and both cameras works well and capture a good amount of detail in the feathers.People here write too much instead of doing some testing with all the free data we have, here are both pictures, R6MKII and R5MKII noise cleaned.
I prefer the results of R5MKII, are you going to see the difference in Instagram, I don't think so.
I had a R6MKII and sold it and now I own a R5MKII and for portraits I prefer the colors of the R5MKII, with the R6MKII I solved that part in post.
I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day.
R5MKII
R6MKII
I agree about the top lcd. I don't mind a top lcd for shooting information, but I don't like having to use it to change pasm...much rather have a physical dial.
One thing you mentioned that kind of surprised me is that you rather not have a viewfinder. I would think that is a necessity for most people on a camera such as the R5ii.
Good post!
--
Thanks, Tom
my Instagram gallery...
LOL. I've never used the LCD to shoot.Thanks for posting these two charts. I have the R5 (i) and R6ii. I can see from the two charts you posted that the R5 does exhibit slightly more detail, although it takes a lot of pixel peeping to see the difference. I photograph birds and both cameras works well and capture a good amount of detail in the feathers.People here write too much instead of doing some testing with all the free data we have, here are both pictures, R6MKII and R5MKII noise cleaned.
I prefer the results of R5MKII, are you going to see the difference in Instagram, I don't think so.
I had a R6MKII and sold it and now I own a R5MKII and for portraits I prefer the colors of the R5MKII, with the R6MKII I solved that part in post.
I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day.
R5MKII
R6MKII
I agree about the top lcd. I don't mind a top lcd for shooting information, but I don't like having to use it to change pasm...much rather have a physical dial.
One thing you mentioned that kind of surprised me is that you rather not have a viewfinder. I would think that is a necessity for most people on a camera such as the R5ii.
--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson
"I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day."LOL. I've never used the LCD to shoot.Thanks for posting these two charts. I have the R5 (i) and R6ii. I can see from the two charts you posted that the R5 does exhibit slightly more detail, although it takes a lot of pixel peeping to see the difference. I photograph birds and both cameras works well and capture a good amount of detail in the feathers.People here write too much instead of doing some testing with all the free data we have, here are both pictures, R6MKII and R5MKII noise cleaned.
I prefer the results of R5MKII, are you going to see the difference in Instagram, I don't think so.
I had a R6MKII and sold it and now I own a R5MKII and for portraits I prefer the colors of the R5MKII, with the R6MKII I solved that part in post.
I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day.
R5MKII
R6MKII
I agree about the top lcd. I don't mind a top lcd for shooting information, but I don't like having to use it to change pasm...much rather have a physical dial.
One thing you mentioned that kind of surprised me is that you rather not have a viewfinder. I would think that is a necessity for most people on a camera such as the R5ii.
I'm a little confused. Above you say you never used the electronic view finder and also that you never used the LCD to shoot. If this is the case how do you know what you are shooting. You mention that you want a body without the EVF? Not sure whether you use the back LCD to shoot or the EVF?
--
Thanks, Tom
my Instagram gallery...
Can you explain how you processed these images? I'd like to try this on different ISO settings and maybe on low light version.
When I did something similar (LrC AI denoise), with ISO 25600 and low light version, the R5 II image looked less saturated and lower details could be seen in some places. But I admit, that was extreme.
Quarkcharmed
Veteran Member
It's noticeably sharper, but the R5's file scaled down to 6000x4000 so it looks sharper because of downscaling, but you'll find a lot more detail if you don't scale the image down. It'll be just a larger image in pixels.Thanks for posting these two charts. I have the R5 (i) and R6ii. I can see from the two charts you posted that the R5 does exhibit slightly more detail,People here write too much instead of doing some testing with all the free data we have, here are both pictures, R6MKII and R5MKII noise cleaned.
I prefer the results of R5MKII, are you going to see the difference in Instagram, I don't think so.
I had a R6MKII and sold it and now I own a R5MKII and for portraits I prefer the colors of the R5MKII, with the R6MKII I solved that part in post.
I don't like some things about the R5MKII like I will preferred configurable buttons instead of the useless top LCD screen and a body without EVF to have less weight and more space, since I went digital I never used the EVF except occasionally in a very bright day.
R5MKII
R6MKII
If you check the images in 1:1 view, an 8192x5464 image will have more detail than a 6000x400 one, like in this view
That gives a viewer a better visualisation of the difference between 24Mp and 45Mp.
--
Login • Instagram
Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.
www.instagram.com
500px
shah stlz
Well-known member
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 78
I'm a working photographer. 24MP as deliveries have been standard for some years. I can deliver tack sharp downsampled images from 45MP even when cropped. Some more demanding customers now get 35MP images, so they have latitude to crop for multiple formats themselves.
JohnSil
Veteran Member
To that same end, a lot of the events I shoot are gonna be for instagram consumption only, which we all know is a very small image. So I've learned to shoot ALL of those events in landscape mode. That way I know for sure if the subject fits in the frame top to bottom, I CAN'T get burned with running out of canvas to either right or left edges, no matter WHAT aspect ration I wind up cropping to! The exception is groups have to be shot with a lot more headroom.
And if a print is requested, I still have the 45mp to work with!
John
Then there is Adobe's Super Resolution and others like Gigapixel. I don't print posters and for web applications it's not that practical. You have to crop less than your intended export size, apply it and then crop down again for export. That is often far too much of an initial crop. This did surprise me but still 45 would have been better. Now that the R6III has been confirmed at 32mp ti will make a difference.
Super Resolution. Not a wall mount but for fun posting.
--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Super Resolution. Not a wall mount but for fun posting.
--
Funny how millions of people on an internet platform where they can communicate instantaneously with people on the other side of the world using incredibly powerful handheld computers linked to orbiting the satellites hundreds of miles in space don’t believe in science. Neil deGrasse Tyson
Franz Kerschbaum
Senior Member
Very simple for me. You have a 1,36x telextender built in without any extra optics, only by flexible cropping in post. So when focal length limited in eg wildlife that can be very welcome. (sqrt(45)/sqrt(24)=1.36)
Franz Kerschbaum
Senior Member
... but sensors differ more than by pixelcount. Per unit sensor area the R5 has better noise than eg. the R6! So if one does not need the R5 resolution, downsampling to R6 resolution has less noise than an original R6 pic! The R5II by the way has slightly more noise than the R5. https://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm is a great resource for such characteristics.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum