So R5C did not make it Netflix… will R3? No? Who cares? Buy R1 is said inbetween the lines.
Upvote
0
Let's review what you initially claimed:Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
How about a 35mmx35mm sensor, or a 35mm circle sensor
RE; Image circle, I was referring to the 35x35mm sensor proposed, not the round one. I don't think the image circle of RF lenses would quite reach that. Image circle for FF 35mmx24mm (3:2 format) is 42mm. for 35x35 it would have to be 49.5mm.Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing
Perhaps a lower resolution option doubling up pixels or combining 4 pixels.No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!
Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS
A global shutter would be pretty impractical on a high speed cameras with the present technology.The global shutter would be pretty cool though, not gonna lie.
Can we be sure that Canon does not have such a sensor?It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon
I have an R3 and plan to get an R5 C but I am a hybrid shooter.You have a 1Dx for video? Can I ask why you didn't want a Red, Blackmagic or similar?
It is not about 'people' but projects. I use Red or Alexa or Sony on features and use Canon 8k for small or self-funded films.Do the people buying ultra high end bodies care about 8k video? I always assumed that was a mid to low range thing because at the high end people are buying actual video cameras like the Red or similar.
Not me. I do want Canon to keep the weight and size down. Besides, I have a huge investment in CF Express.I'd like to see them get rid of CF Express and just adopt M.2 in some kind of caddy. Given the storage needs of a modern high end camera it makes sense to just adopt proper storage. A 1 series camera body is certainly large enough to do so.
Incorrect assumptions sir.Not at all, I was just saying that people spending 10k for a camera to capture video are generally buying video camera bodies, not photo camera bodies. People buying mid to low end cameras don't have much choice if they want interchangeable lenses, hence the popularity of video in cheaper bodies. I just don't see it as a compelling feature in an R1. I've no issue with it being included, but to call it out as a major improvement seems odd in a primarily stills device.
Maybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.And yet, here we are still with rectangle sensors and camera grips in 2022. Just because it's been mentioned before doesn't make it a bad idea...
Please consider R5. It may just work great for your needs. It works great for me.I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.
The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.
There are also a few other features that I'd love to see in the high-end Canon cameras.
- pre-capture mode (buffering shots when half-pressing the shutter button, and saving a buffer once you press it)
- more options for burst rates (not just having 30, 15, and 3 fps options; perhaps also having options for 10 and 6 fps)
I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.To those who don't like the focus on video: bear in mind that the video folks are making your still camera cost maybe $1000 less than it would without those features.
Would not a round sensor waste a lot of pixels? A 100 MP sensor would actually be about 40 MP useable once cropped (I did not do the math). Where an 80 MP sensor wastes nothing except for post cropping if desired but not required. Also the computing power I would imagine would be exponentially greater (More heat, more difficulty to eliminate rolling shutter or more difficult for global shutter). Also just getting shutter speed up on the sensor and again all that effort and most of it wasted.Of course they do, the image circle is a circle and currently reaches the edges of the sensor. If that sensor were round it would therefore reach fine.
There would not be a need to crop every time, you could easily set the image size and shape in software while recording the whole sensor in RAW format. GoPro does this on the Hero 11. It just means that you could choose either landscape, portrait, or choose later, or you could choose level landscape and have the camera correct in real-time for leveling as the GoPro does amazingly well.
waste is a pretty weak excuse, this is a $10k camera body! Even if that's an issue for round, it's certainly not for square which would allow the portrait/landscape thing
Hmmm. Has there not been enough debates that high resolution does not create noise? IF R3 is indeed "So much better", it needs to be evaluated if there is something else going on.I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.
The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!
Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move onMaybe not. But when the last major camera that used one was the original Kodak box camera, you might consider why that is.
Very possible that the video features are making cameras more expensive. However, the number of people who want to buy just a still camera maybe be miniscuile.I used to agree with that, but as video features become more and more sophisticated and require new design changes to implement at the high end, I'm beginning to think that we are entering an era where super-sophisticated video-only features may have a diminishing return.