I am saying it takes forever for significant upgrades and by the time they do the competition made more steps ahead in various areas. Time stops for no one.
Upvote
0
Canon EOS RP Specifications & Images
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
You can also argue the other way: If Canon can put a tilty-flippy-touchy screen on EOS-R body, why should Sony not be able to do so with its FF cameras? Now perhaps you see the point. Every manufacturer sees the market in a unique way and develops its product for the intended market segment. We should learn to know that if we don't belong to the segment that the product is intended for, we should simply look elsewhere. I have R and 5DRS and I know that RP is not for users like me, so why bother with wasting my time arguing features it should or should not have. It is like asking why my neighbor's old SUV has more features than my brand new sedan!!
Upvote
0
The EF 40/2.8 pancake is very nearly an L quality lens (optical performance wise), so yes, an L pancake is certainly doable.
Does the RF mount make it smaller still?
And as aside - if the follow-on pro model is the Rx, who writes the prescription to order it?
Upvote
0
A wise man is bhf3737.You can also argue the other way: If Canon can put a tilty-flippy-touchy screen on EOS-R body, why should Sony not be able to do so with its FF cameras? Now perhaps you see the point. Every manufacturer sees the market in a unique way and develops its product for the intended market segment. We should learn to know that if we don't belong to the segment that the product is intended for, we should simply look elsewhere. I have R and 5DRS and I know that RP is not for users like me, so why bother with wasting my time arguing features it should or should not have. It is like asking why my neighbor's old SUV has more features than my brand new sedan!!
Upvote
0
Still waiting for DPAF from Sony. *sigh* And good ergonomics. *sigh* And a tilty flippy screen *sigh* And decent menu system *sigh* etc, *sigh* Decent tracking during bursts *sigh* Weather sealing *sigh* Decent product support *sigh* Better color science ( poor sensor tech?) *sigh* Lenses as good as Canon *sigh* Less expensive lenses than Canon *sigh* STM lenses for video *sigh* A 28-70 f/2 *sigh* A 11-24mm with no distortion *sigh* A 600mm lens *sigh* An 800mm lens *sigh*
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ahhhh cmon Canon, really?? 6D mark II, do we really need another bad full frame camera. Well there's nothing left here to do then switch to Sony...
I do not think 6DII is a bad and I believe many people felt the same.
There isn’t a bad camera, but an incapable photographer who do not how to shoot better photo.
Cheers....
Upvote
0
While a small subset of the complainers might be trolls, they aren't being paid. Some people just enjoy causing drama. Welcome to the internet. and just FYI, the Nigerian prince does not need your bank account number and Bill Gates is not going to give you money for forwarding that email.
Upvote
0
How do you know if a troll is paid or not?
Sony started paying YouTube reviewers years ago at press events with all included trips to Hawaii, essentially corrupting them. Are you really so sure they don’t pay people to troll as well?
I am not saying it is so, but it could be.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
The "s" for higher level sub-models in Canon's naming convention is always lower case:
1Ds Mark III
5Ds / 5Ds R
So it would be "Rs."
I think it is quite possible that the successor to the 5D Mark IV will be an R body, but I also think there is a small chance Canon could release a 5D Mark V (which would, by convention, be an EF mount camera).
I do think there will be both a "normal" resolution "5D" type of body (currently in the 30-35 MP range) and another model with basically the same body and features but a "high" resolution sensor (currently 50-?? MP).
In addition to the added expense of producing a 100MP sensor for users who would only output 25MP files, there would also be the added disadvantages of four times the data to be read out (with the accompanying longer time needed to read it, the additional power requirement, and additional heat), and processing load to bin 100MP to 25MP (and the accompanying extra power consumption and heat generated).
Pixel binning does not simplify color conversion they way most people think it does. Color filters in Bayer masks are not discreet. (Neither are the three types of cones in the human retina.) There's a lot of sensitivity overlap in response between the "Blue" (actually a violet shade of blue at about 460nm), "Green" (actually a slightly blue tinted green at about 540nm) and "Red" (actually a yellow-orange color with the highest transmissivity at around 600nm, not really what we call"red" at 640nm - all drawings on the internet that show "red", "green", and "blue" squares notwithstanding) filtered sensels. This "overlap" is actually how our eye-brain system creates "color." Some "red" (quite a bit, actually) and "blue" light make it past the "green" filters. Some "green" (quite a bit, actually) makes it past the "red" filters, and even some "red" and more "green" make it past the "blue" filters. The energy from all of those photons is measured the same by each sensel (a/k/a pixel well).
The way we demosaic the monochromatic luminance values collected by sensels behind the three different colored filters mimic the way our brains process the information gathered by our retinas. Even if we had two "green", a "blue", and a "red" filtered sensel for each pixel in our output image, we'd still have to demosaic and weight the color multipliers properly to get accurate color. It takes values from both the "green" sensels most sensitive at 540nm and the "red" sensels most sensitive at 600nm to interpolote the strength of "orange" light centered at 590-600nm. If there were no "overlap" in the response of sensels behind the three different filters, we would not be able to perceive what we call "color" at all! For more on this, google the "Luther-Ives condition" or "Maxwell-Ives criterion."
The overlap between our retinas' "green" and "red" cones is even closer - our "red" cones are most sensitive to light at 565nm, or a slightly green tint of yellow!
There's nothing intrinsically different in the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we call visible light other than the fact our retina's respond chemically to those particular wavelengths and do not respond chemically to other wavelengths in the EM spectrum. Similarly, there's no "color" intrinsic in any particular wavelength of light. Non-human vision systems can perceive the same wavelengths differently, or even not perceive at all some wavelengths humans can see. Color is a construct of our eye-brain system. While it is true that some wavelengths of light will be perceived by humans as a certain color, it's also possible to created the same perception of that "color" by blending the proper amounts of other wavelengths of light. That's how our trichromatic color reproduction systems work. It is also the case that there are some "colors" that can not be created with a single wavelength of light. Magenta, for example, is how our brains perceive a combination of very "blue" and very "red" wavelengths that are near opposite ends of the visible spectrum. There is no single wavelength of light that can produce a perception of magenta in the human brain.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"Flagships" are no longer "the high end" in many respects.
The disappearance of the staff photojournalist has pretty much eliminated the #1 user category of bodies like the 1D-series and Nikon D3/4/5 series. In many ways, the high end cameras for Nikon and Canon are now the 850D and 5D Mark IV and/or 5Ds R, respectively. Freelance sports shooters are also feeling the pinch of current market conditions, where images that paid $250-500 only 10-15 years ago and let the photog keep control of copyright/distribution rights are now paying $2.50-5.00 and letting Getty sell them as many times as they want for whatever lowball price they want. Without those working pros to buy over half of the "flagship" bodies and "great white" lenses, the unit cost of each is going to skyrocket as the sales volumes plummet.
Upvote
0
You can also argue the other way: If Canon can put a tilty-flippy-touchy screen on EOS-R body, why should Sony not be able to do so with its FF cameras? Now perhaps you see the point. Every manufacturer sees the market in a unique way and develops its product for the intended market segment. We should learn to know that if we don't belong to the segment that the product is intended for, we should simply look elsewhere. I have R and 5DRS and I know that RP is not for users like me, so why bother with wasting my time arguing features it should or should not have. It is like asking why my neighbor's old SUV has more features than my brand new sedan!!
I already bought the A7III, because I needed better lowlight video, so I agree with you, that everybody should buy what they want. But I don't really like to use two systems at a time and the time will come, when I decide to either ditch Canon or Sony. And it depends on two things: Canons fullframe mirrorless cameras and the 7DIII or whatever Canon will bring to replace it. And of course on Sony's A7000.
Upvote
0
The worst ones - those with a seemingly mandatory "pun intended" phrase.
Upvote
0
Yeah that really looks like three stops at typical low light ISO settings. By ISO 800 the difference is barely one and one-third stops. You do realize 1 Ev = 1 stop?
Oh, but let's talk about noise, shall we?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
- Contains 2 staff post(s)