4:44 "Why did it switch focus points?" My guess is that the player on the left has both eyes clearly visible while the eyes of the player on the right aren't really visible. Just a guess though.
@@MLeeMedia Didn't he say he was in eye-track mode? This also reminds me that there are advanced focus scenarios for how sticky the subject should be. I'm not a pro shooter so I haven't gone that deep on the settings just yet. I've seen some sports shooters' channels where they say eye-track is a bad idea for sports... to each their own, I suppose: if it looks good then it is good, that's the final test.
I did notice that when shooting photos the AF tends to wonder, I’ve tried the spot focus and expanded spot focus and still seem to have problems finding the right AF for this body. I shoot football.
I have a Canon DSLR. The biggest problem for me is the ancient AF system compared to the mirrorless bodies. I'm thinking of upgrading to the R5 or R6II. One reason I don't like the R5 is that the 45MP photos are to large and too detailed. I shoot mainly portraits. Super detailed portraits are not desirable. I also shoot amateur men's soccer, on a full sized pitch. Do you find the 24MP from the R6II sufficient? Good to hear the EF glass works on the R bodies. I am not going to re-buy another lens system! I have also heard RF glass is too detailed, and some photographers are using EF lenses to gain a touch of softness.
Why wouldn’t 24mp be sufficient? Remember the 1DS mkiii with 21mp? It was sufficient for billboard sized prints then… I have a 1DX ii but as you say the ancient AF system doesn’t compare to the modern mirrorless. It misses too many shots, which is why I’m going for the R6 ii.
I know this in old video but i'm looking at buying this camera and checking out reviews... curious as to why you only shot at 1/2000s for the 40fps shots when this camera goes up to 1/16000s in ES... thx
The more you raise the shutter speed the higher the ISO goes, provided you keep the same aperture and still want to keep a properly exposed photo, something's gotta give.
You can change in setting to make focus more sticky to your subject. It will ignore anything but or will be less sensitive to changing subjects.
4:44 "Why did it switch focus points?" My guess is that the player on the left has both eyes clearly visible while the eyes of the player on the right aren't really visible. Just a guess though.
Could be, it's a good call, but way too far off the frame for it to be a wise decision when I was tracking the other player for quite a long time.
@@MLeeMedia Didn't he say he was in eye-track mode? This also reminds me that there are advanced focus scenarios for how sticky the subject should be. I'm not a pro shooter so I haven't gone that deep on the settings just yet. I've seen some sports shooters' channels where they say eye-track is a bad idea for sports... to each their own, I suppose: if it looks good then it is good, that's the final test.
@@AdamQuinnPhoto Thats what I was thinking. In the D/LRs its AF case 2 and I use it 99% of the time and it works pretty well.
Tou a pensar comprar esta, mas tmb estou a pensar na R5. Qual me aconselhavas?
qualquer uma delas será uma excelente escolha. a escolha, é tua :D
Holy pixel peeping batman! 3000 images and you found 2 where the focus shifted...
I did notice that when shooting photos the AF tends to wonder, I’ve tried the spot focus and expanded spot focus and still seem to have problems finding the right AF for this body. I shoot football.
I have a Canon DSLR. The biggest problem for me is the ancient AF system compared to the mirrorless bodies. I'm thinking of upgrading to the R5 or R6II. One reason I don't like the R5 is that the 45MP photos are to large and too detailed. I shoot mainly portraits. Super detailed portraits are not desirable. I also shoot amateur men's soccer, on a full sized pitch. Do you find the 24MP from the R6II sufficient? Good to hear the EF glass works on the R bodies. I am not going to re-buy another lens system! I have also heard RF glass is too detailed, and some photographers are using EF lenses to gain a touch of softness.
The sensor of the camera is great, no issues at all, and all my EF lenses work flawlessly.
Why wouldn’t 24mp be sufficient? Remember the 1DS mkiii with 21mp? It was sufficient for billboard sized prints then… I have a 1DX ii but as you say the ancient AF system doesn’t compare to the modern mirrorless. It misses too many shots, which is why I’m going for the R6 ii.
Did you ever upgrade? If so, what did you get?
I know this in old video but i'm looking at buying this camera and checking out reviews... curious as to why you only shot at 1/2000s for the 40fps shots when this camera goes up to 1/16000s in ES... thx
The more you raise the shutter speed the higher the ISO goes, provided you keep the same aperture and still want to keep a properly exposed photo, something's gotta give.