6D I/II 1/4000 - why?

Gogster

Gogster

Messages
766
Name
Darryl
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering a 3rd body for a wide angle prime/zoom for those 'quirky' shots at events to save me swapping. I've been looking at 5D II's, 6D I/II, but was surprised to see the 6D 'hamstrung' by a max shutter of 1/4000. A a full-frame camera which, I would expect, a considerable number of users would be using L series lenses with wide apertures, on bright sunshine days, even at ISO100, it makes using those apertures difficult, if not impossible.

I know I could stop down and perhaps that's the answer, but for subject isolation a wide aperture is a useful tool.

Perhaps the 6D I is understandable as a full-frame budget, but can't see a reason to maintain this in version II, unless I'm missing something?
 
Limited so that those that want 1/8000 in a Canon body have to buy into the 5D or 1DX range. :D
 
I hate being limited to 1/4000 and having to juggle ND's, unboxing and fitting them for one shot and taking them off and putting them away for the next. Yuk. Having 1/8000 available is so much better. Maybe it's cost cutting.
 
Gogster said:
I'm considering a 3rd body for a wide angle prime/zoom for those 'quirky' shots at events to save me swapping. I've been looking at 5D II's, 6D I/II, but was surprised to see the 6D 'hamstrung' by a max shutter of 1/4000. A a full-frame camera which, I would expect, a considerable number of users would be using L series lenses with wide apertures, on bright sunshine days, even at ISO100, it makes using those apertures difficult, if not impossible.

I know I could stop down and perhaps that's the answer, but for subject isolation a wide aperture is a useful tool.

Perhaps the 6D I is understandable as a full-frame budget, but can't see a reason to maintain this in version II, unless I'm missing something?
Click to expand...

Buy an a suitable ND filter, suggest 3 stop (ND8)
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Buy an a suitable ND filter, suggest 3 stop (ND8)
Click to expand...

I did this for years but fishing the ND box out of my pocket or bag and getting the ND out and fitting it to the lens is a faff and for the next shot the ISO might go through the roof whilst the shutter speed goes through the floor so the ND box has to come out, the ND has to come off the lens and go into the box and the box has to go away. Such a faff.

1/8000 is so much more convenient... but there's costs and product differentiation to think about ;)
 
Most of my cameras are 'hamstrung' with a top shutter speed of 1/250! And that has never been an obstacle. With my digital cameras, I very rarely go above 1/1000 . I can see how it might occasionally be awkward but not much more.
 
Gogster said:
......I know I could stop down and perhaps that's the answer, but for subject isolation a wide aperture is a useful tool.
Click to expand...

Does 1 stop really make that much difference to subject isolation when down at f/1.2 or f/1.4?
 
john.margetts said:
Most of my cameras are 'hamstrung' with a top shutter speed of 1/250! And that has never been an obstacle. With my digital cameras, I very rarely go above 1/1000 . I can see how it might occasionally be awkward but not much more.
Click to expand...
But those of us who don't live in 1952 all the time or want to use fast lenses in good light may disagree.
 
woof woof said:
I did this for years but fishing the ND box out of my pocket or bag and getting the ND out and fitting it to the lens is a faff and for the next shot the ISO might go through the roof whilst the shutter speed goes through the floor so the ND box has to come out, the ND has to come off the lens and go into the box and the box has to go away. Such a faff.

1/8000 is so much more convenient... but there's costs and product differentiation to think about ;)
Click to expand...

Well if its a bright day then taking it on/off won't be an issue, or may just fit an ND2 on the camera and leave it on, 1 stop ISO gain really isn't going to kmake that much difference (on a bright day, even in the shadows)
 
Canon Bob said:
Does 1 stop really make that much difference to subject isolation when down at f/1.2 or f/1.4?
Click to expand...

In my experience it makes a difference being able to use f1.4 rather than having to stop down to f2.8 at a minimum. Personally I see the difference between f1.2/f1.4 and f2.8 as one that matters and that's if f2.8 does enough, sometimes it doesn't do it.
 
woof woof said:
I did this for years but fishing the ND box out of my pocket or bag and getting the ND out and fitting it to the lens is a faff and for the next shot the ISO might go through the roof whilst the shutter speed goes through the floor so the ND box has to come out, the ND has to come off the lens and go into the box and the box has to go away. Such a faff.

1/8000 is so much more convenient... but there's costs and product differentiation to think about ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed, perhaps the older 5D2 or original 5D, which both have 1/8000, is a better option.
 
Just get an £75 canon 40d that has 1/8000 for the rare occasions that you need 1/8000.

People are too fussy, 40d is fine in normal daylight.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
Well if its a bright day then taking it on/off won't be an issue, or may just fit an ND2 on the camera and leave it on, 1 stop ISO gain really isn't going to kmake that much difference (on a bright day, even in the shadows)
Click to expand...
Yes I think it can make enough of a difference to matter and it certainly did for me when limited to 1/4000. YMMV but I'd much rather have the freedom that 1/8000 gives rather than juggle ND's and boxes and lens hoods.
 
GTG said:
Just get an £75 canon 40d that has 1/8000 for the rare occasions that you need 1/8000.

People are too fussy, 40d is fine in normal daylight.
Click to expand...

My original concert camera was a 40D, beast it was! Full-frame snob now I'm afraid.
 
woof woof said:
In my experience it makes a difference being able to use f1.4 rather than having to stop down to f2.8 at a minimum. Personally I see the difference between f1.2/f1.4 and f2.8 as one that matters and that's if f2.8 does enough, sometimes it doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

But that's 2 stops whereas the difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 (normal for a DSLR) is only 1 stop.
 
Alternatively get yourself over to the darkside of CSC cameras.
Fast primes and electronic shutters makes for a null and void situation :exit:
 
stupar said:
Alternatively get yourself over to the darkside of CSC cameras.
Fast primes and electronic shutters makes for a null and void situation :exit:
Click to expand...

Tried a Panasonic GX1 with that 100-400 zoom that they do, at a rugby tournament, soooooo many out of focus shots, probably my fault.
 
Canon Bob said:
But that's 2 stops whereas the difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 (normal for a DSLR) is only 1 stop.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's one stop, it's just something else to consider in the fast moving environs, rather not have that complication.
 
I rarely if ever went faster than 1/2000s. As a prosumer cut-feature body it is OK. Not much more though... Canon wants you to buy 5D, 1X or one of the Cx00 cameras if you are professional. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is what they do.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I rarely if ever went faster than 1/2000s. As a prosumer cut-feature body it is OK. Not much more though... Canon wants you to buy 5D, 1X or one of the Cx00 cameras if you are professional. I don't necessarily agree with that but it is what they do.
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't have a light meter but last years Ironman was an extremely bright and sunshiny day (song?), 1/4000 would have been difficult at 2.8.

Ironman 703 2017-_J2Y8742-170618 by Darryl Godden, on Flickr
 
I just seen another forum where people were saying it could be to do with a cheap designed shutter mechanism rather than a deliberate disabling of 1/8000.

The life expectancy is 100K and 1/4000 so it if possible it is a cheaper, weaker design with cost cutting involved.

Maybe they tried 1/8000 in testing and there may have been problems or failures or whatever.

Just speculation of course but it kinda makes sense that 1/8000 may be more costly to achieve so is cut on cheaper models
 
Gogster said:
Really? I didn't have a light meter but last years Ironman was an extremely bright and sunshiny day (song?), 1/4000 would have been difficult at 2.8.

Ironman 703 2017-_J2Y8742-170618 by Darryl Godden, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I don't tend to shoot things like that.

It wouldn't be that hard to fit a light ND filter once in a while if required. But here a far bigger issue would be the 6D AF tracking....
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I don't tend to shoot things like that.

It wouldn't be that hard to fit a light ND filter once in a while if required. But here a far bigger issue would be the 6D AF tracking....
Click to expand...

I’ve shot red kite in flight with a 6D. Never had a problem with AF tracking.
 
Gogster said:
Really? I didn't have a light meter but last years Ironman was an extremely bright and sunshiny day (song?), 1/4000 would have been difficult at 2.8.

Ironman 703 2017-_J2Y8742-170618 by Darryl Godden, on Flickr
Click to expand...
According to the data on Flickr you took that shot at f/5.6 at 1/640 sec at 100 ISO. If so, since you didn't even get to 1/1000 of a second, how would a shutter speed limit of 1/4000 of a second have ruined your day in that real world situation?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at you, I'm just making the point that real world situations (rather than hypothetical situations) are what matters when assessing how useful/suitable a camera is. I don't think looking at spec sheets and test charts tells the full story all the time.

I've said this before, I think the 6D is something of a triumph of function over specification. It's not the best camera in the world, but it cost a damned sight less than a 5D III, and often does a better job in low light too! OK, so it's not got 45 focus points, or some other bells and whistles that the average amateur photographer might use once in a blue moon, but the 5D and the 1Ds don't have 45 point eye-controlled focus like my Canon EOS-3 does... so does that make them not as good? Spec matters, but real life performance mattes more, and I think the original 6D was damned good value for money, despite what some of it's non owner critics might think.
 
Last edited:
I guess if you're shooting portraits outdoors in bright sunshine at f2 or wider, then perhaps it's an issue, but I rarely get my 6D beyond 1/2000 so I haven't yet had a problem. And if you're doing sports, you're probably not going wider than f2.8; limited either by the long lens or the fact you need to get a moving person in focus.
The worst you could do is try a 6D out and see if it is a problem with what you're shooting.
 
woof woof said:
In my experience it makes a difference being able to use f1.4 rather than having to stop down to f2.8 at a minimum. Personally I see the difference between f1.2/f1.4 and f2.8 as one that matters and that's if f2.8 does enough, sometimes it doesn't do it.
Click to expand...
You know there’s 2 stops between 1.4 and 2.8

So if 1/8000 would get you 1.4, then 1/4000 will get you f2 (Not 2.8 at a minimum) :D

1 stop is just one stop, I can see that in extreme circumstances it can be useful, but 1 stop doesn’t ever become 2 stops at a minimum just because you’re unhappy.
 
Phil V said:
You know there’s 2 stops between 1.4 and 2.8

So if 1/8000 would get you 1.4, then 1/4000 will get you f2 (Not 2.8 at a minimum) :D

1 stop is just one stop, I can see that in extreme circumstances it can be useful, but 1 stop doesn’t ever become 2 stops at a minimum just because you’re unhappy.
Click to expand...
3 stops you mean?

F2 F1.8 F1.4
 
Phil V said:
I think you’ll find.
F1, f1.4, F2, f2.8, F4...

Do you see the mathematical pattern?

F1.8 isn’t a full f stop, it’s between 1.4 and 2. ;)
Click to expand...
Off topic but...

It doesn’t carry on exactly though, f5.6, f8, f11... it should be f5.5 shouldn’t it? Or is it to do with rounding up/down
 
jonoooo125 said:
Off topic but...

It doesn’t carry on exactly though, f5.6, f8, f11... it should be f5.5 shouldn’t it? Or is it to do with rounding up/down
Click to expand...
It’s rounding. ;)
5.6, 8, 11.2, 16, 22.4, 32, 45

We round shutter speeds too.
 
Last edited:
jonoooo125 said:
Off topic but...

It doesn’t carry on exactly though, f5.6, f8, f11... it should be f5.5 shouldn’t it? Or is it to do with rounding up/down
Click to expand...
to go from one aperture number to the next you multiply by the square root of two (1.414). Starting at f/1, 1x1.4= f/1.4. f/1.4 x 1.4 = f/2. f/2 x 1.4 = f/2.8. f/2.8 x 1.4 = f/4. f/4 x 1.4 = f/5.6. f/5.6 x 1.4 = f/8 and so on.

Multiplying by 1.414 ensures that the area of the aperture halves each time (f/5.6 is a fraction, increasing the 5.6 decreases the value of the fraction) so admitting half as much light.
 
john.margetts said:
to go from one aperture number to the next you multiply by the square root of two (1.414). Starting at f/1, 1x1.4= f/1.4. f/1.4 x 1.4 = f/2. f/2 x 1.4 = f/2.8. f/2.8 x 1.4 = f/4. f/4 x 1.4 = f/5.6. f/5.6 x 1.4 = f/8 and so on.

Multiplying by 1.414 ensures that the area of the aperture halves each time (f/5.6 is a fraction, increasing the 5.6 decreases the value of the fraction) so admitting half as much light.
Click to expand...
So where does f/1.8 (that was oh so popular for 50mm lenses back in the day) come from then? ;)
 
Mr Badger said:
So where does f/1.8 (that was oh so popular for 50mm lenses back in the day) come from then? ;)
Click to expand...
As a maximum aperture, it comes from the design of the lens.
If you look at the maximum apertures of film era prime lenses, there are some strange maximum apertures. For instance, Schneider used to make a Radionar lens which was a triplet design with a maximum aperture of f/2.9 (rather than f/2.8)
 
Last edited:
Gogster said:
Really? I didn't have a light meter but last years Ironman was an extremely bright and sunshiny day (song?), 1/4000 would have been difficult at 2.8.

Ironman 703 2017-_J2Y8742-170618 by Darryl Godden, on Flickr
Click to expand...


Shoot at 5.6 then ... this image didn't benefit from shooting at 2.8 in any way so why didn't you stop down?


[edit] nevermind ... just read more posts above and then checked the image on Flickr ... you were at 5.6 ... you weren't even close to 1/4000 let alone 1/8000, so what was your point in what seems a pretty obnoxious post tbh
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Shoot at 5.6 then ... this image didn't benefit from shooting at 2.8 in any way so why didn't you stop down?


[edit] nevermind ... just read more posts above and then checked the image on Flickr ... you were at 5.6 ... you weren't even close to 1/4000 let alone 1/8000, so what was your point in what seems a pretty obnoxious post tbh
Click to expand...

Your comment was based on this image, which was simply a display of a bright day?

Who's being obnoxious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top