Canon EOS R1 Specifications [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Maybe in the US. In Europe, esp. here in Germany you are only allowed to get such gear inside the stadium, when you have an accreditation.
And those are not not simply distributed to the crowd. At higher league soccer games it is not allowed to take anything with you bigger than a P&S.
Upvote
0
For concerts and festivals you can get a press pass, as a hobbyist, if you know the right people.
That won’t get you into ‘the pit’ where the professionals all take the same picture during the 5-10 minutes they are allowed to be there.
So it will be mostly ‘environmental’ pictures
I did spot some professionals with RF100-500L lenses taking pictures from further away last summer, they wanted to avoid taking the exact same picture all the people in the pit were taking.
Upvote
0
Yes, the real comparison to the 2015 5Ds/5Ds R should be the 2016 5D Mark IV, which was released only a year later, and not the 2012 5D Mark III.
Upvote
0
Processing time depends a lot on the machine you're using to do it.
In 2022 I built a machine specifically to perform doing raw conversion using DPP. It's all about the CPU and memory speeds. GPU has very little to do with it. Canon claims the GPU can be used to generate previews faster, but that check box has been grayed out for me for several years now, even though my GPU meets their published criteria. I rarely use DLO, which will significantly increase the processing time, but DLO does diffraction correction other software does not do so comparing DPP with DLO enabled to other apps that don't do what DLO does is a bit of a mismatch. I do almost always apply CA and Color Blur correction, and distortion correction for wider angle lenses. With an Intel i7-11700K on a Gigabyte Z590 'AORUS Master using DDR-4 @ 3600 it takes around 5-6 second to open and apply selected corrections (lens correction, NR, exposure, contrast/curves, HSL, etc.) to raw files from my 30MP 5D Mark IV. During that 5-6 seconds the image is shown without any NR and any contrast/curves modifications that are different from the in-camera settings at the time it was shot applied. When I batch export them, the average time per image is about the same, around 5-6 seconds per image. My previous machine, built in 2014, was much slower, but it also had much less processing power.
Yes, DPP is still slower than most other apps. It also gives me the precise color control I want that others can't quite manage to give me.
Upvote
0
That's true in DxO PL as well (even Apple Photos lets you adjust the slides in 0.01 unit increments), so not really a differentiator for DPP. What I didn't like about DPP was the workflow, which seemed to me mainly operation driven rather than image driven. In other words, DPP seemed geared toward crop each image in the set, then adjust exposure for each image in the set, etc., whereas most other RAW converters seem geared toward taking one image from start to finish then moving on to the next image. The latter suits my personal needs much better.
Upvote
0
Believe it or not, many photographers do what they do to get an emotional or intellectual response - or both - from others who view their images displayed as a whole image, rather than to do narcissistic navel gazing at 400% on their ridiculously high resolution monitors of each frame they shoot while sitting alone in their basements!
Upvote
0
Funny. How did magazines ever survive when "flagship" cameras were shooting less than 10MP images? How did they actually flourish when camera's all required - GASP - film? I mean, print is doing so much better these days now that we have 50MP images available, aren't they?
Upvote
0
I do everything to each image before moving on to the next. It's trivial to click the different tabs to do it that way.
Upvote
0
Sony builds cameras to look best on a spec sheet. Canon builds cameras to take photos that look best on screen or paper.
Upvote
0
It's all great until you forget to set the screen brightness to match the ambient lighting after shooting in bright daylight, then shooting a concert in a dark venue later that evening.
Upvote
0
Or maybe Sony & Nikon decided to compete in markets Canon, who sells more cameras than anyone, had decided isn't a fertile enough field for them to expend major resources chasing? That's apparently why Sony went all-in for FF mirrorless in 2013 - because Canon & Nikon weren't in that market segment. Sony's APS-C & FF DSLRs weren't selling well versus Canon's & Nikon's APS-C & FF DSLRs. They had to find a niche the big 2 weren't addressing at that time.
Upvote
0
Thanks for trying. Some people will continue to believe that the tail wags the dog, all reason and logic to the contrary.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The gap between microlenses that direct light that would otherwise fall on the wall into the pixel well is what you really mean, I think.
Upvote
0
No, but lots of people who would never buy any of the above constantly jump around deciding which one they dream they could have.
Upvote
0
There are far more deep pockets than pros buying high end camera gear. Perhaps there always has been. But in the past the deep pockets followed what the pros were using. "If it's good enough for Walter Ioos, Jr. and Neil Leifer, it's good enough for me." With the collapse of print journalism and the market value of images being pennies on the dollar compared to even 15 years ago, there are no more Iooses and Leifers out there. The deep pockets now are following the Northrups and Fros.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
