Any canon DSLR/MILC below $1500?Yes, there are many cameras out there, that can already do that.
Upvote
0
Any canon DSLR/MILC below $1500?Yes, there are many cameras out there, that can already do that.
There is another reason. Why sell one camera, that can do both: high res full frame images and high fps crop images, when you can sell two cameras, that can only do one of these things.
I quoted exactly what was in your post with the picture, in which there were no caveats. I do not believe your claim that a pelican landing is "a little `BIF" is 100% true.You completely missed the point. Go back and read everything I wrote and you will clearly see that I never claimed these photos were spectacular from a BIF standpoint in any way...
What I did claim is 100% true.... No Canon (or anyone's, AFAIK) sDLR will auto-focus any lens/TC combination with an aperture of anything approaching f13. That is what I used and therefore what I did and how I did it was indeed impossible with any dSLR..
Your example uses a 1.4 TC on a 5DSR (I own both) which will indeed AF with the center few spots down to F8. I used a 2X TC on the 100-400 with which the "R" was still able to capably AF even using the very corner of the sensor even. Apples and oranges to you, my friend...
Any canon DSLR/MILC below $1500?
I hate to tell you this, but there are no "low light kings." All currently shipping FF sensors occupy roughly a 1ev band. If anything you're best off going high resolution (D850, A7r3, 5Ds/sr) because while there's more noise in flat areas, there's also considerably higher detail/sharpness and in post you have much more room to NR. The end result is a cleaner image that's still sharper/more detailed. But even then we're not talking about leaps and bounds.
BSI did virtually nothing for FF sensor sensitivity (probably due to microlens tech at that scale) and everyone is dealing with the same laws of physics.
How about we wait and see if it's even the 6D2's sensor?
Thanks. Planning to upgrade mine.The 7DII can do it, the 80d can do it, the original 6D can do it and I guess there are others, that also have in camera raw processing. They are not "new", but they are below $1500 right now.
For little birds in flight, is there any camera/lens out there that is fast enough to track a Chickadee in flight when you are close enough that it fills more than a quarter of a frame? Is there any photographer who is fast enough?!
A pelican is a bird.
That one was clearly flying.
Any arguments thus far?
My describing it as "a little" BIF is a clear nod to the fact that this shot is not even close to the same as one of a Peregrine Falcon cruising across the frame at 180 mph. I might describe that one as "a whole lot" of BIF.... LMFAO!
You must have miss BlackFriday sales. It was $1300.
Here is the deal website https://slickdeals.net/f/12281707-c...amera-w-24-105mm-f-4l-ii-lens-2199-00-more-fs on Nov 11, 2018.
It was $1300 from [bhphotovideo.com] bandhphoto.com
MSRP is $1500. Adorama used price is $1149
There isn't any rewriting history. You just do a very poor job at Google search.
Canon 6D II may be better than 6D but that isn't saying much.
Here is an Fstoppers Article.
Canon 6D Mark II: The Worst Camera of 2017
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/canon-6d-mark-ii-worst-camera-2017-209420
Compared to Canon own line, it's a fine camera, but it's overvalue at its debut price of $2000.
As the original owner of Canon 6D, I was hoping 6D II will be the low light king vs my Canon 5D IV. Canon didn't want to make the same mistake with 6D vs 5D III so it won't cannibalize 5D IV sales. Canon segmented the 6D II line even more by putting a slightly worst sensor, and added more AF points that's mostly center. Compare to 6D, it's a better camera, but compare to competitions, it's a poorly value one.
It couldn't beat out an 3 year old Nikon D750 in term of values that has dual card slot and better dynamic range and $200 cheaper.
At $1500, I don't know if I would recommend it over Sony A7III for $1800 that has a better sensor, dual card slot, IBIS, better eyeAF, and 4k. I can deal with the ergonomics issue with L bracket.
Canon has a history of providing poorly value camera because they know we are tied down to glasses - 5D IV, 6D II, and EOS R. They aren't bad camera. I don't think any FF camera in the last 5 year take bad pictures. It just a poorly value one.
Christ. So I'd guess you're about 14 years old.
What did you prove wrong? Where did I back peddle? Quotes please.
Christ. So I'd guess you're about 14 years old.
What did you prove wrong? Where did I back peddle? Quotes please.
You have already asked that and I answered.Why don’t you start with mentioning a Sony lens that is as good as the equivalent RF lens?
For little birds in flight, is there any camera/lens out there that is fast enough to track a Chickadee in flight when you are close enough that it fills more than a quarter of a frame? Is there any photographer who is fast enough?
(I am talking in flight here, not the instant that they take off or land)
This is a bit tl;dr, but okay...
Well I simply searched for what the camera is selling for *now*. You didn't say '$1300 during the intense pre-Christmas sales', you implied that's what it was selling for now.
And while there is some merit in what you are saying, my points stand. The 6D2 improved most features of the 6D - especially the number of autofocus points, which was considered a weakness of the original model. Despite inflation, its price was lower than the 6D's. Not by much, but it could have been more. That you consider rival brands' offerings better value is a separate issue imho. The 6D2 was never gonna debut at $1500. If you check the discussions here before it was released, I'm not sure many were even predicting the price to be as low as it was.
And the point is - Canon doesn't arguably include as many features (although many it does include are overlooked by the naysayers here and elsewhere) because they sell well without going the extra mile, so why bother? It might piss you off, but that's not their focus. This is just my hunch, but at the entry level in particular I don't think the minutiae of DR and even dual slots make much difference to sales.
I did mentioned low light king vs my 5D IV just like Canon 6D perform over 5D III. I wasn't expect leap and bound increase but at least an increase in performance just like 5D IV over 5D III not worst like the 6D II over 6D.
We can but it is still not a camera I would want to buy. I'm looking for EOS R Pro not a downgrade to EOS R.
As a consumer (not stockholder), you should be mad that Canon just provide the status quo without going to extra mile to get your hard earn money.
If I own Canon stock, I would applaud them for their business practices. They are able to minimize R&D money spent, providing incremental upgrade, yet people continue to buy their system even though it's a poorly value to their competitions.
Sony troll that uses canon all his life?Amazing how the Sony trolls all sign up for an account when a new Canon is released. Since the first R was released, there have been many more of you. Gotta wonder how desperate Sony is getting, if Sony is paying trolls.
I'm quite used to use canon bodies, lenses, batteries, menus, options, dpaf and everything else, the transition will be really hard (and emotional)Buy whatever tool require to do your job. No point is being emotional about it. That's what I am doing if EOS R Pro is another good enough camera. Eventually Sony may not provide you with what you need and you switch to another company when it's viable.
Is it a requirement for you to use the same device to shoot stills and video? For ~$350 you can get a DJI Osmo Pocket and shoot far better video footage than you can with ANY hand-held DSLR or Mirrorless ILC system, just from the standpoint of having gimbal stabilized footage (unless you carry around a DSLR/Mirrorless gimbal in your kit for shoots) With a gimbal (or tripod), the need for in-body stabilization is negated tremendously, and you can use a wider angle lens (e.g. the 15-35, or adapted 11-24) if the crop is too much for your composition requirements. Of course, if you have a use-case where you need professional 4k video footage wider than 24mm (the market for this is extremely thin), you'd probably be shooting with EOS-C line with PL mount lenses (or non-Canon equivalent) anyway... and for everything else, for the purposes of ticking the "shoots with 4k" box... DJI Osmo, iPhone, Android, etc... all tick that box.
Personally I very rarely shoot video with my stills cameras these days, unless I have a specific composition that is only achievable through my EF glass, and even then, I really hate it, because I don't carry around a DSLR gimbal with me on vacation. At best I have a tripod or platypod. For vast majority of my personal video requirements, the DJI Osmo Mobile (using my iPhone) or Pocket are good enough.
I am seriously considering buying the RP to replace my M5 as my second body (my primary body is 5D4), along with the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS to replace my damaged EF 24-70 f/2.8L I. Half-tempted to get the RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS as well for my astrophotography interests, despite just buying the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III a few months ago. Will wait for reviews on that one. Regardless, once the prosumer (e.g. 5D equivalent) R body is available, I plan on making the full switch to RF, much to my wife's chagrin.
You have already asked that and I answered.
Please answer my questions. What did you prove wrong? Where did I back peddle? Quotes please.
Absolutely without a doubt landing pelican images are very far from the most challenging BIF photography.... LOL... Also without a doubt, the "R" is not the optimal BIF camera even with a "proper" BIF lens and no TC. While AF is quick and excellent (as good as XYZ) with a fast lens, no TC, in decent light, and you do get AF all over the sensor, you are still hobbled by the 5fps frame rate. For very fast subjects, the 7D2 eats it alive and even more so, the 1DX2. I have both and would not give up either for an "R" a this point.
My only point was to illustrate that on the "R", AF works sensor-wide with any lens/TC combination at any aperture and it works acceptably enough to even use for some BIF. On most high-end dSLRs, you get center spot from 5.6 to 8 and nothing past 8..... This is way better. For static subjects, AF even at tiny apertures is as accurate as the R's AF ever is... IOW, very.
If having acceptable AF capability at small apertures matters to you at some level..... I would certainly consider it for that as well as it's other attributes. Personally I have 4 issues with the "R" Canon would need to solve before I spend money on this. See my previous posts for what they are. Yes, my current dSLRs are heavier and bigger, but they do what I need done better than the "R" at this point in time and I can live without AF at small apertures.