I was just pointing it at some gulls in the water below me, watching the white AF preview boxes. I tried out my old EF lenses and the AF was not as precise as with the 100-500. Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19401381
Please QUOTE when responding to a comment! Wild Birds of Europe: …showthread.php?p=19371752 There are less expensive brands out there. Of course with this knowledge I now wonder if I should buy Sandisk again. That may have been it.įirst thing I'm going to do now is purchase a new card. But yeah, didn't think it through when I took the card out of the R6 and into the R7. After clearing the card I now always do a low-level format. I then just click "download" again and then it goes ahead. Anyway, I regularly get the message that there are no images on the card to download.
XNVIEWMP SHARPEN DOWNLOAD
I don't use a card reader as I don't like taking out and re-asserting cards that often, so I hook up the camera to the Mac with a cable and use EOS Utility to download the images. I have always used Sandisk cards and never had one fail me. I don't know if the card itself may be an issue as well. I didn't reformat as there were still some images on it that I hadn't downloaded yet. And so I had to take that card out of the R6 and place it in the R7. I only bought one card for the R6 though, planning to get another down the line, but never ran out of space, so didn't. The highest quality cards SDXC UHS-II, V90, or whatever, the fastest, baddest Sandisk I could find. Some old posts for the EOS R suggested error 70 was a memory card issue.
It also looks like the R7 may have slightly less visible noise at high ISOs than the 90D by about 1/4 stop or so. It is pretty clear to me that for #1, all modern FF sensors are better than the R7, noise-wise (except perhaps for the RP/6D2 sensor in very deep shadows or at very high ISOs), but for #2 and #3, the noise in the R7 is as good as or is better than any Canon FF sensor (the R6 comes very close). So why, oh why, do so many people insist on thinking only in terms of #1 above, when their photography is mostly in #2 or #3?
XNVIEWMP SHARPEN ISO
If you choose to put a 2x on the R6 (or your 1Dx2, for that matter), to get the same pixel resolution of the subject, then the FF is going to be at 4x the ISO as the R7! You can choose to use that resolution, to show finer details, or suppress it, if you don't need it, by reducing the microcontrast at the pixel level with converter parameters like sharpness, detail, and NR.
XNVIEWMP SHARPEN FULL
It is only #1 where sensor size matters, if, and only if, you can get shallower DOF with the available lenses.įor #2, the FF would be at 2.56x the ISO, so comparing the two sensor sizes at the same ISO has nothing to do with anything real or practical!įor #3, you would have to view a 20MP FF at 200% to compare it to the R7 at 100%, and do that with the full knowledge that by default, the converter is sharpening noise and detail in the R7 that is beyond the resolution of the R6 at all. There are three broad categories of combined lens and sensor usage when needed shutter speed prevents good exposure at base ISO and higher ones must be used:ġ) Minimal DOF possible with available lenses (affordable, light enough, or even ones that exist at all).Ģ) Same angle of view and DOF ("equivalence" of everything but total pixel count), using the entire sensor area.ģ) Same subject size in millimeters on the sensor, due to focal-length limitation with the same optics. It doesn't make sense to talk about the noise difference between two cameras with different sensor sizes (2.56x area) and very different pixel sizes (4x) without providing usage context. When will these generic, academic comparisons end? It is a rhetorical exercise to state that with the same exposure, a larger sensor will have less noise, or that larger pixels will have less apparent noise at 100% pixel view on the same monitor. Its going to be 2 stops less performance than your R6 so Im not surprised by that statement Do you have some pics with noise that you thought was excessive.what ISO's
0 kommentar(er)
