Maximilian said:

I am not directly in the market for an R7m2.
But if I was and knowing the IQ from a friends R7 I really hope for better pixels (s/n, high ISO performance) than for more pixels.
If Canon can deliver both at the same time, that'll be welcome, for sure.

Click to expand...

The IQ at this point for the R7, or for most modern apsc cameras are not limited by needing "better pixels" (whatever that means). While there is a minimal amount of read noise, the vast majority is shot noise which is a purely physical limitation based on total light collecting area i.e. sensor size. The R7 is absurdly good, given that it is an apsc. Objectively as good as the neighboring fullframe cameras like the R6, R5 or R3 if adjusted for sensor size (1 stop).

So if you were interpreting some issue of image quality on an R7, it was because either you have unrealistic or uninformed expectations of what is possible for an apsc sensor, you werent at all accounting for obvious variables like light availability, slower or worse optics, or possibly the camera just wasnt in skilled hands.

Buylongterm said:

Received mine on launch day. Thank you Adorama. Coming from a 5D Mark III, I have a lot to learn. I also got the RF 24-70 2.8L and the RF 100 2.8L as well. I am trying my best to hold off on the RF 70-200 2.8L Z!!!! Thank God the weather in Chicago is horrible. I want and need this lens. But I have to slow down. Bought my first Macbook Pro along with every other accessory. 1TB CFExpress B, 4tb Sandisk extreme pro external HD, cases, high speed cables, additional batteries, etc.... After being away from shooting for close to 5 years, I now remember how expensive and addicting this hobby is. Congrats to all R6 Mark III owners.

Click to expand...

Cocaine is cheap! Photography is an expensive habit!
The 70-200 Z is an absolutely beautiful lens that is superbly well balanced in the hand.

Maximilian said:

I am not directly in the market for an R7m2.
But if I was and knowing the IQ from a friends R7 I really hope for better pixels (s/n, high ISO performance) than for more pixels.
If Canon can deliver both at the same time, that'll be welcome, for sure.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I guess it depends on your intended use. Me, I have been using mine for birding, where the maximum pixel density is desirable, but it suffers at higher ISO compared to the R5.

I don't know, I've downloaded sample photographs from other reviews, at several apertures including f/2.8, and they are properly focused.
Bryan Carnathan reports some minor focus shift as well, though.

What Chris suggests is nothing more than a workaround, as focusing at smaller apertures means poorer autofocus performance.

On the other hand, I imagine most buyers won't purchase the lens to shoot at f/2.8 or smaller. I'd do it for personal stuff, but for work I'd only grab the lens if I needed wider than f/2, since the 28-70 f/2 is my main lens.

To me, this may impact the choice of one secondary lens at best, so it doesn't really make much of a difference. Worst case scenario, I'll just keep what I already have.

When I moved from EF to RF, I decided this time I would try to avoid third party glass. Ironically, I'm not being given much of a choice, which makes it easier to keep up with my commitment.
I have nothing against third party lenses, but over time I got fed up with having so many, and so much different renderings (and colours), and that lead me to decide I'd stick to one brand, and one brand only.

m4ndr4ke said:

Christopher Frost's review is available now

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Click to expand...

Came here to post this, glad someone else already did.

...well, I have R6 and RP...I guess I was smart and lucky enough not to buy the thing until Chris did his review; I won't comment any further.

What I can comment is that, after seeing this, I'm really REALLY glad I finally pulled the trigger last week on a 620€ used A7III, and 3 days ago on a super Amazon rebate for the Tamron 35-150; they're already in my hands, and Sunday I've a small gig for Christmas pictures for a couple and their newborn son, so I'll shoot R6 + 28-70 STM along with the A7III + 35-150 and see how it feels with the differences.
Then Canon stuff will go on eBay to monetise, and at the end of it I'll buy the A7IV as master camera, keeping the A7III as backup.

Sorry to leave, as I still feel Canon bodies are way better then the competition (I always read about Sony menu sucking; well, now that I have it in my hand, yes, it sucks, and the A7III grip is very small, too), but RF lens policy was not acceptable anymore for me; I'll come back when (if) they'll open the mount. Maybe.

P-visie said:

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) on the Dutch Island of Texel in this afternoon’s sun. Not a spectacular photo, but this bird is “a bit lost”, spectacled eiders occur along the coast of Alaska and easternmost Russia and into the Bering Sea. From there to Texel takes a lot of flying and swimming .

View attachment 227145

R5 Mk II with RF 200-800mm zoom @800mm and a slight crop in post-processing.

Click to expand...

Great siting! When did you take the photo - early this year or the bird is still on Textel (what be strange!)? Hard to believe you got twice such a (really!!!) "lost bird" in the same year.
Congratulations!

The "damage" to your sensor appears to be a few "hot" or "stuck" pixels. Solar damage is usually a cluster of dead pixels. Are you sure the hot pixels weren't there before the exposure to the sun? I had meant to mention this earlier.

Christopher Frost's review is available now

Here they are, the model-based predicted maximum durations above which the camera sensor starts taking damage when pointed at the sun:
Maximum exposure times to photograph the midday sun after which the sensor starts taking damage:
[Table 7]

Since the sun moves 360° across the sky in 24 hours, it takes 127.2 s to move one diameter further across the sky. As such, values greater than this amount are crossed out in the table above, since they are not relevant (unless the camera was mounted on an equatorial mount). Furthermore, as radiative and convective cooling that transfer heat away from the sensor are ignored for now (much slower and weaker than in-sensor lateral conductive heat transfer), the overheating time is always reached eventually within this table, although any values larger than a thousand seconds or so would reach a safe equilibrium temperature anyways. I just listed them so that the dependence of exposure times on focal length and f-number is more apparent. Impractical combinations of focal lengths and f-numbers (such as 1000 mm f/1.2) are also listed regardless of feasibility for the same reason - but who knows, maybe someone has a telescope strapped to their camera?

And indeed, it turns out, focal length is just as relevant as f-number. While this sadly means that no "rule of thumb" came out of this, the resulting Table 7 can be used for reference for all photographers who intend to take a picture with the sun in the frame! I would like to stress again that these values are ballpark estimates (at the "order of magnitude" level), since I do not know the exact material composition of the sensor, reflectivity, ambient temperature, and many other smaller effects. I have been making some (hopefully reasonable) assumptions in order to calculate values at all - and the produced exposure times look reasonable enough to me. Therefore, I would still like to remind everyone that while Table 7 can be used as a great cheat-sheet in the field, until we have actual experience reports that we can scale these numbers by, you should divide all values by a factor of 2 or even 4 just to be on the safe side. These numbers reflect the upper exposure limits for photographing the bright midday sun. At different times of day and/or atmospheric/weather conditions, depending on the brightness levels of the sun, these exposure times can be increased by the respective factor. For instance, if the light is only ~10% as strong as the midday sun, then exposure limits would increase tenfold.

Since all of the scaling relations used in this model are based on actual physics (with an uncertainty factor of only perhaps 2 for sensor heating and heat dissipation speed combined), they should be fairly self-consistent, meaning that once we have proper reports of what did cause sensor damage that are slightly lower than these numbers (or in case of non-damage at a higher exposure time than listed in Table 7), all other values can likely be scaled up or down by a single factor. This adjustment, in terms of the model, can be understood as simply adjusting the temperature at which the sensor starts taking damage, currently assumed to be at 330 °C. The rest of the model only carries an uncertainty factor of perhaps 1.5-2, since the physics of heat dissipation and sensor heating are fully covered.

Once some experience reports come in (if they do), I will take the time to re-scale the table accordingly.

I hope that these results will be helpful to many of you!

For instance, for a 50 mm f/1.8 lens, the heating time of the central circle with a radius of 0.25 mm is 0.048 s. The next ring with a radius of 0.5 mm takes 3⋅0.048 s to heat up. The next ring with a radius of 1 mm takes 12⋅0.048 s to heat up. The next ring with a radius of 2 mm takes 48⋅0.048 s to heat up. The next ring with a radius of 4 mm takes 192⋅0.048 s to heat up. This is also the last ring that is considered, since the following ring of 8 mm radius is larger than the maximum conduction path length of 4.5 mm given for f/1.8 in Table 5. Lastly, another 0.048 s is added. Summed up, this total time then is (1+3+12+48+192+1)⋅0.048 s = 12.3 s.

However, this approach so far neglects the outermost "ring" that fills the radius up until the maximum conduction path lengths from Table 5. Now that it is understood how to obtain these values, because of this shortcoming and it being too cumbersome of a calculation to perform every time, this calculation can be simplified, by simply dividing the square of the maximum conduction path length by the square of the initial conduction path length, to obtain a ratio of how many times the initial conduction path length (the sun projection circle) fits into the maximum conduction path length circle of Table 5, plus one (to heat the initial sun projection circle to 600 K). This gives a maximum exposure time after which the sensor gets damaged of ((4.5 mm)² / (0.25 mm)² + 1)⋅ 0.048 s = 15.6 s.

This model of a circular disk where the temperature is increased homogeneously by 150 K can be understood as depositing exactly the same amount of energy onto the same disk where the temperature is a square-root gradient (temperature proportional to √r) that ranges from +0 K to +300 K in its center, which is therefore, in my eyes, a good approximation of reality despite its simplicity. The value of 15.6 s is also just under 8 times larger than the experimentally determined safe exposure time of 2.0 s from my previous post that I found to not cause damage, which gives me additional confidence that the numbers produced by this model may not be too far from the truth.

Using this model, I then spent way too long calculating all the values for all combinations. As a summary, the formula calculate them is: [Time to reach critical temperature on sun-illuminated circle on sensor in seconds] = ([Maximum conduction path length for f-number from Table 5]² / [Initial conduction path length for focal length from Table 4]² + 1)⋅[Heating time for focal length from Table 6].

To calculate the conductive cooling quantitatively, let's look at the radius of the sun projection on the sensor at different focal lengths:
[Table 3]
Looking at these numbers, I guess a good rule of thumb would be radius of sun on sensor ≈ focal length / 200! Let us use those numbers as conduction path lengths to calculate the conductive cooling for a patch of central pixels that sits in the middle of the sun projection as a next step:

The formula is 150 W/(m⋅K)⋅[temperature difference]/[path length]. Let's consider temperature differences of 300 K and 150 K between the sun-illuminated parts of the sensor to the surrounding sensor temperature for reasons I'll get to in a moment, for all these focal lengths (and path lengths of 1/200th of each of them). Then we get the following lateral conductive cooling powers (per area):
[Table 4]
The actual sensor temperature is listed in parentheses.

Comparing these numbers to those of sun-induced heating in Table 1, it becomes apparent that heat is conducted away much faster than it is deposited. However, as this process is occurring, the surrounding area is also heating up, which gradually increases the conduction path length (and, as the sensor as a whole heats up, decreases the temperature difference). To keep things comprehensible without having to go into simulations, let us model the heating process to a subsequent heating of annular rings of increasing radius to the maximum temperature. Thus, we can simplify it as a step-wise doubling of the conduction path length. As long as the conductive heat transfer is considerably larger than the radiative heat deposition by the sun, this process would continue, and only once it can no longer be satisfied, sensor damage would occur, as heat can no longer be conducted away from the area of the sun projection quickly enough. As such, indeed, sun damage would show as an extended spot of roughly the size of the projection area, and not only the central bunch of pixels. We define "considerably larger" as 2x larger, or in other words, simply look at the last row of Table 4 above and compare these values to the Table 1 (which is the reason why I listed all values at these two temperatures).

The values in the last row correlate with the conduction path length via the following formula:
Conductive cooling power (in MW/m²) = 22.5 mm / [Conduction path length in mm]⋅MW/m².
Maximum conduction path length in mm = 22.5 mm⋅MW/m² / [Solar power density in MW/m²].
This gives the following values for the maximum conduction path length:
[Table 5]
For anything above f/2.8, the conduction path length would be larger than the sensor size. As such, for any f-number beyond ~f/3, a conduction path length that is equal to half a diagonal of an APS-C sensor of 0.5⋅√((22.3 mm)² + (14.9 mm)²) = 13.4 mm is taken as the upper limit, after which the whole sensor is heated up. While the value may be slightly larger for full-frame cameras, for the sake of simplicity, I will for now assume this value for both sensors sizes.

The duration to heat such the aforementioned rings of increasing size is only dependent on the focal length, and is then simply given by the time values in Table 2, divided by 2 (we only consider a temperature increase of 150 K for each ring), and multiplied by the factor that this area is larger than the area that is illuminated by the sun (e.g., for the first doubling of the radius, this would be 4x of the area (whereas one is already heated up, so 3x), and thus, 3x the duration listed in the Table). Thus, for the n-th ring (with a radius that is 2^n times the size of the initial conduction path length/the solar illumination circle) to heat up, the duration would always be 4 times the duration for the previous ring (or 3x the time to heat the initial solar illumination circle in case of the second ring). They can then be summed up subsequently until a conduction path length or ring radius that is larger than the values in Table 5 is reached. Then, as a last step, the aforementioned time is added once more, illustrating the duration that the central illuminated sun projection takes to reach 600 K.

For this simple ring-based heating model, here are the time values from Table 2 again, divided by 2 (to equate a temperature increase of 150 K):
[Table 6]

Let us first quantify the power density that the sun projects onto the sensor.

For the purpose of this calculation, let's assume a focal length where the projection of the sun is exactly 1 mm² in area. With an angular solar diameter of 0.53°, this occurs at about 121 mm focal length. Now if we project the full sun with a power (solar constant S₀) of 1400 W/m², focused with an 121 mm f/1.8 lens (collecting diameter is 121 mm/1.8 = 67.2 mm, meaning a collecting area of 3550 mm² = 0.00355 m²), onto 1 mm² = 0.000001 m² of the sensor, we get a deposited amount of heat of almost exactly 5 MW/m²: 1400 W/m²⋅0.00355 m² / 0.000001 m² = 4970000 W/m² ≈ 5 MW/m². This power density is independent of focal length (this specific value is for f/1.8), and is proportional to 1/(f-number)². For a 1 mm² spot, this equates to a heating power of 5 W = 5 J/s.

Here is the solar power density on the sensor for different f-numbers:
[Table 1]

Let's next consider the sensor.

The detector itself is a CMOS die made of silicon. While silicon only melts at around 1700 K, the sensor is a composite of several other materials in addition to the silicon detector area. The composite construction contains metal traces that melt at 900 K for aluminium and 1400 K for copper, adhesives (500-600 K for epoxy- and silicone-based adhesives) for bonding, and also organic polymer (plastics) for the Bayer filter with a melting point of just 500-600 K. As such, the photosites should already take damage at above ~600 K (330 °C), where the traces start to delaminate and photosites become unreadable (hot or dead pixels).

The sensor is around 1 mm thick. Silicon, which makes the majority of the sensor, has a specific heat capacity of around 0.70 J/(g⋅K) and a density of 2.3 g/cm³, so a volumetric heat capacity of 1.6 J/(cm³⋅K). That of the metal traces is a bit higher, that of the adhesives is a bit lower, so let's just assume an overall heat capacity of the sensor of 1.6 J/(cm³⋅K). Thus, a 1 mm² area of the sensor has a heat capacity of around 0.0016 J/(mm²⋅K), and the total sensor has a heat capacity of 0.53 J/K for an 22.3 mm⋅14.9 mm = 332.3 mm² APS-C sensor and 1.38 J/K for a 36 mm⋅24 mm = 864 mm² full-frame sensor.

Let us quickly consider the case of omitting any heat transfer (which is unphysical, but just for illustrative purposes), and calculate, the maximum time to heat the sun-illuminated area of the sensor by 300 K (from ambient ~300 K to 600 K): t = 300 K / ([solar power density] / 0.0016 J/(mm²⋅K)).

This time until the maximum safe temperature is reached (which ignores heat transfer!) is:
[Table 2]

Let us now consider different types of heat transfer/cooling.

We need to differentiate convective, radiative, and conductive cooling mechanisms.

Convective cooling is heat transfer through air molecules inside the sensor housing. For air, the convective heat coefficient is around h ≈ 10 W/(m²⋅K). For a temperature difference of 300 K (sensor to ambient air), and considering the effect on both the front- and backside of the sensor, this leads to a convective cooling power (per area) of 2⋅10 W/(m²⋅K)⋅300 K = 6 kW/m², which is negligible compared to the solar power density even for f/11 (see Table 2).

Radiative cooling is thermal radiation emitted by the sensor that heats up its surrounding housing. With an assumed emissivity of ε ≈ 0.9 and using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, both sides radiating, and again an assumed temperature difference of 300 K (as before), we get a radiative cooling power (again, per area) of 2⋅0.9⋅5.67⋅10⁻⁸ W/(m²⋅K⁴)⋅((600 K)⁴ - (300 K)⁴) = 13.2 kW/m², which again is very small compared to the heating power density.

Lastly, the conductive cooling mechanism. It transfers heat through the sensor to neighboring areas of the sensor. We need to distinguish lateral (within the same layer) and vertical (perpendicular to the sensor) transfer. Silicon has a heat conductivity of roughly 150 W/(m⋅K), whereas the other components have vastly different values (200-400 W/(m⋅K) for wiring; <10 W/(m⋅K) for glue, polymers etc.). However, the silicon layer is going to be absorbing most of the light and therefore where the vast majority of thermal energy is going to be deposited is the silicon layer, and therefore, let's focus only on lateral conduction within this layer. As such, let us assume that the sensor has a heat conductivity of 150 W/(m⋅K), which is the value for silicon. This doesn't mean that there is no vertical heat transfer, and the other layers such as the Bayer filter etc. will melt if the silicon layer beneath it reaches a certain temperature. Conduction strength is linearly dependent on temperature difference, meaning that stronger gradients across the sensor transport heat more quickly. Now conductivity is also inversely dependent on the conduction path distance. For very small spots (short focal lengths), the conduction path can be assumed as ~0.5 mm, whereas if the projection of the sun on the sensor is considerably larger than 1 mm², then larger path lengths come into play. Furthermore, as the adjacent areas of the sensor also heat up (which happens fairly quickly, as per Table 2), conduction path lengths do increase even for small focal lengths, as the heat basically needs to be transported "beyond the heated area", which increases. For the purpose of these calculations, let us assume that the sun is not sitting directly at an edge, but relatively centered within the frame, to allow heat conduction in all directions. Heat conduction at the very edges of the sensor is reduced by up to 50% (for edges) and 75% (for the corners), which I will ignore to keep things simple.

AlanF said:

The focal length of the lens is a crucial factor and times will not be largely independent of focal length! Briefly, the temperature reached by a pixel heated by light will depend on the rate of heating and the rate of loss of heat. The rate of heating will vary as the light intensity. The rate of loss of heat is primarily by conduction of the heat to the surrounding pixels and the rest of the sensor, and will depend on the temperature difference between the pixel and the surroundings (Newton's law of cooling). Suppose you double the focal length of the lens at the same f-number, then the rate of heating of the pixel is the same as the light intensity is the same, but it will be spread over 4x the area. Accordingly, the rate of loss of heat at the centre of the image will be lower as there will be a larger number of heated pixels surrounding the centre and they will be of similar temperature to the central pixels and so there will be lower lateral conduction conduction of heat away. Accordingly, the pixels in the image will heat up faster and reach a higher temperature as the focal length increases at constant f-number. (And this is why telephoto lenses can even damage shutters, both the total amount of light hitting the shutter and the rate of loss by conduction are crucial).

Click to expand...

EDIT (after finishing to write this post): Indeed, you are right! I initially stated that I would like to focus specifically on single-photosite heating rather than the second scenario, but I now see that it is relevant enough to not ignore it.

As you described above, with my 50 mm lens, the sun measured about 150 pixels wide, which is more than half a millimeter in size on the sensor. Even here, the central pixels will suffer from reduced heat transfer to the non-illuminated areas compared to pixels close to the edge of the projected sun image, so sun damage would likely first occur in a smaller central area (which, however, should still be much larger than maybe 3⋅3 pixels as seen in my images). But to quantify this dependence properly, I now took the time to actually calculate the conduction rates across different distances on the sensor and consider its physical properties. With this, I now got a much better idea of the effect and how focal length influences maximum exposure times, and was able to create a relatively simple physics-based model to determine the maximum exposure times based on f-number and focal length.

Strap in for what basically turned into a small research paper... or directly skip to the results in Table 7!
(split into multiple posts because of the forum's 10000 character limit per post... am I the first person to hit that?)

P-visie said:

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) on the Dutch Island of Texel in this afternoon’s sun. Not a spectacular photo, but this bird is “a bit lost”, spectacled eiders occur along the coast of Alaska and easternmost Russia and into the Bering Sea. From there to Texel takes a lot of flying and swimming .

8View attachment 227145

R5 Mk II with RF 200-800mm zoom @800mm and a slight crop in post-processing.

Click to expand...

Wow! That's a pretty cool rara avis.

AlanF said:

That's an interesting photo. It's always great to get a good one of a rare bird.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I was lucky in more ways than one: less traffic than anticipated, no waiting time at the ferry to Texel, so I was an hour earlier on Texel than anticipated, a photographer told me where to find the eider, it was on the stones and not far away in the water, and I was paying too much attention to the eider, so I slipped and fell on the last two meters, no harm to me, my R5 Mk II and lens, and the last light over the dike was gorgeous.

P-visie said:

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) on the Dutch Island of Texel in this afternoon’s sun. Not a spectacular photo, but this bird is “a bit lost”, spectacled eiders occur along the coast of Alaska and easternmost Russia and into the Bering Sea. From there to Texel takes a lot of flying and swimming .


R5 Mk II with RF 200-800mm zoom @800mm and a slight crop in post-processing.

Click to expand...

Beautiful bird, and the way the sunlight shines on it is truly stunning.
I've been to Texel several times, but unfortunately, I've never had the luck. A great catch.

Thanks for sharing a picture of this bird. The sunlight is very pleasant on this one.

Chunk said:

1) Focus bracketing *with flash* ability. M 4/3 cameras have taken so many macro photographers for this reason alone. This alone would make me upgrade.

Click to expand...

That should happen if and only if the rumor about a stacked sensor in the R7 is accurate.

I've been using the R7 (along with my R6) since it was released. Funny that I think about it because I remember people on this forum and in DPR saying APS-C was a thing of the past and no reason for Canon to continue crop sensors into the R line. I shoot a lot of macro and apsc is, in ways, better suited so I kept my 80D alongside my R6 and was so relieved with the R7s release. I bought it immediately.

My wishlist for the R7 mkii is pretty simple.


1) Focus bracketing *with flash* ability. M 4/3 cameras have taken so many macro photographers for this reason alone. This alone would make me upgrade.

2) Fix the focusing issues while in high speed.

3) format buttons/controls to match the R/6 and R/5. It would be mich easier muscle memory if things were in same place between different cameras.

** Just to add - If the mechanical shutter goes, the readout will have to be much, much better. I, and a lot of people, use the R7 for birds in flight. Just the lens IS alone gives the wobbles along with rolling shutter.

P-visie said:

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) on the Dutch Island of Texel in this afternoon’s sun. Not a spectacular photo, but this bird is “a bit lost”, spectacled eiders occur along the coast of Alaska and easternmost Russia and into the Bering Sea. From there to Texel takes a lot of flying and swimming .

View attachment 227145

R5 Mk II with RF 200-800mm zoom @800mm and a slight crop in post-processing.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting photo. It's always great to get a good one of a rare bird.

Spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) on the Dutch Island of Texel in this afternoon’s sun. Not a spectacular photo, but this bird is “a bit lost”, spectacled eiders occur along the coast of Alaska and easternmost Russia and into the Bering Sea. From there to Texel takes a lot of flying and swimming .



R5 Mk II with RF 200-800mm zoom @800mm and a slight crop in post-processing.

Steve Balcombe said:

And for your purpose, open gate video will give you a big step up without the need for an 8K-capable sensor.

Click to expand...

Only if they redesign the RF-S7.8MM F4 STM Dual to project light onto the extra sensor height . But with the current design, in stills mode, that extra height of the 3:2 image is just blackness that doesn't aid the image.

When taking a 33MP still on the current R7, after processing it ends up being 4MP (2514x1676). When taking 4K videos on the R7, after processing it ends up being 1472x828, barely better than 720p. Also I have to choose between 4K Fine (oversampled) at 30p or 4K (binned) at 60p, which is tough because 3D looks better at higher framerates.

With this lens, you lose a lot of resolution because first there's smaller image circles so a lot of the pixels are just black, then you lose more when you crop those circles into rectangles, and finally each eye only gets 1/2 the remaining resolution, so in the end you've basically lost 85%-90% of your resolution.

When it's all said and done, 8K video recording would provide approximately a 720p -> 1080p jump, and any TV buyer will tell you that's totally worth it. On the other hand, open gate recording will gain me a bunch of black pixels that get cropped out.

I definitely want this 35mm f/1,2!

esglord said:

One more. This lens goes to 11.

Click to expand...

This!