Everyone has different opinions on “best” is. Some people buy the most expensive the brand offers, others based purely on megapixels. It’s kind of wild. There are of course normal people who buy for what their needs are.
Upvote
0
Canon USA: The R3 line will continue
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Very little DR improvement over R5 at base ISO and even at higher ISOs, the GFX 100 II is only one stop better, but the lens is one stop slower, so unless the pixel count is all important, there is not much to be gained with the Fuji system for wildlife and I doubt the AF is even close to the R5 II.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Some of us not-retired guys are like that, too. I drive a Subaru Crosstrek because it's functional and practical. I don't need a Ferrari to get groceries or commute in to work (on the one day a week I actually go in), and the Ferrari would probably not make it up it my driveway's 11% grade in the snow anyway.I think if you look carefully, you will find that us retired guys are more interested in the most functional over the "best", particularly if you interpret "best" as most expensive and showy. One thing a lifetime of experience teaches most people is that trying to outdo the Joneses is a waste of time. We dress in jeans even if we can afford Armani Suits, because jeans are comfortable and functional and we really don't give a tinker's damn what other folks think about our dress code. If you look closely, I think you will find similar behavior with respect to camera equipment (at least with a lot of those folks). Disclaimer: There will always be some folks who refuse to learn from experience.
Upvote
0
How can you even suggest the blasphemy that something other than megapickes is the most important thing.
Upvote
0
Speaking about the R3 and higher megapixel flagships, I guess we will find out when Canon announces it(if that ever happens). If they announce a high megapixel flagship or “pro body”, then my opinion would be validated. And if I have learned anything from this thread, it’s that “Canon Knows”. 
Upvote
0
Yeah, I was going to buy the Q2 so I could look like this...
Sadly, I'm not nearly hip enough.
Upvote
0
During family vacations I’ll use my wife’s M1 macbook air, with 16gb ram to process stills and it is surprisingly useable. Lightroom is mostly limited by IO (even with a thunderbolt SSD) and DxO PR4 is fairly quick as well.
My Mac Studio at home is several times faster of course and doesn’t thermally throttle when the weather is sunny. But the laptop is still very responsive when editing R5, R7 and R8 files.
My own laptop is still using an Intel CPU, it’s hot, loud and not very responsive with R5 files. Let’s not talk about how it handles video
Upvote
0
If I had to bet, I think we'll see an R5s in the 80-100 MP range within a couple of years, and that the 1-series will stay under 30 MP for a long time to come. But then, I also guessed that Canon would not make an APS-C EOS R camera because the M line was so popular. Canon knew better.Speaking about the R3 and higher megapixel flagships, I guess we will find out when Canon announces it(if that ever happens). If they announce a high megapixel flagship or “pro body”, then my opinion would be validated. And if I have learned anything from this thread, it’s that “Canon Knows”.
Upvote
0
It is a fact that Canon knows more about what sells and does not sell than any of us does. Are they better at predicting the future 5 years down the road? Probably, because they also have a far more complete view of what technologies are going to be cost-effective in that time frame.Speaking about the R3 and higher megapixel flagships, I guess we will find out when Canon announces it(if that ever happens). If they announce a high megapixel flagship or “pro body”, then my opinion would be validated. And if I have learned anything from this thread, it’s that “Canon Knows”.
Upvote
0
Since Adobe introduced AI Raw enhancement (which is immensely useful for higher ISO files), GPU power has become the primary limitation in LR. Also, LR really is hard to use with a small screen. As to Mac vs Intel, you have to look at equivalent generations of processor to compare. Intel holds up well with the current generation if you add the appropriate GPU https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/mac-vs-pc-for-content-creation-2024/ . It will be interesting to see how well the next gen Intel processors with more built in GPU capability compare. On the desktop, Intel and AMD with Nvidia GPU will consume more power than a Mac Studio, but they will also run circles around the Mac. Watts do matter for serious processing. If you dig through their articles, you will find Puget Systems has a bounty of useful info on processor capability.During family vacations I’ll use my wife’s M1 macbook air, with 16gb ram to process stills and it is surprisingly useable. Lightroom is mostly limited by IO (even with a thunderbolt SSD) and DxO PR4 is fairly quick as well.
My Mac Studio at home is several times faster of course and doesn’t thermally throttle when the weather is sunny. But the laptop is still very responsive when editing R5, R7 and R8 files.
My own laptop is still using an Intel CPU, it’s hot, loud and not very responsive with R5 files. Let’s not talk about how it handles video
Upvote
0
what puzzles me is why are birders, etc asking for a higher resolution full frame sensor, when if they want pixels on target a 32, 40mp APS-C sensor will deliver far more than any full frame camera would. yes you lose image quality but for an ultra fast full frame high MP sensor, you will as well. but you get the benefit of the equivalent of a 80/100mp sensor without having to deal with the extremely large files and my understanding is that most of them need to crop their photos anyways (aka the reason 24mp isn't good).
And yes, Canon needs a better R7 for these folks i see that far more likely than any R1 variant.
Upvote
0
I think it is a pretty good guess that the R7 outsells the R5 in numbers, so a more capable R7 should sell well, but there is the question of how much better. If Canon were to do the full deal with 40MP and a stacked sensor, then we are talking R6 II price point or even higher and that would sharply diminish the number of R7s sold. Money really matters, particularly with APS-C and in these financial times. Clearly, the R7 was a compromise between a 90d and a would-be 7D III and the price point is quite aggressive for what you get. By all accounts, the choice was a good one, because there are a lot of folks shooting with an R7.
The advantage of an 80-100 MP FF for moving creatures is not image quality, but rather likelihood of capturing the target. The wider field of view and wider AF window are significant if you are shooting FF with the same pixel density as APS-c. The high MP FF is also attractive to landscape and architectural photographers, so it has the potential for a move diverse customer base than an expensive R7, but the inevitable price point would still shrink the available market. For the moment, I am holding on to my R5 and watching the R5 II. I would immediately upgrade the R7 for either of the above choices and notably, adding an R5s would not cause me to sell my R5. Interestingly, 100.7 MP is the break point for 12k video and that would be something else to talk about and would potentially add another market segment.
If I had to put down a bet, I would bet we will see an R5s in the same time frame as the new Tilt-Shift lenses. My sense is that a full-house R7 any time soon is unlikely, both because of the history of the 7 series and the market shrinkage the higher price point would cause.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your analysis about the R7 pricepoint is probably right.
For me the R7 is a 90D replacement, not a ‘true’ 7D replacement. I suspect that a fair number of 7D photographers bought the R5 rather than the R7 to replace their 7D Mk II.
Personally I would prefer to use a mirrorless 7D Mk II successor for bird and macro (insect) photography above a 80-100 mp full frame camera since such a high mp ff camera will be slower (e.g fps) than the equivalent APS-C camera. The need for/ use of teleconverters is also less with an APS-C camera than with a ff camera.
Canon’s marketing data probably shows that the market for current R7 type camera is larger than the market for a ‘higher end’ R7 type camera.
Upvote
0
It also costs a lot less.
The question is does it outsell the R6 and R6 II.
Upvote
0
I saw one rich person who bought a 1DX III because he felt Canon was the best and it was the top of the line.
I do not necessarily agree with the reasoning but if the amount of money means next to nothing then no harm done.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
