BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
- By candyman
- Animal Kingdom
- 8244 Replies
Beautiful with the feathers spread out so nicelyEuropean kestrel
R5 + RF100-500 + 1.4TC
@1/800s, f/10, iso 500
Upvote
0
Beautiful with the feathers spread out so nicelyEuropean kestrel
R5 + RF100-500 + 1.4TC
@1/800s, f/10, iso 500
Stacked sensors have an extra layer of circuitry that improves readout speed. This enables better AF and reduces rolling shutter.OK, we have Stacked Sensors, Backside Illuminated Sensors and Fast Readout Sensors. all of which can be implemented independently and seem to independently have benefits. I understand the benefits of BSI and Fast Readout Sensors, but not Stacked Sensors. What's the big deal with those?
Does anybody know what the S&F stands for on the mode dial. Would it be something like "shutter and framerate" or am I off-base?
And if it is related to framerate setting, why does it need such easy access for quick changes?
At the risk of building false hope, would it enable trade-offs between frame rates and sensor readout speeds? You know, to maybe enable better readout speeds. Or would it be something like enabling a longer stream of shots at a slower framerate?
Camera bodies are overrated, lenses are 10 times more important. I don't like to think about fanboys of any manufacturer, I like to think on each one of us wanting to spend their money on what we consider the best tech for our needs.
I use Canon since 1999, in the film days, and never had any other 24x36 system for this 26 years, so I can be considered somewhat a Canon fanboy, but no matter what the R6 III is bringing us, I can tell you I have never been so close so switch side, to Sony, and not by the reason of "lenses", plural, but I'm ready to switch just to get ahold of a single specific lens, the Tamron 35-150, that for me is enough to bear with Sony ergonomics and menus, which I deem way inferior to Canon's.
Cameras are full of marketing gimmicks, sometimes REALLY helpful, especially in the AF department, but in the end they're just black boxes recording light via the exposure triangle, and what really makes the difference is lighting, first, and the lens, second. Camera comes in as a distant third.
I don't know if Sony fans won't be able to ignore Canon after the release of the R6 III, but I can tell you that I still won't be able to ignore Sony even if the 45 f1.2 (which is why I'm here, the R6III doesn't interest me one bit) is great and even if I'll buy it on pre-order, I'll still be thinking about that Tamron lens, and possibly ending up switching side.
Who cares about being a fan of a company? Really?
Does anybody know what the S&F stands for on the mode dial. Would it be something like "shutter and framerate" or am I off-base?
And if it is related to framerate setting, why does it need such easy access for quick changes?
At the risk of building false hope, would it enable trade-offs between frame rates and sensor readout speeds? You know, to maybe enable better readout speeds. Or would it be something like enabling a longer stream of shots at a slower framerate?
I guess I am confused by the parallels you are making?I agree. It comes down to that in terms of the sensor. In the history of the 6D vs 5D it was also body, shutter, lifetime of flaps, sealing, etc.
I disagree. Moving from the 6D -> 6D II was meh, but from the 6D II to (spiritually, at least) the R6 it was wow. There are far fewer differences between the R6 and R5 when you take a photo or dunk the body in animal snot than what were with the 6D series vs 5D series. Similarly, the RP vs R or 5D.4 was meh. Canon could have kept with meh, but it ran strong. More my point about the 5D.4 comparison and use of the 1D III -ish chip. Canon didn't just hand the masses a road apple. They handed them a quality product by which only resolution and mode selection were the big differentiators.
Put this way:
For CAD $2k in moving from the R6 to R5 you get double the pixels and an LCD display. I guess more EVF pixels.
For CAD $2k in moving from the 6D II to 5D.4 you got double the pixels, better snot resistance, better daylight tolerance, better low end detail preservation, more flaps before failure, etc.
So in moderns times resolution. In the before times pretty much well the whole pie. Steering this back to my original moaning, I'm just hoping the R6.3, despite apparent advancement, isn't inching us back to the whole pie scenario.
You are absolutely correct. I think people use what they are the most comfortable with and produces the best shot for them and at a cost that suits their pocketbook.Camera bodies are overrated, lenses are 10 times more important. I don't like to think about fanboys of any manufacturer, I like to think on each one of us wanting to spend their money on what we consider the best tech for our needs.
I use Canon since 1999, in the film days, and never had any other 24x36 system for this 26 years, so I can be considered somewhat a Canon fanboy, but no matter what the R6 III is bringing us, I can tell you I have never been so close so switch side, to Sony, and not by the reason of "lenses", plural, but I'm ready to switch just to get ahold of a single specific lens, the Tamron 35-150, that for me is enough to bear with Sony ergonomics and menus, which I deem way inferior to Canon's.
Cameras are full of marketing gimmicks, sometimes REALLY helpful, especially in the AF department, but in the end they're just black boxes recording light via the exposure triangle, and what really makes the difference is lighting, first, and the lens, second. Camera comes in as a distant third.
I don't know if Sony fans won't be able to ignore Canon after the release of the R6 III, but I can tell you that I still won't be able to ignore Sony even if the 45 f1.2 (which is why I'm here, the R6III doesn't interest me one bit) is great and even if I'll buy it on pre-order, I'll still be thinking about that Tamron lens, and possibly ending up switching side.
Who cares about being a fan of a company? Really?
A change in form factor, huh? I've said it before; R3 body with APS-C sensor. Stacked sensor, eye-control AF, everything the R3 has but with an APS-C sensor
Camera bodies are overrated, lenses are 10 times more important. I don't like to think about fanboys of any manufacturer, I like to think on each one of us wanting to spend their money on what we consider the best tech for our needs.This R6 Mark III forum is by far the most popular on Canon Rumors. Well over 500 comments and climbing each day. This is going to be an important camera in the Canon lineup for the next few years. So far, the rumors seem to be ringing true to the market and it should be a best seller. Cannot say the same for Sony and the A7V. The few rumors that are being leaked are not looking good. My guess is that Sony is freaking out how much Canon is advancing the technology at the same price point. They will either have to take an "L" (loss) on this model and try to do better in a couple years or just reduce the price on a minor update to the A7IV. To their credit, Sony did finally reduce the price of the A7IV from $2,700 to $2,000 (USD) and that helped move it to number one on Amazon. But it looks like the R6 III is going to have so many more features than the A7V at nearly the same price, that even Sony fanboys won't be able to ignore Canon anymore. Of course they will just continue to gloat about all of their 3rd party lenses on the FE mount still missing from RF mount. Looks like that's the only hand Sony fans will have left after the R6 III is announced on Thursday.
For those of us who switch between the 5/6 series and the 7, the change in layout is indeed a pain but we (have to) put up with it. However, if you trawl through posts you will find several that do prefer the current R7 layout, and they tend to be from those with the one body.You can claim Canon risks alienating "lots of R7 users" if they go back to the layout of the 7D, 7D mark II, 80D, 90D, etc. How do you know they didn't alienate a LOT MORE potential R7 buyers who took a pass because of the ridiculous R7 control layout? I've heard MANY say they didn't buy the R7 because it was laid out too different from their R6 or R5 bodies. You're the ONLY person I've ever heard say they want the R7 Mark II to continue the divergent layout.
This pose makes it seem like the robin is intently observing the world. But it's more likely that he's keeping a close eye on the birds of prey.![]()
I'm not discounting the validity of this, but I have to point out that this isn't necessarily 3 sources; in this case it's more likely there's 3 sites repeating a single source, each with their own extrapolations of the info they've been given.Here are a couple publications overview on the projected R7 MkII specs. So far I haven't seen one that mentions the form factoring remaining as is.... oh well
- Shutter Count: Ergonomics may be refined to match the EOS R5 Mark II layout, including re-positioned controls and a higher resolution OLED viewfinder with 0.9x magnification.
- Canon Rumors: ergonomics similar to the EOS R5 Mark II. This has been talked about for quite some time. While Canon did some unique things with the EOS R7, the layout is polarizing. I personally can't stand the way the EOS R7 is laid out. This would probably mean the joystick and scroll wheel moving back to where we'd expect them to be on prosumer RF cameras.
- Digital Camera World: Larger Form Factor, the R7 Mark II might feature a larger form factor compared to its predecessor. While this means the camera may be less compact, it could translate to better ergonomics and handling.