When one walks out on the pitch, professional sports stadium, pro basketball arena, pro tennis match, they will know and see what the landscape looks like. One literally can count Sony still cameras on one single hand. And that has not changed in decades and never will in your life time
Given the lenses released recently and the general response to them I’d say canon has a pretty fair idea of some things their customers would like. That being said, if you’re enjoying your Sony stuff, great! Keep shooting and enjoying it, that’s what really matters. If you’re a professional sports photographer who can directly benefit from a global shutter day to day I’d say probably get that pre order in ASAP.
Interesting to know. I´ve never read that the L setting is a simulated base ISO. I only read online in different blogs the lowest base ISO would 50. I use the setting quit often to be honest.
This has been discussed many times. Here’s a response of mine from several years ago:
I think the actual base ISO of R is actually ISO 160 because at that setting R has the highest dynamic range, so ISO 320 has better DR than ISO 250, etc.
Thx! That discussion has gone on without me or I just joined CR and other forums way too late.
Thx! That discussion has gone on without me or I just joined CR and other forums way too late.
But now I am curious: what is the real native ISO of the EOS R (and other R cameras?) Is there a list or data somewhere?
As I am reading I am actually learning that most people prefer ISO 100 (or 200/ 400) for some reasons. I know what I'll be reading tonight
I tried that site, clicked on the R3, my r6m2 the 1DX III, nice stuff. Then I clicked on what should be my first Canon digital, the XTI and I had to look twice to find it, almost like there was an eyelash on my screen. Come out with 20 more cameras with bells and whistles I haven't even heard of yet, I will stick with my R6m2's and keep buying glass. Glass. Glass.
I agree. I did a few IMSA races this year, I could count Nikon on 2 hands, Sony maybe 100-200, but Canon? There were more 400mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses there than the other two companies bodies and lenses. I just did a fashion show 3 days ago, there was 1 Nikon, no sony and 75 Canons.
If you actually are a photographer and not a gear-head, then you should care about results, not the tech. If you want 45 MPs or more, but can't get more than 24 because the global shutter is not fast enough, then you would still prefer the global shutter? If the Base ISO of 250 of the global shutter gives you worse IQ than a stacked sensor, then you would still prefer the global shutter? My guess, from your comments, is that the answer would be yes. You sound like a seven year old that needs the the latest shiny new toy, regardless of whether or not it would actually work well or suit your needs.
I don't know if anyone has tabulated them.
That would mean a 1 ms readout time for a rolling shutter, and I think that's very unlikely. Sorry to say, you'll have to keep pining...or buy the a9 III.
Consider that the ratio of lenses to bodies sold is somewhere between 1.6 - 1.8, and also consider entry-level kits make up most of the unit sales, and that the most popular kits are 2-lens kits. In other words, the installed base of camera users comprises a majority of people who own only the camera and the 1-2 lenses that came with it, and a minority of people who own >2 lenses. That means inertia is much less of a factor in the market than you're suggesting.
