No, it’s not.
It’s Much Much Much more functional... better ergonomics, better screen, better EVF, usable menus, flip screen, far superior weather sealing. And I haven’t even touched on specs/features.
45mp vs 61mp much more?
Upvote
0
No, it’s not.
It’s Much Much Much more functional... better ergonomics, better screen, better EVF, usable menus, flip screen, far superior weather sealing. And I haven’t even touched on specs/features.
The prices on the 600 & 800 lead me to believe that I shouldn't expect much in terms of IQ..
The price on the 100-500 makes me wonder how it will do with the 1.4 - my 1.4 lives on my 100-400. The 7.1 plus the hit from the 1.4 is putting me in the 'if only' category.
Definitely going to wait until the shine comes off the penny for the R5. Even a few hundred will be nice. The R6 and it's tiny little resolution leaves me cold.
We don't know. That is one of the big questions is how Canon does IBIS.
That said... yes. Anything is better than Sony's IBIS. Maybe it's fine for photo. But for video, I swear they put it on there as a joke. It's a technological social experiment, and Sony's IBIS is nothing but a placebo. Sony user's believe they have more stable footage... but every time I see it, I'm like... what are you looking at? That's some shaky ass footage.
Agreed. With the RF TCs not working with the RF 70-200mm it means that I don't have a simple (if not perfect) option for >200mm reach as I did with EF. The RF TC should be better than the EF TC so my plan is for RF TC + RF adaptor + 100-400mm. A little more reach @ 560mm and probably very close to the same quality. Much cheaper especially if I pick up a used 100-400mm due to people upgradingYour thinking on the 100-400 with 1.4x (560mm) versus 100-500 (already at 500mm w/out a TC) doesn't register to me. The 100-500 will be 700mm with the 1.4x, and TC tech has come a long way since the ancient EF TC designs (plus the advantage of the close flange distance of the RF mount). Also remember the 100-500 is going to have around 7-stops of combined stabilization with IS+IBIS – that won't help you with BIF or motion, but for everything else, it's going to be really nice.
Biggest reason to stay with 100-400 is saving money.
So, the question is will the 100-500 with TC at f/10 have better IQ (and AF) than the 800mm DO at f/11? I won't speculate, but if the 800mm has (surprisingly) good IQ and AF, then it truly will be a steal.Your thinking on the 100-400 with 1.4x (560mm) versus 100-500 (already at 500mm w/out a TC) doesn't register to me. The 100-500 will be 700mm with the 1.4x, and TC tech has come a long way since the ancient EF TC designs (plus the advantage of the close flange distance of the RF mount). Also remember the 100-500 is going to have around 7-stops of combined stabilization with IS+IBIS – that won't help you with BIF or motion, but for everything else, it's going to be really nice.
Biggest reason to stay with 100-400 is saving money.
So, the question is will the 100-500 with TC at f/10 have better IQ (and AF) than the 800mm DO at f/11? I won't speculate, but if the 800mm has (surprisingly) good IQ and AF, then it truly will be a steal.
The R5 came in $200-$300 more than I expected (hoped for), and the 100-500 is about $100 more than I expected. So, I will scale back for now. I'll go for the R5 and the 800mm and EF-RF adapter. I'm so happy that I held on to my 24-70L II and 100-400L II. I can wait for 100-500 reviews and see if there is any reason to upgrade. I expect that Canon will release better DO lenses in the future--like a 600mm f/5.6 DO--, so in the interim, I'll shoot dual Sony/Canon.
I had the A7iii and then purchased the Nikon z6. There is no ibis in the a7iii. I would get a headache from watching my handheld videos. The nikon z6 was way better even though the lenses didnt' have any stabilization.We are looking for a camera, not a cam.
I agree with you about the primes, but I am going to order the 800mm to try just in case there is a miracle.The prices on the 600 & 800 lead me to believe that I shouldn't expect much in terms of IQ..
The price on the 100-500 makes me wonder how it will do with the 1.4 - my 1.4 lives on my 100-400. The 7.1 plus the hit from the 1.4 is putting me in the 'if only' category.
Definitely going to wait until the shine comes off the penny for the R5. Even a few hundred will be nice. The R6 and it's tiny little resolution leaves me cold.
That's like saying a 21 year old new wife couldn't possibly thrill me more than the 57 year old current wife... in their bikinis. Experience isn't everything.Has Canon ever in their history released a camera with a sensor that moves for some purpose other than shaking off dust? Honest question.
How many stock splits in that time?Canon Shares closed at $19.35 on the NYSE today. Roughly the same price they closed at 20 years ago but thanks for your insight.
Edit: Sorry. Didn't want it to sound like I was talking down to you. I guess you already knew that being as how you are such an expert on Canon share valuations and their financial plan.
Order your 24-105 f4 L IS tonight and then cancel tomorrow morning if the bundle is cheaper. I just placed my order a few minutes ago, so I don't mind sharing.
Are you talking RF or EF? I should have clarified RF 24-105 f4 L IS above.I've seen the 24-105 go on sale for $899 USD a few times.