Probably technology made this now possible.So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?
Upvote
0
Probably technology made this now possible.So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?
His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge. So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.
70-200 is almost a 3x zoom (well, 70-210 would be), as is 24-70 (24-72).So I wonder why Canon has been insistent on making fixed-length 70/80-200s for the past 40 years.
Is it really a case of what the market wanted, or just accepting what they were given?
24mpx at 30 fps generates only 0.45Gb CRAW files or 0.2Gb jpegs per second. A factor of two is the same as going from 24mpx to 48mpx, which is what Canon has achieved with its CRAW technology that appears to have close to zero effect on IQ.I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash
The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap
What's the point if you need to slow down the fps to reserve storage or transfering the huge files
I use the 100-500mm daily, and very often with the RF 2x. So, a 200-1000mm f/9-f/14 with TC would have been my choice at the minimal expense of 2cm or so in length. Anyway, I have another theory of the why the RF TCs extend so far into the lens - it was designed by the prime team who had converted the EF 400 and 60omm IIIs to the RF versions by bolting on an extension ring. Those lenses weren't so good with the EF extenders and so they had to design RF extenders that went inside the new extension ring, and this was done a couple of years ago and they forgot to tell the zoom design team, or simply ignored them. Anyway, whatever the reason why really is, the restricted zoom range imposed by the RF TCs is an annoyance for me.I would have picked compact too.
Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.His rudeness is legendary. So is his knowledge. So is his resistance to technology advancement. He resisted EVF, pull out screen, touch screen, mirrorless etc.
For $2M you should be getting a lot moreCanon will need to do enough to warrant a a $2000k + price difference
Oh no no no. These are real, true, great advantages. You seem to be the type, if I am not mistaken, who resisted digital when it started replacing film. Am I right?Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.
Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.
Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.
Being so anti-technology has all the hallmarks of being a conservative voter that would approve of Donald Trump.
Not really. I love enhancements in technology and love to adapt. And I approve Trump.
On the other hand, rumours are slow these days...Now there. Let's agree to stay on highly divisive discussion points in relation to Canon cameras, shall we? Like DSLR vs MILC, OVF vs EVF, DR, pixel size and so forth
No need to drag politics in just to get something to argue about
You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.Advancement is always nice, but none of that is an advancement. Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.
No doubt that it is a change. But you can't call it a step backwards without either mentioning the metrics that you use to determine that, or acknowledge that it is just your personal preference.Not having a mirror is a step backwards to the times of the early digital cameras. Going from an OVF to an EVF is the biggest step back I ever saw in photography. It's a change from seeing the real world to seeing a digital copy of the world.
I didn't think there was any point in answering a rhetorical question. You and I both know that I don't have access to the extensive market research data which would be necessary to prove anything. You and I also know that you don't have access to data that would repudiate my "claim". I think everyone here knows and accepts that what *both* of us have expressed are our *opinions*.Consider that when challenged on your repeated claim that, “Most people would prefer a higher MP camera,” your answer was, “I don’t have any market research data to support that but you need to show me your market research data to refute my claim.”
That ‘response in detail’ reminds me of my young son’s detailed response to my not letting him stay up until midnight eating ice cream: “Daddy, you hafta bcuz I wanna stay up and I love ice cream plus it’s dairy so it’s healthy!” Ummm…no.
I see your point but I'm not sure. If a camera is going to be competitive, it has to offer at least as much, if not more than the current "opposition", so it would make sense for the manufacturer to stuff every conceivable feature into each model (given cost restraints). This is what Nikon always does - look e.g. at the spec of the D850 compared to the 5DMkiv.I like your thinking and would happily sell my car to buy that.
However (and this is pure speculation just for fun) such a camera would be too good to be practical in terms of future upgrade paths.
As much as market research, R&D, and all the other points raised earlier that make up the design process, leaving room for improvements has to be one too. Just like lightbulbs and printers and planned obsolescence, making the perfect product is sadly not a viable business model.
Not sure if I'm making sense, but it just feels like if your list was accurate, it would be 50-50 a huge success for Canon as well as a self inflicted shot on their foot.
They'd probably bring in the guy with the cripple hammer to the last meeting pre launch to make sure the R1 is not the last camera everyone will ever buy.
Even if you count the eye as digital, it would still mean only copy more. Analogue light converted into digital data, then again into in analogue light (in the EVF) and then again into digital data in your brain. So an OVF needs two conversions less. Just a copy instead of a copy of a copy of a copy.You only ever see a digital image of the world: your eye has a digital sensor, and it doesn't have a mirror.
Hi dilbert, I don't have an ignore list, I prefer to give people a second chance. I've had intense disagreements with certain individuals trolling on dpreview, and I've even fallen once or twice into the trap of returning insults, but it just leads to further unpleasantness. In the end I got so fed up with reading some of the comments, that I resigned from the dpreview comments pages, and since then I've tended to spend more time here, where *most* people are very reasonable.Just add the poster to whom you were quoting to your ignore list and you'll find your reading of comments on CR forums a much healthier experience.
If I may observe, you are ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that some types of professional photography (chiefly sport) rely on speed of delivery and the end result is rarely cropped much, nor often reproduced at high magnification. Plenty people have laboured under the misapprehension that low res = lower noise etc, despite plenty of us showing it to be largely untrue (with caveats) - DPR is rather late to the game in that regard. But I don't think Canon's choice is based on that. You keep asserting pretty much everyone benefits from higher res, but that's not true and especially so for a primary target audience for this sort of camera.It may very well be the case that Canon have conducted surveys and been told that their target users for the R3 have stated that they prefer 24MP. But that preference is based on the misconception that lower megapixel cameras produce less noise and have better DR. That was certainly true a decade ago, and the false myth has persisted and still affects people's purchasing decisions. But the myth has been blown:
If people buy a high megapixel camera, but prefer smaller files, they have two options. Either they can shoot 45-50 megapixel JPEGs which will fly at lightning speed, or they can select a lower resolution mode. Canon models (and most other brands) have allowed the user to choose from 3 different (uncropped and uncompressed) RAW resolutions for donkey's years.I think 24mpix is ideal, for now
At 30fps you generate about 1Gb files per second and only one will be used, the rest is trash
The whole idea of high shutter is to keep shooting during crucial moment and the filed where it's required demand the files to fly asap
What's the point if you need to slow down the fps to reserve storage or transfering the huge files