FINALLY. I've been jonesing:- no R5MkII in the box!
This camera is destined to fail no doubt.
CANON IS DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*BREATH*OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED
Upvote
0
FINALLY. I've been jonesing:- no R5MkII in the box!
This camera is destined to fail no doubt.
Generally speaking the "1" bodies are built to very high standards of reliability and buffer depth. I once dropped a 1-series camera 5 feet onto concrete. Picked it back up and worked fine.Besides the form factor, what have been the historical advantages of the "1" bodies? Or, in other words, what has distinguished them from the next best Canon bodies? And, is the R3 a pro sports/wildlife photographer's replacement for 1DX?
Its just marketing man. Its all about lies that are true, from a certain point of view.Completely agree with you, I work for a R & D company and we never design "from scratch" components. That's just not how the industry works.
I'm tired of people spreading baseless nonsense without any knowledge. These claims just muddy the waters more then they need to be.
They have generally been speed-forward cameras in terms of priority. Sports and PJs - fast and rugged. Not an all arounder like the 5 series.I guess I'm old school but an R1 with less resolution than my R5 is a non-starter for me. FPS is at the bottom of the third page of my "wants." As a film shooter going from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x7 is a massive difference in image quality. I skipped the R3 because it had fewer megapixels than my old 80D and so it's starting to sound like the R5 II is closer to my hand than an R1. All of these fancy gimmicks sound nice but image quality and resolution are where it's at IMHO.
A very good point to make. The end of February should be an interesting announcement.Its just marketing man. Its all about lies that are true, from a certain point of view.
New digic, new EVF, New LCD, New Body shape, New battery = 'no parts reused'.
If FPS is less important than MP, then a 5 series camera has always been more appropriate for you than a 1. I mean, 20 MP camera have only been out what, 15 years? So you can't be *that* old school.I guess I'm old school but an R1 with less resolution than my R5 is a non-starter for me. FPS is at the bottom of the third page of my "wants." As a film shooter going from 35mm to 6x6 or 6x7 is a massive difference in image quality. I skipped the R3 because it had fewer megapixels than my old 80D and so it's starting to sound like the R5 II is closer to my hand than an R1. All of these fancy gimmicks sound nice but image quality and resolution are where it's at IMHO.
40 MP would still be enough for 8K UHD.The R1 spec rumors sound really good to me . . . so long as it isn't TOO far below 45MP. I don't want global shutter -- just too many compromises. I don't want 8k -- I don't shoot video, ever. Just give me an R3 with around 40MP, put an R1 label on it, and I will be a happy customer.
"New" does not mean "from scratch" when it comes to Canon.Completely agree with you, I work for a R & D company and we never design "from scratch" components. That's just not how the industry works.
I'm tired of people spreading baseless nonsense without any knowledge. These claims just muddy the waters more then they need to be.
The 1DS had the same resolution as the 5D.They have generally been speed-forward cameras in terms of priority. Sports and PJs - fast and rugged. Not an all arounder like the 5 series.
Brian
Um, no... the 1DS was 11mp, the 5D was 13mp. I have a 1DS right here beside me.The 1DS had the same resolution as the 5D.
Sounds like you've given up on even remotely paying attention to facts. Canon cares about selling the most cameras, and they've done that consistently for the past 20+ years, and dominated the market with a nearly 50% market share for the past several. They are the #1 selling brand of digital camera, ILC, DSLR and mirrorless worldwide. Try to pay attention to the real world, it will make you sound less foolish.Sounds like Canon is giving up on even remotely trying to be the leader in the camera race.