In-body image stabilisation

Harmonic said:
You should come over to Sony my friend :p
Click to expand...
Just to replace my three main lenses (only) would cost in excess of R340k.

Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens​
R269,995.00​
​
Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens​
R44,995.00​
​
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens (E Mount)*​
R28,995.00​

So, no.

*I have no idea what e mount is but it matches my current glass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
bwana said:
Just to replace my three main lenses (only) would cost in excess of R340k.

Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens​
R269,995.00​
​
Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens​
R44,995.00​
​
Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens (E Mount)*​
R28,995.00​

So, no.

*I have no idea what e mount is but it matches my current glass. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
That 400mm is pornographic! Sadly this is how camera manufacturers get us by the balls.

Sony has E-mount and A-mount similar to how Canon has EF/RF mounts
 
bwana said:
Believe it or not Canon's is more expensive but at least I have it and thanks to the R2.5k adapter I can still use it.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed any difference in AF speed or accuracy using your EF lenses with the adapter?
I’m assuming you’re using the official Canon EF to RF adapter?
 
airborne said:
Have you noticed any difference in AF speed or accuracy using your EF lenses with the adapter?
I’m assuming you’re using the official Canon EF to RF adapter?
Click to expand...
No, but I haven't had the opportunity to put it though its paces yet. I might on Sunday but I'm still on the fence.

Yeah - I got the canon adapter.
 
bwana said:
No, but I haven't had the opportunity to put it though its paces yet. I might on Sunday but I'm still on the fence.

Yeah - I got the canon adapter.
Click to expand...
If there’s no much performance difference it’s an interesting value proposition to buy an RF body and use all the old but gold and cheap as chips(relatively speaking) EF glass
 
airborne said:
If there’s no much performance difference it’s an interesting value proposition to buy an RF body and use all the old but gold and cheap as chips(relatively speaking) EF glass
Click to expand...
I don't have any RF lenses to compare but as long as I keep shooting dSLRs I probably wont be making any major investments is RF glass.

I am quite interested in trying out the 1.4tc on my 400mm with the R7.

Coming full circle I don't envisage a situation where I might actually enable in-body image stabilisation.
 
Last edited:
Harmonic said:
Can only be that the older battery can't supply the required current to run the mech shutter at those speeds.

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer the mech shutter? On my camera I've prob taken 100k images of which maybe 5k have been with the mech shutter.
Click to expand...
Sounds like there are two different battery models. While it's possible they can't supply the necessary current it's still rather strange though.

There are legitimate reasons for mechanical shutter but overall it also makes the camera wear out quicker so it should be kept at a minimum.

bwana said:
There should be, but there isn't...
Click to expand...
Actually there is, don't know if it's sufficient for your needs

Harmonic said:
Makes sense. Can't say I've ever noticed it outside of video though. I think that's more because the shutter speed is low than the sensor readout speed. At least in my applications.


You should come over to Sony my friend :p

We even dedicated dials to choose the FPS on the fly
Click to expand...
There is a dial that can be assigned to a bunch of functions. Personally these aren't the kind of functions I'd ever really use so it still suits me though.

airborne said:
If there’s no much performance difference it’s an interesting value proposition to buy an RF body and use all the old but gold and cheap as chips(relatively speaking) EF glass
Click to expand...
That is the idea and there's even the perk you can keep your filter on the camera as you change lenses. There are however a few new RF lenses but they mostly cover what's already covered by EF lenses.
 
Swa said:
There are legitimate reasons for mechanical shutter but overall it also makes the camera wear out quicker so it should be kept at a minimum.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned electronic shutters suffer from rolling shutter effect while mechanical doesn't. It's not as much of an issue with the R3 but it's still an issue nevertheless.

Swa said:
Actually there is, don't know if it's sufficient for your needs
Click to expand...
There isn't. Not like I'm used to with my other bodies where you can adjust the rate with granularity. If I want X per second I can have X per second. With the R7 I can have 15/6.5 (mechanical) or 30/15 electronic and even that relies in my using a LP-6NH battery.

EOS-7D-Mark-II-continuous-shooting-571x600.jpg
There is a dial that can be assigned to a bunch of functions. Personally these aren't the kind of functions I'd ever really use so it still suits me though.
Click to expand...
Most of the buttons and dials can be customised.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
bwana said:
As I mentioned electronic shutters suffer from rolling shutter effect while mechanical doesn't.
Click to expand...


shutter.jpg
ISO: 640
Aperture: 3.2
Shutter: 1/2000 / Electronic
 
After putting about 7k photos this week through the R7 I'm pretty happy with my purchase.

Rolling shutter is a problem but that can be mitigated but in order to completely avoid it I've got the mechanical shutter.

Catch 22 us mechanical relies on the latest battery types which are close to R3k each if you get the Canon one. In the meantime I've ordered a Hahnel battery to test. Hopefully that will give me decent results.
 
bwana said:
After putting about 7k photos this week through the R7 I'm pretty happy with my purchase.

Rolling shutter is a problem but that can be mitigated but in order to completely avoid it I've got the mechanical shutter.

Catch 22 us mechanical relies on the latest battery types which are close to R3k each if you get the Canon one. In the meantime I've ordered a Hahnel battery to test. Hopefully that will give me decent results
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, would you be able to share an image where the rolling shutter is a problem?

Also lens, aperture, shutter speed etc
 
Harmonic said:
Out of curiosity, would you be able to share an image where the rolling shutter is a problem?

Also lens, aperture, shutter speed etc
Click to expand...
Doesn't really matter as it's more related to the scan speed. Mechanical shutter can reduce it to about 1/250s but to really eliminate it you need a leaf shutter.
 
Swa said:
Doesn't really matter as it's more related to the scan speed. Mechanical shutter can reduce it to about 1/250s but to really eliminate it you need a leaf shutter.
Click to expand...
Sure, I was just curious to see what it looks like though. Looking at the specs, the R7 has a readout speed of 29ms vs the 4ms of my A1. Maybe that's why I've never really noticed rolling shutter
 
On another note the price of memory is ridiculous. V90 (260MB/s) is almost 10x the price of V30 (140M/s). With the R10 shooting RAW+JPEG gives you 4 images/s vs 6 images/s for C-RAW+JPEG. This is similar to shooting RAW with the R7. I don't know how this manifests with the leeway the buffer gives you. V90 gives you 7 vs 11 images/s.
 
Harmonic said:
Sure, I was just curious to see what it looks like though. Looking at the specs, the R7 has a readout speed of 29ms vs the 4ms of my A1. Maybe that's why I've never really noticed rolling shutter
Click to expand...
Didn't know they gave that in the specs. 4ms is kinda fast and is 1/250s. Is that not perhaps with the mechanical shutter?

I imagine the images would look similar to one he posted. The main problem seem to be with the ball and perhaps the bat.
 
Swa said:
On another note the price of memory is ridiculous. V90 (260MB/s) is almost 10x the price of V30 (140M/s). With the R10 shooting RAW+JPEG gives you 4 images/s vs 6 images/s for C-RAW+JPEG. This is similar to shooting RAW with the R7. I don't know how this manifests with the leeway the buffer gives you. V90 gives you 7 vs 11 images/s.
Click to expand...
Then look at CF express type A if you want to fall off your chair :crying: R6.1k for 80GB
 
Swa said:
Didn't know they gave that in the specs. 4ms is kinda fast and is 1/250s. Is that not perhaps with the mechanical shutter?

I imagine the images would look similar to one he posted. The main problem seem to be with the ball and perhaps the bat.
Click to expand...
I don't think the shutter type matters in this case but I stand corrected.

The ball looks like rolling shutter but could also be too slow a shutter speed. Have to do the maths
 
Assuming the ball is moving at 200km/h, a 1/2000 shutter speed means that the ball would move almost 3cm in that time. It's plausible that the shutter speed is just too low.

I know bird photographers regularly use shutter speeds up to 1/5000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X