MikeGalos said:

So, by that rationale, real pros don't want integrated grips and only "photographer wannabe" really want integrated grips.

Click to expand...

Nikon is the only OEM offering basically the same camera in integrated and non-intergrated grip formats... both at competitive pricing. Only they will know the volumes of each to determine which is preferred by pro/non-pro alike.

clarus said:

That's a beautiful suggestion. Love it. Especially when some bodies have a LCD-based mode selector, displaying names would be sooooo easy to implement...

Also allow for different file naming schemes or folders depending on the custom mode so two people can shoot with the same body and we can clearly attribute the photos afterwards. Tried it on the R5II and the naming scheme seems to be a global setting.

It's not AI-based, though, so it probably gets dismissed....

Click to expand...

It's easy peasy. Each user keeps a different memory card. Add a prefix or suffix when importing each card's contents to your computer.

Aldherrian said:

Even without shooting through the full 4 digit roll in a day, it seems a low effort QoL upgrade to allow 5 digit file name.
It's not a big problem but personnally, when traveling, I have to use a renamer software regularly to change the file name to include the day of shooting and avoid duplicate number between the start and end of the trip. There are workarounds but it would be nice to not having to think of that

Click to expand...

The software I use to import from camera to computer automatically creates folders for each calendar day based on the EXIF 'original date created' tags. I have custom file names set in each camera. Instead of IMG_xxxx, the images from my 5D Mark IV are MC54xxxx, the images from my 5D Mark III are MC53xxxx, from my 7D Mark II are MC72xxxx. Even if there is overlap in file sequence numbers between different camera bodies, there is no duplication of file names and no dreaded IMG_xxxx_1 file names for the second image to be imported with the same sequence number.

After culling, editing, and sequencing them for delivery to clients and for posting on my website and to social media albums I batch change the names to YYMMDDxxxx[Original file name] where YYMMDD is a six digit date and xxxx is a four digit sequence number. When I batch convert from raw to JPEG I add xR at the end of the file name which indicates high or downsized resolution. If I do a color and monochrome version of the same image, the monochrome version gets an "mc" at the end of the file name. HDR images get "hdr" at the end. Monochrome HDR images get an "hdrmc" at the end.

So the high resolution version of an image taken with my 5D Mark IV on April 12, 2025 with in camera file name of MC546423 that I select as the first image of my output becomes 2504120001MC546423HR.JPG, the low resolution version of the second image in the sequence, MC720351 from my 7D mark II, becomes 2504120002MC720351LR.JPG. If I have multiple events or sub groups on the same day, the first one gets sequential numbering beginning with 0001 in the 7th-10th spaces, the next group starts with 0101 (or 0201 if the first event had more than 100 finished images), then 0201, 0301, etc. Sometimes I'll skip if there are only 3-4 different subgroups: 0001, 0201, 0401, 0601, etc. If there are a lot of images in each subgroup I'll go from 0001 to 1001, but I like to keep at least one zero between the six digit date and the rest of the sequence number when I can.

OldDudePhotog said:

Yes, I routinely shoot 14k+ images at an all-day track and field event and have shot more than 10k at an all-day motorsports event.

Click to expand...

Better you than me. I used to shoot around 4K images a day at high school marching band competitions, but they went straight to JPEG and memory card runners raced the images to the sales booth after each band performed so they would be playing on the screen in the sales booth as the parents left. I didn't have to cull anything. I also couldn't shoot garbage frames.

Michael Clark said:

If you go by DxO, lenses are also rated in Megapixels...

Click to expand...

That’s just your Perception.

EOS 4 Life said:

Sounds like you want an R3.
The price has come down a lot.

Click to expand...

Everyone always wants a Rolex for a Citizen price...

neuroanatomist said:

If you go by DxO, dynamic range is a very important factor in lens performance. So, maybe don’t go by DxO.

Click to expand...

If you go by DxO, lenses are also rated in Megapixels...

Chig said:

But at 16x20 you need less PPI anyway: 150 PPI is plenty and as you print larger proportionally less is needed because the comfortable viewing distance increases and the limitations of human eyesight.
Magazine size is the apex of where detail is needed

Click to expand...

You need exactly the same number of pixels to get the same visual experience for a viewer looking at an 8x10 at one foot or a 16 x 20 at two feet, because the angle of view, and thus the number of pixels per minute of arc of the viewer's vision is exactly the same. Ditto for an 80 x 100 feet image viewed at 120 feet.

MikeGalos said:

Nor 16x20 a maximum. Surprisingly, one of the biggest markets for needing really high resolution are advertising posters (the kind you see in bus stops and other transportation hubs) since they tend to be a couple of dozen square feet and people view them at a close distance. That's, right now, a medium format only market from what I hear from pros in that market.

Click to expand...

AI based resizing is getting to the point of changing that, though it still depends upon the properties of the subject(s) and how susceptible to artifacts the fine details are.

Sporgon said:

As someone who does a fair amount of printing I agree that for even large, high resolution prints you don’t need what most now consider to be ‘high mp’ cameras.
However, for a 10x8” print at 300 dpi you require 7.2 million mp, not 2.
Extrapolate this up and you can see why 24 million mp really is more than enough for the vast majority of general uses.

Click to expand...

You need 8.6MP at 3:2 if you're going to crop to 5:4. It takes a 2400 x 3600 pixel sensor to produce a 2400 x 3000 pixel crop from a 3:2 sensor.

But to double that linear size to 20 x 16 (or 16 x 20), you need four times as many pixels, or 34.6 MP if a 3:2 sensor.

EricN said:

Don't be silly, millions of people were delighted with about 1/7th of a megapixel for decades

Click to expand...

A good quality wet drum scan of a low speed [in the ASA 25 to ASA 64 neighborhood] 135 format color negative contains about as much information as a 20-24MP digital image taken with comparable lenses under comparable lighting. As grain size increases with speed, that goes down. But so does digital sensor S/N ratio and DR when ISO is boosted. The big advantage digital at present has over film at its zenith is the usability of images shot at ISOs that would have been INSANE for typical film in the 1990s.

MikeGalos said:

And what a pro needs can change from day to day depending on the type of pro and the needs for each specific assignment.

Click to expand...

Which is why some of the highest level pros rent what they need for each assignment and bill the rental cost to the customer. It also makes it easier to fly from wherever they're based to NYC, Los Angeles, Paris, London or a similar hub for commercial/fashion photography where rental houses are plentiful for the assignment.

neuroanatomist said:

My argument is that Canon’s objective is to please a plurality of their target market.

Not only is there not just one type of ‘pro’, the target market for the 1-series is not limited to pros.

Click to expand...

I would argue that Canon targets different segments of their market with different products.

The 1-Series is not aimed strictly at pros, though it once was designed strictly for specific types of pros. Canon would, of course, gladly sell a 1-Series body to anyone else who wanted and could pay for one. The shift in whom the 1-Series is aimed at is mainly because the number of pros buying the most expensive bodies from each of the camera makers has been steadily shrinking to a mere shadow of its former self for at least a decade and a half.

The 1-Series is not aimed at a plurality of pros nor is it aimed at a plurality of amateurs, or even a plurality of all Canon buyers. It's aimed a plurality of shooters, whether pro, semi-pro, or amateur who need/want speed and AF accuracy over all else in a body rugged enough to use to club someone to death and then use to take their photo after and aren't deterred by the high cost to get that.

The 5-Series is aimed at a plurality of users, whether pro, semi-pro, or amateur who want or need maximum resolution in a high level all-purpose generalist camera who can handle the cost of a 5-Series body.

Their other products are similarly designed to target a plurality of various buyers who need specific camera functionalities at a specific price point.

mhnamba said:

I manage an authorized Canon service center in Brazil and I can say this tariff is directly affecting photographers here. The price of parts went up 35% in June, causing a huge increase in the cost of repairing photographic equipment. Since the products and parts are distributed by Canon USA throughout Latin America, we have to pay Trump's tariff even though our country has nothing to do with this trade war.

Click to expand...

I can understand the reasons for Canon USA to distribute for Latin America in the past but that type of business model should be reviewed by Canon Japan and changed to avoid Trump's tariffs. OEMs have change distribution channels given macro issues like this so I will be surprised if the model doesn't change in the future.

The classic one at the moment is Apple looking to import phones made in India instead of China for the US market. It will probably still be cheaper for Apple/US buyers to pay the flat 25% tariff on Apple as a corporation rather than try to manufacture within the US. Weird times as Trump tries to get federal revenue to pay for tax cuts disguised as making a country great.

The only other way is to use a trade free zone/FTZ) where Canon USA has an physical area for stock within the US that hasn't actually entered the US from a customs perspective ie tariffs aren't paid as the stock if the stock is then shipped to other countries. If the stock is moved into the US then duties etc are payable. California has a number of FTZ for instance.
This is also common when manufacturing for export and China has large areas in Shanghai and ShenZhen.

mhnamba said:

I manage an authorized Canon service center in Brazil and I can say this tariff is directly affecting photographers here. The price of parts went up 35% in June, causing a huge increase in the cost of repairing photographic equipment. Since the products and parts are distributed by Canon USA throughout Latin America, we have to pay Trump's tariff even though our country has nothing to do with this trade war.

Click to expand...

This is the problem with international trade in general. Too many middle-men and parasites.

"Longwood Gardens Fountains" – near Philadelphia

EOS R8, RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM, 1/400 s, f/1.4, ISO 8000

I manage an authorized Canon service center in Brazil and I can say this tariff is directly affecting photographers here. The price of parts went up 35% in June, causing a huge increase in the cost of repairing photographic equipment. Since the products and parts are distributed by Canon USA throughout Latin America, we have to pay Trump's tariff even though our country has nothing to do with this trade war.

koenkooi said:

Has Sigma actually announced the 12/1.4? I can only find it here and SAR...

Click to expand...

No, it is delayed.

A bad decision from Canon to stop production of excellent selling cameras like the G7X III and now this one.
And in return offer mediocre replacements with slow lenses and less zoom range.
An updated G7X Mark IV with the same lens would've outsold any competition including Fujifilm.

Look at this current click ranking from Geizhals.de one of the biggest price comparison pages in Germany.
There is more interest in the SX740HS than ANY other camera, this also includes mirrorless, DSLR, action camcorders etc.

Last try : EF400mm-F2.8 + EF2xIII + EF1.4xIII + R3
With this assembly we have a 1120mm - F7.1

Left : The cropping result is very good
Right : original picture

Very nice with those ripples on the surface of the water.

Redhead...

Toamelicious said:

I remember all the hate the 100-500 got when it released.
People were furious about the f/7.1 aperture and declared the lens to be unusable in anything else than broad daylight.
Of course the same was said about the f/11 lenses, but those were below the financial threshold of those snobs.

So if canon releases a new lens with a max aperture of f/5.6 I am very much interested in seeing if the same people now find some other reason to say it's unusable.
They'll probably say something like "why would you buy this lens, if there's already a 100-500?" Or "it's far too heavy to handhold so it's unusable"

Click to expand...

I used my 100-500mm at night shooting the Brooklyn Bridge Manhattan tower at 8:14 pm using a tripod ISO 320, 500mm, f7.1, 1/10 s and shot was perfect. I was standing on Pier 6 of Brooklyn Bridge Park. I hope I'm allowed to post this.

mimbu said:

Sigma has dropped "DN" from their lens names. It was previously used to differentiate DSLR lenses from mirrorless lenses but since they only produce mirrorless lenses now, "DN" has become superfluous. So the new new lenses are the Sigma 17-40/1.8 DC Art and Sigma 12/1.4 DC Contemporary.

Click to expand...

Has Sigma actually announced the 12/1.4? I can only find it here and SAR...