Give it up. Your idea is impractical in so many ways. Stop trying to be the smartest guy on the forum. It's not working.Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?
Upvote
0
Give it up. Your idea is impractical in so many ways. Stop trying to be the smartest guy on the forum. It's not working.Very dismissive. How's your 16:9 framing doing on Instagram?
How much does a weather-resistant RED body cost? Is it handholdable when used? How likely is it to survive, say, a cyclist crashing into it?I'm certain there are lots of people like you. That doesn't make you the target demographic though. Is there a reason you prefer stills bodies to Red or Blackmagic type bodies designed for the job?
Or not.Seems to me that if Canon intended to design video in as a high end feature they'd end up changing almost everything about the 1Dx body.
You realise that that "much higher cost" is pennies at the wafer stage? And yes, I fully understand the chip industry.I guess you missed the part where it was mentioned that sensors are cut from larger wafers. Square sensor = far fewer sensors that can be cut from a wafer. Far fewer sensors cut from a wafer = much higher cost. They don't do square because it is not worth it, not because it has always been done that way. I am sure that I have taken many landscape shots that looked better in portrait orientation. I cropped them. Works fine. Not going to pay extra $$$$ for your square sensor. Doubt many would.
It's not "my idea" and it's not impractical at all, it's the logical next step in camera evolution. Sensors the size and shape of 35mm film only exist because of that 35mm film. Does it make sense to drop all of the pixels above and below the 16:9 frame? It's literally what you're all saying is stupid, yet cameras do this now for almost all video and quite a lot of pictures.Give it up. Your idea is impractical in so many ways. Stop trying to be the smartest guy on the forum. It's not working.
You know they make films with them right? Outdoors? Plenty rugged enough and weather resistant models are there if needed. They also aren't the only manufacturer of video bodies.How much does a weather-resistant RED body cost? Is it handholdable when used? How likely is it to survive, say, a cyclist crashing into it?
OK. I thought you were talking about the ones of my youth which had 127 film. You must be even older than me...They weren't circular. The original Kodak ("You press the button, we do the rest") yielded a circular image.
No more than 60MP for me please, Canon!
Put a 100+MP sensor in a EOS R5DS
Well not quite that old. https://designyoutrust.com/2016/02/15-rare-photos-taken-with-the-first-ever-kodak-photo-camera/OK. I thought you were talking about the ones of my youth which had 127 film. You must be even older than me...
I've a great idea: make computers with round screens to view circular images.
Um, wouldn't one still need to cut a rectangular file out of that circle? You suggested a 35mm circle. Seems to me the result would be akin to aps-c size (or smaller) after cutting out the rectangle... or we buy stock in the round picture frame company?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. It's frankly embarrassing that GoPro did it before Canon.
Setting to change output resolution?I don't see how it's gonna be a high MP body and also be the sports leader. Any ideas?
But RAW output will be the same size as the whole sensor . . .Setting to change output resolution?
Where are you seeing this? Top pair from the normal dpreview scene, bottom from the low light scene (left side, i.e. lowest light). They're equal in the top comparison, and the R3 is maybe a hair better in the bottom (1/3ev or less).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.
Well, I would be in the market for a R1 with those high video features....You have a 1Dx for video? Can I ask why you didn't want a Red, Blackmagic or similar?
Speak for yourself...Because we went through decades of film based cameras, obviously. Those days are over though, time to move on
Actually, as I understand it...The Hasselblad X2D has video coming in the somewhat near future with firmware updates.Firstly, if I wasn’t the target demographic this camera would not be 8K capable, as the rumors are suggesting. Clearly hybrid shooters are the target market… and that’s me… and people like me... I think we are the majority.
Leica m11 is stills only… as it’s the Hasselblad X2D… those are your highend “stills only” options. The R1 will be “a jack of all trades and master of all”… it won’t master video without the specs I’ve mentioned. And it better bring some serious dynamic range!
I prefer stills bodies because of convenience. I don’t like having to choose between shooting video or shooting stills. If I have a hybrid, I can do either; Also hybrid bodies draw less attention.
I hate rigging cameras… but to avoid rigging the features the camera offers must be complete.