Are two cameras going to replace the Canon EOS R5? [CR]

[neuroanatomist]

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. This becomes a matter of personal ethics and responsibility. The accepted standard for nature, wildlife, sports, journalism, etc., is not to manipulate an image beyond what was possible using traditional darkroom techniques.

It’s a matter of personal choice, but for me I have no interest in taking and displaying pictures that don’t reflect my own abilities. I’m in this to push my own limits. I want to have the personal satisfaction of being able to say I was there and this is what I saw.

I may be naïve but I think that will always be the appeal of photography for many people.

I disagree to some extent. For example, cloning a stray plant part in front of a perched bird is something I don't have a problem with, although it's not really possible with 'traditional darkroom techniques' (at least, I couldn't manage it when I was developing and printing my own black-and-white images). For photo competitions with specific rules, cloning is generally prohibited for nature images (but global edits including HDR are allowed). But I typically don't manipulate an image to the point that it differs substantially from what was captured, unless the whole point is creative post processing of the image.

For example, this (original image on the left):


Or an even more extreme example:

 

[entoman]

If only it had a better EVF...

Yes, the relatively coarse EVF was what stopped me from replacing my 5DMkiv with a R.
Also the lack of IBIS.

Then, along came the R5 and my prayers were answered.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, the relatively coarse EVF was what stopped me from replacing my 5DMkiv with a R.
Also the lack of IBIS.

Then, along came the R5 and my prayers were answered.

When the R came out, I bought it for the sole purpose of using my numerous Leica R lenses. Yet, I soon found out that the EVF was, even for this specific case, as you wrote, too coarse. (My R lenses have to be focused at closed diaphragm.)
Presently, I'm just waiting for the R5's selling price to crumble (and to order it as you suggested from Panamoz).

 

[AlanF]

When the R came out, I bought it for the sole purpose of using my numerous Leica R lenses. Yet, I soon found out that the EVF was, even for this specific case, as you wrote, too coarse. (My R lenses have to be focused at closed diaphragm.)
Presently, I'm just waiting for the R5's selling price to crumble (and to order it as you suggested from Panamoz).

It's just back in stock there @ £2770 compared with £4299 regular price, a 55% mark up by Canon in the UK.

 

[unfocused]

Yeah, I'm with you.
I've never used one of the "lower" resolution modes ever on any of my cameras. I buy them for their full resolution and use it.

CRaw is not lower resolution.

 

[unfocused]

I disagree to some extent. For example, cloning a stray plant part in front of a perched bird is something I don't have a problem with, although it's not really possible with 'traditional darkroom techniques' (at least, I couldn't manage it when I was developing and printing my own black-and-white images). For photo competitions with specific rules, cloning is generally prohibited for nature images (but global edits including HDR are allowed). But I typically don't manipulate an image to the point that it differs substantially from what was captured, unless the whole point is creative post processing of the image.

For example, this (original image on the left):
View attachment 208896 View attachment 208897

Or an even more extreme example:
View attachment 208898 View attachment 208899

I don't know that we have a major disagreement. We all have our own personal standards of what we find acceptable and when submitting photos to others for either commercial, competitive or journalistic use, the group accepting the photo has their own standards. As I'm sure you know, most photo competitions use the "traditional darkroom technique" or similar standard. The digital equivalents of dodging, burning, spotting, etc. are generally considered acceptable. Moving things around is not. But, in journalism this applies not just to darkroom but to shooting as well (for example, most photojournalism agencies consider it unethical to rearrange or move objects in a scene).

Of course, much commercial work is heavily manipulated and has been since well before the digital age.

We can go down all sorts of rabbit holes about what is or is not "acceptable" but it kind of misses my original point, which maybe wasn't stated clearly enough.

To try to keep it simple, what I'm getting at is that, for me, I want to be able to capture what was really there and what I experienced. It would take all the fun out of photography if I just created a scene through artificial intelligence. To me, it's like the "hunters" who have people driving the game into range so they can shoot an animal; or taking pictures in a zoo and passing them off as being taken in the wild (I have no problem with zoo pictures so long as they are properly labeled.)

If all you want is the perfect picture of a bird in flight, and don't care about how you got it, then just buy one off the internet. But, if you want the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually there, the bird actually flew by and you actually got the shot and got it in focus, then using AI to manufacture a shot is never going to be satisfying.

I just don't think AI is going to be the death of photography as we know it, because I really believe most people are after the experience of doing it themselves.

 

[Del Paso]

It's just back in stock there @ £2770 compared with £4299 regular price, a 55% mark up by Canon in the UK.

Thank you!
But I should pay my dental implants first...
I've checked Panamoz, via Email and Internet ratings. They answered within minutes...in a very satisfactory manner. And custom duties, if sent to continental Europe, are a non-issue, same for warranty.
So, next month, I'll place an order, since the R5 has all the features (and many more!) I need for travel, landscapes and macros.
I used to photograph birds too, mostly birds of prey, in my film days with Leica Rs and the quick focusing 560mm Telyt and the 1,4 Extender. Yet, when I compare my bird pictures with the ones I see on this forum, I pale with envy.
Alas, my wife lacks the patience required, unlike yours...

 

[AlanF]

Thank you!
But I should pay my dental implants first...
I've checked Panamoz, via Email and Internet ratings. They answered within minutes...in a very satisfactory manner. And custom duties, if sent to continental Europe, are a non-issue, same for warranty.
So, next month, I'll place an order, since the R5 has all the features (and many more!) I need for travel, landscapes and macros.
I used to photograph birds too, mostly birds of prey, in my film days with Leica Rs and the quick focusing 560mm Telyt and the 1,4 Extender. Yet, when I compare my bird pictures with the ones I see on this forum, I pale with envy.
Alas, my wife lacks the patience required, unlike yours...

At least you will be able to chew it over.

 

[Del Paso]

I don't know that we have a major disagreement. We all have our own personal standards of what we find acceptable and when submitting photos to others for either commercial, competitive or journalistic use, the group accepting the photo has their own standards. As I'm sure you know, most photo competitions use the "traditional darkroom technique" or similar standard. The digital equivalents of dodging, burning, spotting, etc. are generally considered acceptable. Moving things around is not. But, in journalism this applies not just to darkroom but to shooting as well (for example, most photojournalism agencies consider it unethical to rearrange or move objects in a scene).

Of course, much commercial work is heavily manipulated and has been since well before the digital age.

We can go down all sorts of rabbit holes about what is or is not "acceptable" but it kind of misses my original point, which maybe wasn't stated clearly enough.

To try to keep it simple, what I'm getting at is that, for me, I want to be able to capture what was really there and what I experienced. It would take all the fun out of photography if I just created a scene through artificial intelligence. To me, it's like the "hunters" who have people driving the game into range so they can shoot an animal; or taking pictures in a zoo and passing them off as being taken in the wild (I have no problem with zoo pictures so long as they are properly labeled.)

If all you want is the perfect picture of a bird in flight, and don't care about how you got it, then just buy one off the internet. But, if you want the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually there, the bird actually flew by and you actually got the shot and got it in focus, then using AI to manufacture a shot is never going to be satisfying.

I just don't think AI is going to be the death of photography as we know it, because I really believe most people are after the experience of doing it themselves.

Just a question.
I read, a few years ago, that some major agencies no longer accept "raw", for the reason they are too easy to manipulate, unlike Jpegs. I think it was either Reuters or AFP.
Do you know if this is correct?

 

[Del Paso]

I don't know that we have a major disagreement. We all have our own personal standards of what we find acceptable and when submitting photos to others for either commercial, competitive or journalistic use, the group accepting the photo has their own standards. As I'm sure you know, most photo competitions use the "traditional darkroom technique" or similar standard. The digital equivalents of dodging, burning, spotting, etc. are generally considered acceptable. Moving things around is not. But, in journalism this applies not just to darkroom but to shooting as well (for example, most photojournalism agencies consider it unethical to rearrange or move objects in a scene).

Of course, much commercial work is heavily manipulated and has been since well before the digital age.

We can go down all sorts of rabbit holes about what is or is not "acceptable" but it kind of misses my original point, which maybe wasn't stated clearly enough.

To try to keep it simple, what I'm getting at is that, for me, I want to be able to capture what was really there and what I experienced. It would take all the fun out of photography if I just created a scene through artificial intelligence. To me, it's like the "hunters" who have people driving the game into range so they can shoot an animal; or taking pictures in a zoo and passing them off as being taken in the wild (I have no problem with zoo pictures so long as they are properly labeled.)

If all you want is the perfect picture of a bird in flight, and don't care about how you got it, then just buy one off the internet. But, if you want the satisfaction of knowing that you were actually there, the bird actually flew by and you actually got the shot and got it in focus, then using AI to manufacture a shot is never going to be satisfying.

I just don't think AI is going to be the death of photography as we know it, because I really believe most people are after the experience of doing it themselves.

Good analogies (hunters and zoo).

 

[unfocused]

Just a question.
I read, a few years ago, that some major agencies no longer accept "raw", for the reason they are too easy to manipulate, unlike Jpegs. I think it was either Reuters or AFP.
Do you know if this is correct?

I think I remember something like that. Possibly Reuters or Getty. As I recall they were doing something to verify that their contract photographers were not manipulating images and it may have been related to a case where a photographer did change an image.

 

[unfocused]

Just a question.
I read, a few years ago, that some major agencies no longer accept "raw", for the reason they are too easy to manipulate, unlike Jpegs. I think it was either Reuters or AFP.
Do you know if this is correct?

I think I remember something like that. Possibly Reuters or Getty. As I recall they were doing something to verify that their contract photographers were not manipulating images and it may have been related to a case where a photographer did change an image.

Okay, I did a bit more research. Reuters tightened their standards after it came to light that a freelancer had manipulated photos of military action by Israel in Lebanon. There were two photos at issue, the better known one involved an overview of Beirut with clouds of dark smoke floating across the city. The image had been altered using the clone tool in Photoshop to increase the amount of smoke visible in the image.

As an aside, the documentary filmmaker Errol Morris wrote a great book "Believing is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography)" that references this case and also includes an interview with AP's Ben Curtis that explores the recurring images of children's toys photographed in the midst of wartime wreckage, It all Began with a Mouse. For anyone who really cares, it's an interestingly deep dive into the ethics of manipulation of images and situations in war, in the midst of situations where the photographers are often at great risk and need to make quick decisions regarding what they photograph.

 

[unfocused]

...But I should pay my dental implants first...

I can relate. I'm about halfway through a full mouth rehabilitation that includes four implants, as well as lots of other fun and expensive procedures.

 

[AlanF]

I can relate. I'm about halfway through a full mouth rehabilitation that includes four implants, as well as lots of other fun and expensive procedures.

There are some, not you, who need foul mouth rehabilitation.

 

[Del Paso]

I can relate. I'm about halfway through a full mouth rehabilitation that includes four implants, as well as lots of other fun and expensive procedures.

6 crowns, 1 bridge and 2 implants.
Who wins?
Oh, I forgot: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ (lots of cute little Eos Rs, RFs etc...)

 

[Del Paso]

I think I remember something like that. Possibly Reuters or Getty. As I recall they were doing something to verify that their contract photographers were not manipulating images and it may have been related to a case where a photographer did change an image.

If I'm not mistaken, the picture was shot in Palestina and showed men carrying a corpse. The picture raised suspicion as to its authenticity or, at least, had been heavily "improved".

 

[unfocused]

If I'm not mistaken, the picture was shot in Palestina and showed men carrying a corpse. The picture raised suspicion as to its authenticity or, at least, had been heavily "improved".

Okay, that's different than the one I referenced.

 

[usern4cr]

I know it's off-topic, but it's interesting to talk about AI and photography. I enjoy taking photos, and now rely on the Canon AF to get exact focus. But it's just a tool that I control to tell it what to focus on, and removing that complexity from me allows me to focus on composition of the image which I find the most important thing. Then post software helps to clean up the image (noise, exposure level etc), and then make it look a little "better" via things like more contrast, raising the shadows or lowering the highlights, increasing saturation a bit etc. Exporting with a slight sharpening is nice and you end up with a photo that is lovelier than what you actually took a photo of. But it's still only a photo of what you took - nothing subject-wise has been removed or created, so that it still is just a photo of what I saw. I'm amazed at what great things technology can do for me as a photographer.

I also enjoy printing my photos for framing and also for displaying in my local (small) town gallery, so that others can see it and hopefully tell me how much they like it. Once in a while someone buys what I've made which really makes me feel good. But the last photo exhibit I visited shook me to the bones (and not in a good way). After looking at all the paintings and thinking how lovely and varied they were, and how all were composed just like you'd see some masters do, without mistakes that you would expect from a local artist. As they were for sale, I could see how they would be perfect for your average person to buy - they were just the style that they would love to put on their wall. All of them. It was uncanny. On the way out, the art director (whom I know as I've displayed my art with him) told me they were all generated and painted by an AI algorithm that a single person had instructed. That person was not an artist, but someone who could pull the levers of a new artificial intelligence that would eventually know of no limits on what it could create, and of all the livelihoods of artists it could eventually replace. Why would anyone not want to buy these lovely works of art, in just the style they wanted to see, at such a low price that they could not resist buying? And how quickly will AI, and the machines that run it, replace us?

 

[FaolainWolf]

My needs are simple . . . but they're also likely steering me toward an unattainable R1. I just want the battery and autofocus of the R3 and a stacked sensor with between 45 and 60MP. The R3 battery makes focus through long lenses immediate. (But 24MP just isn't enough.)

 

[amorse]

I think most people here at CR who shoot bursts and don't use JPEG (an JPEG is what R3 is for) use CRAW.

Now, if you use R5 as a landscape camera, you don't need bursts. But if you use it for something like birds in flight....

I actually use burst for landscapes pretty often - but only on the low-speed rate (on a 5DIV) to keep the bitrate up. My use case is in shooting landscapes from an aircraft. I find when a composition is coming into view, the best bet is to use a low-speed burst and let it run until you're past the scene. It's a pain to get a pilot to circle back and go around the same scene again to get the composition just right (and the light can change by then anyway), so it's a lot easier to try and see a good composition coming, spray/pray as you fly through the scene, and select the best balance after the fact.