วีดีโอ

Unfortunately not, at least not yet. I had, and still have for that matter, plans to build on this into a much deeper discussion of the various components like color spaces and log curves... Unfortunatley, stuff came up, and I didn't get that done last year like I had wanted to, it's still on my list and I'm slowly working at it, but it's not happening quickly.

@PointsInFocus but as of status quo those settings are still relevant?

I think they're still a good starting point in general. But like I said in the video, some of them (like shooting in XF-AVC) are overkill for most of us.

That sounds like the lens isn't fully seating when you mount it for some reason. An unmounted FD lens, at least the ones I've had, are stopped down to a middle aperture (around f/5.6 on a fast lens like my 50/1.8 and probably your 28/2.8). When it's fully locked into the mount the aperture opens fully. Your mount adapter looks like it should work the same way mine does. Make sure the lock/unlock lever is in the unlocked position before mounting then the lens, then rotate the lens until it clicks in to place. The aperture should (to the best of my knowledge) be in a middle position when the lens is unmounted. If the aperture is fully open before mounting, then you need to hold the release button on the lens and rotate the inner lens manually to release it (on most lenses there should be two studs you can use on the back of the lens just outside the rear element). As you seat the lens in the mount adapter, the aperture should open as you rotate it into place, and be fully open when it locks. Aside from that, I don't know.

Yes. As long as you're running firmware 1.0.9.1 or newer.

On the display 1 live view screen (press the disp/info button until you see the one with all the camera settings, or one more time after you reach the screen with no info), and there's a virtual button in the bottom left corner of the screen (looks like a finger touching a screen). When active, the exposure and white balance will get boxes around them and another virtual button will appear in the top left corner. Touching that new virtual button will take you to the quick control menus that allow you to adjust other recording settings.

I personally haven't seen that come up. That said, it could also be a problem with your cable or USB power source too. To switch from off's 5V mode to on's 9V mode, the camera has to renegotiate the USB PD session with the power source. If the signal is bad or noisy that can fail (e.g. the cable is marignal). Additional, the power source can potentially not allow/support the change if it thinks the change in profiles is too fast or somehow could be the result of a fault. Not that I'm saying it's not the camera, it could also be the camera, but USB-PD is complicated enough that a marginal or slightly out of spec implementation anywhere in the chain could cause that to happen.

@ Thanks for replying. I'll give it a try again with a MacBook power supply (145W w/ 100W PD cable) and determine whether or not it still occurs. Doing some research indicates that this is a know issue, however, as you rightly point out, it is not clear if the issue is with the Canon firmware, the battery PD delivery or the cable. Thanks and Cheers!

The feature was removed from the R1 and R5 mark 2.

Just for consistent behavior? No, I don't think it's worth doing for just that. For other features, then maybe. My experience so far, has been that they're close enough in function and menus that for general shooting I don't really think or care about which one I have in my hands.

If you're in full auto, then no, the camera won't keep the shutter speed at 1/50th. I'm not 100% sure what the exact algorithm is, but in my experience, in low light it seems like auto will prefer to keep the shutter speed as slow as it can go before raising the ISO, and in bright light it will drop the ISO and raise the shutter speed to control the exposure. I'm not entirely sure how the aperture gets adjusted in that process as well. In all exposure modes, the camera will display the current exposure settings along the bottom of the live image. If you want to maintain a fixed shutter speed, but still let the camera do it's thing, shoot in shutter priority.

Glad it was helpful.

I don't think they're protecting anyone, not even their own products (e.g. the R3 and R1). I think the R5 and R6 dropped so much volume compared to say the 5D4, that fitting not only the GNSS module but its antennas is the problem. I was reoginizing gear the other day and pulled out one of my 5D4s the other day, and was amazed at how much smaller my R5 is compared to it. Keep in mind, the Z6, Z7 or Z8 have GPS modules either. Also I could be wrong, but I don't think Sony has GPS modules even in the A1 II. AFAIK, both Sony and Nikon use smartphone apps for GNSS functionality.

My experience is that generally not really. The improvements on the Mark 2 don't really seem that significant, at least to me, most of the time. There are certainly edge cases, where yea, it absolutely makes a difference; the subject detection types come to mind here. And there may be some improvements in tracking and accuracy, but that depends heavily on what you're doing and the conditions you're shooting as much as anything. But functionally speaking, I switch back and forth between the two almost constantly, and I can't say I see a huge difference in the two cameras --- though again, this is qualified with for what I shoot and how I use them.

Sorry, but the video like the title and description are in English. If you're getting it in another language (presumably German) that's TH-cam's auto-dubbing nonsense. I thought I had turned that off, when TH-cam decided to enable it for everyone, but apparently I missed some videos.

That is so on my list of things to do.... I really wanted to get into it last year, and just couldn't get it done. I'm really hoping I can make some headway on that this year, but I have no idea how that's going to play out.

Changing the output transfer function doesn't change what's can be stored in the file, so it's not relevant. The only way to do that, change what's in the file, is to change the input transfer function, in which case it's not longer a rec.709 file and also no longer relevant to a discussion on the limits of a rec.709 file.

I like that, that's a good way to put it.

Useful

If you're looking at a simple reflective exposure, then yes you have to use a shutter speed where any vibration exists for a significant part of the exposure time. However, that's the beauty of an emissive target instead of a reflective one. With an emissive target, you have something akin to star trails or light trails with a flash light or headlights at night. Any movement of the camera shows up as a trail in the exposed frame. It doesn't matter that that happened for 1% of the exposure time or 50% of the exposure time, if the vibration is significant enough to move the source enough to harm the image quality you'll see a trail from that source moving.

@PointsInFocus I saw your argument in response to another comment like mine and so I replied with the following...While I can appreciate the theory behind using emissive light, the choice of an LCD with a pulse-width modulated LED backlight may present an issue. These pulses could be out of phase with the resonance frequency, or any harmonic, of the shock oscillation frequency. This phase misalignment could explain why light wasn’t captured from the vibrating pixel, despite the source being "emissive." If your emissive light source had been steady and constant, like sunlight, the results might have been different. In essence, your test is like attempting to light the top of a sailboat’s mast in rough seas with a rotating lighthouse beam. Only through pure chance, when the boat crests a wave and the beam happens to be pointed in the right direction, might any light reach the mast. I apologize for the rough analogy, but I hope it clarifies my point.

First, the LCD in question has a measured PWM frequency of just under 15KHz. While it's possible that the PWM flicker could mask a trail, the chances of that happening given the known magnitude and frequency of a mirror slap vibrations, never mind shutter slap vibrations is unlikely. Anything less than that, even an even multiple, would result in a trail of some sort. Moreover, the displacement has to be fairly significant (by camera terms), a single pixel shift isn't going to be meaningful, or differentiated from the dozens of other possible sources, and will likely be masked by the debayering process anyway. For vibration to be relevant photographically, we're talking about at least a displacement of handful of pixels, and that's quite unlikely to be happening at a frequency that's high enough that there won't be a captured trail in this setup (and likely even with a much lower PWM frequency). Doubly so when you consider that the resonant frequency is dictated by the mass of the camera (though it's more complicated than that), and two cameras were tested in this experiment; a gripped R5 with 2 batteries, and an un-gripped R5C with 1 battery. On top of that, the R5's sensor isn't rigidly mounted to the camera, even with the IS system off, the IS mechanism is going to damp vibrations at the sensor to some extent. And again, while it's possible that the two cameras with two different masses and two different sensor mounting configurations somehow also have the same resonant frequency, and that's also ~15 KHz. Again, I'm dubious that things line up that perfectly. So yes, I agree that in a perfect storm scenario where the camera's resonant frequency perfectly matches the PWM frequency it's possible that a PWM light could mask the movement. It's also highly unlikely with a high frequency PWM source and 2 different cameras with different masses and different sensor mounting situations that it actually happened in this case. On top of that, I did a lot more testing that went into this than what was shown. Including with a pin-hole masked continuous source, as well as some astrophotography. In the case of the pin hole masked light, the testing design had issues that made it much harder to interpret, but the results were functionally the same. If there was vibration induced blur, it wasn't significant enough to be distinguishable from other optical issues. I didn't use those tests for that reason.

@@PointsInFocus Considering you used multiple sensor structures in your testing, I completely agree with your conclusion that it's simply too unlikely. Thank you for taking the time to consider my postulation. I've subscribed to your channel, I've really enjoyed the depth of analysis you bring to these photography myth-busting experiments. I look forward to seeing your channel continue to grow and thrive.

​@@PointsInFocus This week, I took the time to conduct yet another extensive test to definitively address this topic, and I’ve concluded, without any doubt, that shutter shock is present in the R5 at or near 1/50th of a second as I found before. While sharp images were achievable, the results became increasingly inconsistent as the shutter speed approached this range. However, the moment I switched to EFCS, the images became noticeably sharper and achieved near 100% consistency every time. No matter how hard I tried, I could not replicate shutter shock at significantly slower shutter speeds on a tripod, as in your demonstration, regardless of whether I used a reflective or emissive light source. Based on these findings, I must conclude that your test is fundamentally flawed. The root cause isn’t entirely clear, but shutter speed appears to be the key factor. I strongly encourage you to replicate your test to verify this for yourself. You don't even need to be very fancy in your setup. Even hand held with IS enabled I can shoot a burst of images in mechanical shutter at 1/50th of a second. Then switch to EFCS and shoot a second burst. I can flip through the images on my PC and immediately identify when I made the switch from mechanical to electronic first curtain, as a large proportion of the images are noticeably softer using mechanical shutter, every time. I urge you to update your video, as its current conclusions are highly misleading. From my findings: the best setting for the R5, when image quality is the highest priority and shutter speeds are below 1/500th of a second, is undoubtedly Electronic First Curtain. The mechanical shutter should only be used at shutter speeds exceeding 1/1000th of a second, where EFCS may impact exposure consistency and bokeh but shutter speeds are high enough to eliminate any possibility of shock induced image degradation. Purely electronic shutter should only be considered when silent shooting or 20fps is prioritized over maximum image quality as it introduces other artifacts such as rolling shutter and a lower dynamic range. Thanks for making these videos, I highly appreciate them, and it kills me to bring you this conflicting data as I respect your attention to detail and intellect, I believe you thought you made a solid definitive test, but it's simply not the case this time, shutter shock is definitely present in the R5 unfortunately. Cheers.

@@PiedmontCommunityChurch I use it all the time my results are out standing as well, I just shot a week long shoot in Washington, Oregon. I used it when ever I got the chance it’s prefect for B-roll situations!!

On the R5, by default Auto ISO should aim to keep the shutter speed around 1/focal length. In the case of a manual lens, it gets that information from the IS settings (Shoot 7, IS (Image Stabilizer) mode, Focal Length). Otherwise, you can set the minimum shutter speed for auto ISO in the ISO menu (Shoot 2, ISO Speed Setting, Min. Shutter spd.) and set it to manual. On my camera, with the focal length set in the IS menu, auto ISO in Av mode stays where it should (1/125) given the focal length (50mm) and that I have auto set to +1 stops. So I'd say check that the focal length is set right in the IS menu. Barring that, go into the ISO menu and set it to manual and 1/30th and see if that fixes your problem.

Unfortunately, I can't make any specific recommendation at that price point; I just don't have enough experience with that market segment. That said, you're probably going want to look at super-zoom compact cameras, like the Canon Powershot SX 70Hs or Sony HX400V as examples. Historically, my advice in this situation would have been to find a camera store that's reasonably close and go see and try what they have on offer in your price point. However, I realized that most camera stores have closed now unless you're in a big city. If you can though, I would still recommend doing this.