Upvote
0
Is September 14 the day we finally get the official Canon EOS R3 announcement?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge.So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.
Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.
Upvote
0
24mpx at 30 fps generates only 0.45Gb CRAW files or 0.2Gb jpegs per second. A factor of two is the same as going from 24mpx to 48mpx, which is what Canon has achieved with its CRAW technology that appears to have close to zero effect on IQ.
Upvote
0
I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.
Upvote
0
Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge.
Upvote
0
Oh no no no. These are real, true, great advantages. You seem to be the type, if I am not mistaken, who resisted digital when it started replacing film. Am I right?
Upvote
0
Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.
Upvote
0
Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth
No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about
Upvote
0
On the other hand, rumours are slow these days...Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth
No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about
Upvote
0
You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.
Upvote
0
No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.
In terms of power consumption or delay it is a downgrade. In all other aspects, it is either a question of personal taste or an objective improvement.
Seeing the digital image is arguably closer to what the camera actually perceives and therefore more relevant to the final digital output. Of course one can still prefer the OVF image, although that is also just a (analogue) copy of reality and not an authentic representation, changing for example the brightness and depth of field.
For Canon and the broader market, the objective benefits seem to outweigh the previous points:
Constant exposure of the sensor based focus system to light, allowing far greater AF coverage, greater subject recognition, enhanced focus at narrow apertures and dim conditions, higher framerate due to elimination of the need to rotate the mirror up and down frequently.
No mismatch between viewfinder image and sensor plane/position, allowing powerful IBIS implementation without risking user frustration due to differences in the viewfinder composition and actual image.
No need for AFMA due to alignment issues.
True DoF preview.
No clipping of bokeh balls due to the mirror box.
Enhanced lens design flexibility due to no restriction on back focus distance.
And so on...
Upvote
0
I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.
Upvote
0
I see your point but I'm not sure. If a camera is going to be competitive, it has to offer at least as much, if not more than the current "opposition", so it would make sense for the manufacturer to stuff every conceivable feature into each model (given cost restraints). This is what Nikon always does - look e.g. at the spec of the D850 compared to the 5DMkiv.
Canon has traditionally been very conservative, and very astute in terms of product segmentation and marketing, so their bodies have tended to be "under-specified". They've traditionaly been sold primarily on the basis of build quality, styling, ergonomics, service and lens compatibility.
But even Canon are now cramming everything they can into their bodies, spurred on by intense competition from Sony. Hence the R5 which pretty much out-specified (and out-performed) everything else on the market at the time it was released. Even now, a year later, it is the model that most people probably aspire to, with the exception of the Sony a1 which is twice the price.
Upvote
0
Even if you count the eye as digital, it would still mean only copy more. Analogue light converted into digital data, then again into in analogue light (in the EVF) and then again into digital data in your brain. So an OVF needs two conversions less. Just a copy instead of a copy of a copy of a copy.
Of course colours are an illusion anyway. There is nothing like red or blue light in the real world. Just different wavelength and our brain turns them into colours.
Upvote
0
Hi dilbert, I don't have an ignore list, I prefer to give people a second chance. I've had intense disagreements with certain individuals trolling on dpreview, and I've even fallen once or twice into the trap of returning insults, but it just leads to further unpleasantness. In the end I got so fed up with reading some of the comments, that I resigned from the dpreview comments pages, and since then I've tended to spend more time here, where *most* people are very reasonable.
If someone who is initially unpleasant, later proves that they can overcome the "internet warrior" mentality and later responds in an intelligent and polite manner, all parties feel better and get their points across. I'll jump on trolls or on people without manners, and if they continue to be objectionable I ignore them. People use forums to vent frustration and that is part of their purpose. Hopefully by responding politely myself, I can nudge those who overstep the mark to become more reasonable.
Upvote
0
If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.
Upvote
0
If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.
The choice is between buying a 24MP camera, and being stuck with a maximum of 24MP, with consequent disadvantages when it comes to cropping.
... or buying a 50MP camera that offers a choice of shooting 50MP, 25MP or 12MP (these figures are not precise - they'll vary from model to model) simply by twiddling a dial or selecting the appropriate option in the menu.
I can absolutely understand why someone would be happy with a 24MP camera, or even a 12MP camera, if all they wanted was to post images on the internet, shoot video, or to make smallish prints. But there will nearly always be situations when you can't get close enough or have the wrong lens on the camera when an amazing photo opportunity arises, and then the cropping advantages of a high MP camera really pay off in a big way. For wildlife photography in particular, the ability to crop tightly and still get a really high quality image is a huge advantage. I could shoot on a 400mm F2.8, crop the image to 600mm equivalent, and still have an image as good or better than I'd get with a 600mm F4, at a fraction of the cost and weight.
As far as I can see, there are no negative aspects to buying a high megapixel body, other than the greater initial cost. Bigger sensors have lower yield rates in manufacturing, and they require more powerful processors, which pushes up the price of the cameras. Personally I'm willing to pay the extra cost to get all the benefits, but I totally accept that some others have different priorities.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
