Canon EOS R Series Cameras

Hanley said:
I just wish Affinity would release something to allow cataloguing as I love Affinity Photo.
Click to expand...
indeed its very good. I also have affinity and like how it works but lack of cataloguing, soft proofing and few other bits really lets it down.
 
nandbytes said:
that explains the s*** colours, Adobe colours are really muted
click on browse, what do you see? do you the options to change it to the camera standard profiles?
Click to expand...

That is in fact a very very good thing. Just move a few sliders and you'll get where you want to get with lots of options and freedom. Flat profiles are great and likewise it's bad when you have to start with fully baked contrasty and vivid output just like those crappy useless in camera jpegs
 
Wow, my R6 from WEX just landed. One month after ordering. Now I have the wonderful experience of matching up my settings to my other R6.

Does anyone know if Canon finally made a camera that can stay on the same time? Every time I shoot a wedding with my mk4's the time has to be reset. lol.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
That is in fact a very very good thing. Just move a few sliders and you'll get where you want to get with lots of options and freedom. Flat profiles are great and likewise it's bad when you have to start with fully baked contrasty and vivid output just like those crappy useless in camera jpegs
Click to expand...

it does give you a good baseline for ALL your cameras but then doesn't look like what it did in my camera when shooting.
I personally prefer to start with my camera's profile i.e. what it looked like in the EVF when I composed the shot.

I thought one of the reasons you shot canon was for their colours. if you are just going to start with the adobe profile as your starting point then does it even matter what brand you shoot as far as colours go?
 
Last edited:
nandbytes said:
it does give you a good baseline for ALL your cameras but then doesn't look like what it did in my camera when shooting.
I personally prefer to start with my camera's profile i.e. what it looked like in the EVF when I composed the shot.

I thought one of the reasons you shot canon was for their colours. if you are just going to start with the adobe profile as your starting point then does it even matter what brand you shoot as far as colours go?
Click to expand...
Change the colour profile in camera to match LR?
 
nandbytes said:
it does give you a good baseline for ALL your cameras but then doesn't look like what it did in my camera when shooting.
I personally prefer to start with my camera's profile i.e. what it looked like in the EVF when I composed the shot.

I thought one of the reasons you shot canon was for their colours. if you are just going to start with the adobe profile as your starting point then does it even matter what brand you shoot as far as colours go?
Click to expand...

I buy my cameras and software to give me flat malleable output just like pro video users would do - and we pay a bit of premium for that. It is then up to me and not some attached "canon colour" thing what happens next. I certainly want same "bland" output from pretty much all gear I may touch so I can make it become MY color
 
PDub said:
Change the colour profile in camera to match LR?
Click to expand...

Just set it to faithful so you at least get a more truthful histogram, and argb color space. It doesn't matter at all after important to lr.
 
@nandbytes I have only just left Lightroom and it's been a journey!! I have been trialling Photo Mechanic Plus which has full cataloguing capabilities, but is expensive. I'm now also trialling FastRawViewer which I'll probably buy, however this has no DAM functions.

What I have discovered is that I can still use Lightroom for cataloguing. It is just the Develop module that doesn't work - which by the way is not what Adobe told me would happen. They said I wouldn't be able to open the catalog.

I have been using DxO Photolab 3 and am now trialling 4, to which I will likely upgrade. At Around £50 for an upgrade it is half the price of the Adobe package... which I appreciate is more than just Lightroom.

I've yet to sort out my soft proofing and am thinking I will have to use my old version of On1 for this. I have printed from Affinity before but I'm not sure if I can softproof with it.
 
Bebop said:
@nandbytes I have only just left Lightroom and it's been a journey!! I have been trialling Photo Mechanic Plus which has full cataloguing capabilities, but is expensive. I'm now also trialling FastRawViewer which I'll probably buy, however this has no DAM functions.

What I have discovered is that I can still use Lightroom for cataloguing. It is just the Develop module that doesn't work - which by the way is not what Adobe told me would happen. They said I wouldn't be able to open the catalog.

I have been using DxO Photolab 3 and am now trialling 4, to which I will likely upgrade. At Around £50 for an upgrade it is half the price of the Adobe package... which I appreciate is more than just Lightroom.

I've yet to sort out my soft proofing and am thinking I will have to use my old version of On1 for this. I have printed from Affinity before but I'm not sure if I can softproof with it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I forgot about Photo Mechanic. I purchased Photo Mechanic 6 it as it was much easier to cull photos when I was photographing half and full marathons with thousands of pictures.
How do you find the cataloguing compared to LR?
 
Bebop said:
@nandbytes I have only just left Lightroom and it's been a journey!! I have been trialling Photo Mechanic Plus which has full cataloguing capabilities, but is expensive. I'm now also trialling FastRawViewer which I'll probably buy, however this has no DAM functions.

What I have discovered is that I can still use Lightroom for cataloguing. It is just the Develop module that doesn't work - which by the way is not what Adobe told me would happen. They said I wouldn't be able to open the catalog.

I have been using DxO Photolab 3 and am now trialling 4, to which I will likely upgrade. At Around £50 for an upgrade it is half the price of the Adobe package... which I appreciate is more than just Lightroom.

I've yet to sort out my soft proofing and am thinking I will have to use my old version of On1 for this. I have printed from Affinity before but I'm not sure if I can softproof with it.
Click to expand...

just looked up photomechanic and its rather expensive! :(
I have FastRAWViewer and its great for fast RAW viewing but its not much else. Really need a reasonable DAM and cataloguing functionality.

I have ON1 2020 too, affinity and luminar 3. All do various things to various degrees and some things better than others. but in the end none of them offer one full seamless package like LR does. LR is kinda good enough at most things it does and it does lot a lot of things from soft proofing to virtual copies to panos to cataloguing to radial filters and so on.
 
Hanley said:
Hmmm I forgot about Photo Mechanic. I purchased Photo Mechanic 6 it as it was much easier to cull photos when I was photographing half and full marathons with thousands of pictures.
How do you find the cataloguing compared to LR?
Click to expand...
To be honest I was more concerned with some of the other features I was going to miss from Lightroom, like being able to date time stamp the photos in their filename. I sometimes take sports photos for local papers and found this very useful in Lightroom.

I have only played a little with the catalog function. One thing that strikes me as very useful is that you can still preview images on disks that aren't connected to your computer, and it is very quick to preview, as I'm sure you know. I suppose you could in Lightroom as well, as long as the previews are there. Now I've realised I can still use Lightroom for cataloguing, it seems an unnecessary expense. I might buy it in the future if I get many sports jobs... not looking likely at the moment!!

You could trial Photo Mechanic Plus - the upgrade price will be less for you.

Edit: Just to add, it was Photo Mechanic Plus that I was trialling as they will no longer let you trial Photo Mechanic 6
 
Last edited:
As much as I'd love to get away from LR I'm just so ingrained into it, when I'm editing it's like I go into muscle memory mode and I can get through it so quickly.
That's what's putting me off moving.

I do use Photo Mechanic at times, if I'm importing park run pictures and I've taken over 1000 then I'll cull then in PM first as it's just so quick. I then import the keepers into LR and whizz through the edits.

I've just found a website called Colour Fidelity that make camera profiles for Lightroom and they have one for the R5 and the R6.
It's $15 so I've just purchased the R5 profile so it should be with me soon, I'll give it a try and compare the results against DPP4 (which is so clunky and time consuming it's just not something I want to use)
 
nandbytes said:
just looked up photomechanic and its rather expensive! :(
I have FastRAWViewer and its great for fast RAW viewing but its not much else. Really need a reasonable DAM and cataloguing functionality.

I have ON1 2020 too, affinity and luminar 3. All do various things to various degrees and some things better than others. but in the end none of them offer one full seamless package like LR does. LR is kinda good enough at most things it does and it does lot a lot of things from soft proofing to virtual copies to panos to cataloguing to radial filters and so on.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Photo Mechanic is expensive, think it cost me £100, I downloaded the trial a couple of times and the price kept putting me off, I finally purchased a licence and I've got to say I've never seen any program that can render previews and let you sort / cull images as quick as it can. It's clear why most sports / pitch side photographers use it.
 
Hanley said:
Yeah, Photo Mechanic is expensive, think it cost me £100, I downloaded the trial a couple of times and the price kept putting me off, I finally purchased a licence and I've got to say I've never seen any program that can render previews and let you sort / cull images as quick as it can. It's clear why most sports / pitch side photographers use it.
Click to expand...

I could try the trial but tbh I am very happy with the speed of fastrawviewer which is also really fast for previews/culling.
 
Hanley said:
Yeah, Photo Mechanic is expensive, think it cost me £100, I downloaded the trial a couple of times and the price kept putting me off, I finally purchased a licence and I've got to say I've never seen any program that can render previews and let you sort / cull images as quick as it can. It's clear why most sports / pitch side photographers use it.
Click to expand...
Best bit of software I've ever used
 
nandbytes said:
I could try the trial but tbh I am very happy with the speed of fastrawviewer which is also really fast for previews/culling.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm impressed with FRV. I think the code replacement for keywording is a great function in Photo Mechanic, but I've now learned that there is another program that can do that too, Typinator. I might look into that if I do more football matches to keyword players, but otherwise I think FRV will be all I need.

@Hanley I know what you mean. Using Lightroom is like an old pair of slippers. I may yet come back to it, but now that I've spent some time with Photolab, I think on the whole I am doing less editing. Photolab also has fantastic noise reduction ability. My other camera is micro four thirds, so it's great to do that within the same program.

Edit: Apologies I've taken it all a bit off topic. Here's a pic taken with my R using the 180mm macro just to get us back on topic. I do love the focus peaking on mirrorless.

20201026BCR_8544_1_DxO-1_DxO.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hanley said:
As much as I'd love to get away from LR I'm just so ingrained into it, when I'm editing it's like I go into muscle memory mode and I can get through it so quickly.
That's what's putting me off moving.
Click to expand...
Funny thing. I last used Lightroom over three years ago.
I'm now an On1 user, and have no desire to go back.
You can learn almost anything if you have the desire to, although the On1 workflow is different to LR.
 
Following on from my post yesterday about Lightroom and the bad processing of CR3 files from the R5 and R6.
I purchased an R5 colour profile from Colour Fidelity (link below but I'm not connected to them in any way) and the difference for me is significant enough that I don't need to include the space and time consuming process of Canon DPP4 into my workflow.
I import the raw CR3 file into Lightroom and use the Colour Fidelity colour profile, 3 images below showing the new R5 colour profile, Adobe Colour Profile on the CR3 and converting from CR3 to TIFF using DPP4 (but this produces a file of over 200MB per image) - what are your thoughts?

I think this will work for me and it was only $15

https://www.colorfidelity.com

5W9A3531_1.jpg
5W9A3531_2.jpg
5W9A3531_3.jpg
 
@Hanley - That's considerably more vibrant. To my eyes (and on a calibrated MacBook pro), the Canon one looks the most realistic and the Adobe one rather flat.

I'd be quite interested in what the DxO module for Photolab would do to the colours. I'm happy to try it if you want to send me the raw.

I remember when I first tried Lightroom years ago, thinking that the raw files looked better in the Canon software. It was just not as convenient.
 
Bebop said:
@Hanley - That's considerably more vibrant. To my eyes (and on a calibrated MacBook pro), the Canon one looks the most realistic and the Adobe one rather flat.

I'd be quite interested in what the DxO module for Photolab would do to the colours. I'm happy to try it if you want to send me the raw.

I remember when I first tried Lightroom years ago, thinking that the raw files looked better in the Canon software. It was just not as convenient.
Click to expand...

RAW file can be downloaded from this link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0z80l7b6ehqngf3/5W9A3531.CR3?dl=0
 
This is the neutral profile against Canon DPP4, I've checked them on my 27inch iMac and my 16inch MacBook Pro and they look very similar.
For me this is close enough and I'm happy that I don't need to mess around converting in DPP4 and having huge TIFF files to deal with. :)

5W9A3531 copy.jpg
5W9A3531_3.jpg
 
Last edited:
smr said:
Any of you guys ordered from e-fin recently? Wondering what their delivery time is like at the moment.
Click to expand...

Had a lens couple weeks ago. 9 days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
smr said:
Any of you guys ordered from e-fin recently? Wondering what their delivery time is like at the moment.
Click to expand...

I bought the Sigma 100-400 about 3 weeks ago and it took 7 days from placing order to receiving it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smr
Re R5 colors in Lightroom etc, another plus point for shooting jpg for events and suchlike, great results straight out of the camera?
 
Last week I had an all-day live-stream for a "conference TV" channel as part of an virtual conference. The R5 was fine streaming output to HDMI for almost 11 hours straight. No sign of any overheating issues.
 
Software

RE LR colours, as said, each to their own. If you use the "camera profiles" in Adobe they're not the same profiles as the camera are they? They're just Adobe's attempt to approximate the result Canon intended. Even when Adobe completes, them they wont be "Canon's"

Surely where it really matters - which, being honest, for me is virtually never - the best way to get it as close to what the camera captured and with best detail preservation is to use DPP. Whether you want to leave it neutral or jazz it up is up to you. You can then convert to TIFF or whatever for further jiggery-pokery. I sort of went off LR a while back and have been very happy with C1. For most things LR is a good enough compromise and it's handy but if I was being really critical I'd probably use DPP, convert to TIFF, then use C1 to finish,

I agree Photomechanic is amazing. I went through my entire back catalogue in a day and reduced the numbers of images I had by about 70%. If I was doing events and weddings I'd have bought it a long time ago, and now I'm getting into Birds I probably will buy it to make my "spray and pray" approach a bit more manageable :)

I'm really interested in the DAM of the new product too.
 
wooster said:
Software

RE LR colours, as said, each to their own. If you use the "camera profiles" in Adobe they're not the same profiles as the camera are they? They're just Adobe's attempt to approximate the result Canon intended. Even when Adobe completes, them they wont be "Canon's"

Surely where it really matters - which, being honest, for me is virtually never - the best way to get it as close to what the camera captured and with best detail preservation is to use DPP. Whether you want to leave it neutral or jazz it up is up to you. You can then convert to TIFF or whatever for further jiggery-pokery. I sort of went off LR a while back and have been very happy with C1. For most things LR is a good enough compromise and it's handy but if I was being really critical I'd probably use DPP, convert to TIFF, then use C1 to finish,

I agree Photomechanic is amazing. I went through my entire back catalogue in a day and reduced the numbers of images I had by about 70%. If I was doing events and weddings I'd have bought it a long time ago, and now I'm getting into Birds I probably will buy it to make my "spray and pray" approach a bit more manageable :)

I'm really interested in the DAM of the new product too.
Click to expand...

Agreed on Photo Mechanic, I'm doing exactly the same, going through my thousands and thousands of images to try and reduce the numbers, PM makes it much easier :)
 
Was recommended to use photo mechanic many moons ago while working in the press room at British Superbikes,also has some very good features for batch processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top