Canon RP vs 5D Mark iii

[bodeswell]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field, but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field, but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

Have to disagree. Eye AF with tracking is terrific with long lenses when trying to take “portraits” of subjects that move. Neither the RP nor the 5D Mk iii can do that, but the inexpensive, new R50 can.

That’s why I wrote “wide lens”. That covers anything with a large value of focal length divided by f-number.

 

[bodeswell]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field, but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

Have to disagree. Eye AF with tracking is terrific with long lenses when trying to take “portraits” of subjects that move. Neither the RP nor the 5D Mk iii can do that, but the inexpensive, new R50 can.

That’s why I wrote “wide lens”. That covers anything with a large value of focal length divided by f-number.

 

[christosphoto]

At this point, the only thing I care about in the RP vs 5D3 is that the RP is really small. I dislike small cameras like that and I am hoping that I don't end up not liking my camera choice at all because of it. I like big, bulky cameras.

 

[christosphoto]

At this point, the only thing I care about in the RP vs 5D3 is that the RP is really small. I dislike small cameras like that and I am hoping that I don't end up not liking my camera choice at all because of it. I like big, bulky cameras.

Let me add to this. I just looked at the comparison of 5D3 vs R50, and the only major thing to me that matters is that the sensor pixel area is much smaller (185% less)

Does it matter in landscape and portrait photography?

 

[Icee258]

At this point, the only thing I care about in the RP vs 5D3 is that the RP is really small. I dislike small cameras like that and I am hoping that I don't end up not liking my camera choice at all because of it. I like big, bulky cameras.

Let me add to this. I just looked at the comparison of 5D3 vs R50, and the only major thing to me that matters is that the sensor pixel area is much smaller (185% less)

Does it matter in landscape and portrait photography?

This difference is due primarily to the cameras you are comparing being full frame vs APS-C. The 5D3 has a sensor that is 1.6 times larger along each edge than the R50 (or R7 or any Canon APS-C camera). This will matter primarily in low-light situations, where each pixel will encounter more photons, but it will also impact the depth of field and the look of bokeh (background blur) at a given f-stop. Smooth bokeh is often prized in portraiture, and it is easier to achieve on full frame, but APS-C will still be good for portraits.

I would not expect the sensor size to matter much for landscapes, unless you plan to take a lot of low-light landscapes hand-held. Using a tripod to allow longer exposures for dark landscapes compensates for sensitivity differences.

The R50 has a newer sensor, which closes the low-light performance gap somewhat with the 5D3.

The RP is a full-frame camera, so it should outperform the 5D3 in low-light due to the age and therefore quality of its sensor.

 

[bodeswell]

At this point, the only thing I care about in the RP vs 5D3 is that the RP is really small. I dislike small cameras like that and I am hoping that I don't end up not liking my camera choice at all because of it. I like big, bulky cameras.

If you dislike small cameras then you may not like the R50. Is there are camera store near you where you could see it?

 

[christosphoto]

I have a camera store near me. I'll go and check it out.

 

[Klaus dk]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field,

I usually shoot portraits around f/8,

but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

Please explain what the bokeh of lenses has to do with AF?

I was happy using my DSLR for portraiture until I experienced the Canon EOS R. The R5 is even better. No focus-and -recompose, just check that the AF point is on the nearest eye, and shoot. No need to use bright lenses, it also works with the 24-240.

One of the reasons Canon can now get awy with making medium quality RF lenses that are darker than f/5.6 is that they are no longer limited by PDAF sensors not going below f/5.6.

I don't see you sharing many portraits, so maybe you speak from a more theoretical point of view?

 

[Icee258]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field,

I usually shoot portraits around f/8,

That's unusual. People often go for shallower (sometimes much shallower) depth of field to isolate their subject in portraits. Higher f-stops are more common for group photos where greater depth of field is needed to capture everyone clearly, or if you want to keep the background recognizable, such as in front of a monument or Christmas tree.

but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

Please explain what the bokeh of lenses has to do with AF?

If you're trying to shoot with a shallow depth of field, you want good AF to nail the focus on your subject and also pleasing bokeh so that the resulting blurred background looks nice.

I don't see you sharing many portraits, so maybe you speak from a more theoretical point of view?

I don't take many portraits, but this is pretty standard stuff and why nearly every wedding photographer has an 85 mm f/1.X lens in their kit.

 

[christosphoto]

Thanks all for the responses. I'm probably going to get a 5D3 because the body is much bigger and can fit my hands.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Thanks all for the responses. I'm probably going to get a 5D3 because the body is much bigger and can fit my hands.

I think that’s a good choice, it’s a fine camera.

 

[Klaus dk]

Yeah, eye focus is a great feature, particularly with shallow depth of field,

I usually shoot portraits around f/8,

That's unusual. People often go for shallower (sometimes much shallower) depth of field to isolate their subject in portraits.

Not as unusual as you seem to think. Portrait photographers control background in numerous ways and know that shallow DoF doesn't save you from thinking about and working with the background. And Eye-AF is also useful at f/8.

In the studio, I have full control and don't need shallow DoF unless for some other kind of effect — like "dreamy bokeh".

The eyelashes-are-sharp-but-the-iris-is-blurred style doesn't really appeal to me.

Higher f-stops are more common for group photos where greater depth of field is needed to capture everyone clearly, or if you want to keep the background recognizable, such as in front of a monument or Christmas tree.

but that’s only really necessary with a wide lens, and only recommended with good bokeh.

Please explain what the bokeh of lenses has to do with AF?

If you're trying to shoot with a shallow depth of field, you want good AF to nail the focus on your subject and also pleasing bokeh so that the resulting blurred background looks nice.

I'd like to know what Mark S Abeln meant. Why Eye-AF is only necessary with shallow DoF and recommended with good bokeh. I simply can't imagine how not using Eye-AF can be helpful if you have a lens with questionable bokeh?

I don't see you sharing many portraits, so maybe you speak from a more theoretical point of view?

I don't take many portraits, but this is pretty standard stuff and why nearly every wedding photographer has an 85 mm f/1.X lens in their kit.

The discussion with Mark S Abeln was about the advantages of Eye-AF and having sensor-wide AF point coverage. His claim that "for portraiture, you only need one focus point" is not corroborated by my experience.

A bright 85 mm is certainly found in many photographers' bag, but I'm not convinced that it's owned by "nearly every wedding photographer".

I further think that it's one of those lenses (especially the f/1.8 and f/2 variants) that qualify for the "cheap primes" lure that many amateurs fall for. That, at least, is "pretty standard stuff".

 

[Mark S Abeln]

I'd like to know what Mark S Abeln meant. Why Eye-AF is only necessary with shallow DoF and recommended with good bokeh. I simply can't imagine how not using Eye-AF can be helpful if you have a lens with questionable bokeh?

If a lens has questionable bokeh, then maybe it isn’t suited for portraiture with a shallow DoF. Well focused junk is still junk: however, I’ll admit to blurring backgrounds in post after doing impromptu portraits with otherwise unsuitable lenses.

The discussion with Mark S Abeln was about the advantages of Eye-AF and having sensor-wide AF point coverage. His claim that "for portraiture, you only need one focus point" is not corroborated by my experience.

Not all portraits need shallow DoF.

 

[Klaus dk]

At this point, the only thing I care about in the RP vs 5D3 is that the RP is really small. I dislike small cameras like that and I am hoping that I don't end up not liking my camera choice at all because of it. I like big, bulky cameras.

IMHO, it's more a question of layout than of size, but it has never mattered much to me. My first digital camera was a pocketable P&S. The 7D was comparable to the 5D in size.

Let me add to this. I just looked at the comparison of 5D3 vs R50, and the only major thing to me that matters is that the sensor pixel area is much smaller (185% less)

You have $100. 100% of that is $100, so 100% less i $0. 185% less means you owe the bank $85. ;-)

With Canon APS-C, you have 39% of the sensor area of a full frame sensor (61% less).

Does it matter in landscape and portrait photography?

Not as much as you apparently think.

My point in suggesting an APS-C sensor is that it makes matters much less complicated when you're economically constrained.

 

[PGH423]

I notice that you have another thread running on basically the same subject only with more old dslrs tossed in. One of the posters there suggested that you look at the Canon RF50. You really should. You can buy it NEW in your price range, with a full one year warranty. It has modern AF, so it can do all the things those old dslrs can do and a lot more. You may not realize what you would be missing. Read some reviews and if possible try one at a camera store. It’s not as good as cameras that cost a lot more, but that is relative: it is still good, inexpensive, warrantied, new technology. You may like it. Beware of hair splitting distinctions. Save such ruminations for later, once you have more experience.

Yeah, I mentioned that. The OP has said that they want a big camera. They may want to try the R10 instead of R50. It is tiny but has a very deep grip that feels great IMO.

OP: Have you done a full day of shooting where you’re walking 15,000 steps and carrying your camera and a couple of lenses? Then you may (or may not) wish you had a light mirrorless camera with light lenses!

 

[christosphoto]

One day I went to downtown in my city and walked around for about 8 hours. I had a 24-70 f2.8 and a Panasonic Lumix gh5. I was fine.

 

[PGH423]

One day I went to downtown in my city and walked around for about 8 hours. I had a 24-70 f2.8 and a Panasonic Lumix gh5. I was fine.

Fair enough. I felt “fine” with my Sigma 100-400 on the 7d2 until I tried light mirrorless cameras and realized I didn’t even know what I had been missing. I could now have optically better gear for lighter weight. I realize the weight is not important to everyone though.

 

[christosphoto]

Today I went to my local camera store and held the RP, but I didn't really like it. My pinky doesn't really go in the right place. IDK what to do.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Today I went to my local camera store and held the RP, but I didn't really like it. My pinky doesn't really go in the right place. IDK what to do.

Yeah, a lot of people discount ergonomics, so you were wise to handle it first. I’d suggest telling the sales person your problem and ask to try other models.

I’m reminded of a friend who insisted on getting a tiny smartphone, despite advice to get something larger. Of course it is almost unusable for him.


--

The Refracted Light

A website about the Art and Science of Photography

therefractedlight.blogspot.com