I mean…ok but when I’ve been watching a ton of bird/wildlife channel content with the release and reviews of the RF 200-800 all of them seem pretty happy with APSC camera bodies, those same communities are huge proponents of 1.4 and 2.0 extenders that also degrade IQ/low light performance and dynamic range. Those channels are also showing spectacular pictures taken with APSC cameras.
You remind me of the people when the R5 came out who declared the fact that shooting 8k video was a fairly limited feature was a complete deal breaker for them and they could never purchase a camera that had been crippled in that way. The sheer number of wedding photographers that seemed to exclusively shoot mid afternoon rainforest weddings in single four hour takes was wildly higher than anyone expected. The reality in professional video is no one actually wants 8k outside of extremely niche uses and even then not so much. My C500 mk2 can shoot 6k, and in all the time I’ve owned it I’ve had exactly one request from a client for 6k video…which they then immediately went back on and said 4k was totally fine. These people were just spec chasers who were suddenly furious that the thing that had never existed before wasn’t what they thought it should be.
Look at the new ARRI camera. If we look at what’s available in the cinema world you’d expect those big specs like 12k full frame recording with 8k 160p or something similar, gotta BLOW the competition out of the water right? Their 6k camera is 10 years old at this point. Instead they drop a super 35 4k sensor, this is the follow up to their…4k full frame sensor mini LF. They made the camera they knew cinematographers would actually want to use and not what would look bad ass on a spec sheet.
Canon is likely doing the same here. They are taking what the canon system offers, like a 100-300 2.8 or that 200-800, and making a camera that enables the best possible performance and workflow with those unique pieces of glass. You don’t need to crop in on your shot of a bird nearly as much because you have a lens with 800mm reach, that lower MP count is going to give you better low light performance and dynamic range, so you may be getting more opportunities for better shots than what is offered in other systems at much higher megapixels. That global shutter is really cool, but having 100-300mm in a 2.8 lens on a single body is probably going to get you more opportunities for better shots than a 70-200 on one body and a 300mm prime on another.
If the megapixels really are the issue for you…well I mean i guess you can always jump ship for one of the other companies, or stick with the 5/7 series of cameras that will do the job you’re looking to do more effectively. It just means living without the term “flagship” applied to the specific camera you’re using. My R5 was absolutely incredible on a safari in Africa, and that camera doesnt get any worse because something else came out. Hell, it just gets better as the price comes down.
