Yes and that's why Pro sports photographers are flocking to Sony....NOTrehouse the A9 into the 1DX II body, add Canon menus, add EF mount and watch them coming and lining up.
Upvote
0
Yes and that's why Pro sports photographers are flocking to Sony....NOTrehouse the A9 into the 1DX II body, add Canon menus, add EF mount and watch them coming and lining up.
that was a joke, as you would appreciate. pro photographers are not flocking to Sony , correct.Yes and that's why Pro sports photographers are flocking to Sony....NOT
But I tend to like the size of the CF cards better for handling, plus the contacts not being as exposed and fragile as the SD cards.
It isn't just about marketing. It is also a question of which camera specs fit with a mirrorless design at this point in mirrorless development. Part of the question is whether a mirrorless design can match or exceed 1D or 5D autofocus capabilities, or whether that is going to take a while to happen. Then there is also the question of lens availability. A wide range of available lenses may be more important for the admittedly larger1D and 5D markets.Everyone has an opinion and I have no problem with others expressing it. It's a discussion board. Mine isn't more valid than others.
I understand their frustration. Most of photographers would never need more than 24-30 mpx. I print huge print often and I never wish I have more mpx or crop more. It add more storage problem, disrupt workflow, and not catering to the mass.
Of course things are allow to exist, but Canon should prioritize it according to what market demand and have this high mpx come out later when 1DX, 5D equivalent model are done.
It isn't just about marketing. It is also a question of which camera specs fit with a mirrorless design at this point in mirrorless development. Part of the question is whether a mirrorless design can match or exceed 1D or 5D autofocus capabilities, or whether that is going to take a while to happen. Then there is also the question of lens availability. A wide range of available lenses may be more important for the admittedly larger1D and 5D markets.
Canon is stated to release the trinity lenses 2.8 later this year, 2-3 85 1.2 along with great adapters they already has that perform great with EF lenses. That's more than enough for most photographers need.
Canon has all the tech and lenses needed for 5D equivalent model 30-40 mpx, but they choose to wait to release that model because such a thing would cannibalize their DSLR sales.
They want a slow and graduate death to DSLR that's why they kept saying EOS R is a back up. If they put dual card slot into EOS R at $2300, it would completely kill out 5D IV sales that's going for similar price without alot of the benefits of EOS R (articulate LCD, EVF, eyeAF, etc).
The trinity of f/2.8 zoom lenses would do it for me. The rest I would be happy to use with an adapter, until an RF version is released.
Photographers with two bodies are, AFAIK, a minority. E.g. I have one 5D mark III camera, and have no interest in owning a 2nd camera.
Why would Canon prefer I upgrade to 5D mark V when it comes out, and switch to RF later on, rather then switch at the earliest availability of a dual slot EOS R + trinity zoom lenses?
Wedding season is almost upon us and changing systems at this moment would be a risky move.I honestly just want a dev announcement of some sort. I know why they don't (so a rival can't one-up) but I'm hitting the point of needing a new body. I'd really like to stay with Canon, but I'm also hitting the question of - why should I be brand loyal (other than cost to change)? The CPS Platinum loaner program cost me so much in shipping that I would've been better off going with BorrowLenses or Lens Rentals for the same duration. I Just want to know that it's worth waiting because I don't feel the 5D4 and EOS R are worth upgrading to with what's supposed to be the big release coming, and while I can play the waiting game, I'd rather know before wedding and portrait season hits if I should stick it out, or admit that Canon and I aren't as good a fit as we once were.
To capture more sales.
Some people need dual card slots. They can buy 5D IV now when there are great sales and when the EOS R II/EOS 5R finally arrive next year, they can upgrade again.
Personally, I prefer to wait to buy either at 2020, as the RF lenses I want would be released sometime this year, then I want to wait for reviews and price to drop, which means till 2020. The Canon 5D mark V might be released on 2020, but a 5D class RF camera might not.
So I'd rather upgrade my EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mark II to mark III this year, and wait for 2020 to decide whether I want to switch to RF in 2020, or buy a 5DmkV and switch to RF a couple of years later.
Wedding season is almost upon us and changing systems at this moment would be a risky move.
I suggest transitioning to a new system the way they recommend retirees choose to re-locate: Rent.
Rent for a month or so and see if you like the neighborhood. Find out whether the hospitals are any good, the restaurants are the sort you like and the entertainment available is to your taste. Cameras are the same way. It takes time to decide if you are in love or were you just deceived by a particularly curvaceous specification and the shrill voice of operation makes you crazy.
IMO we often take the gifts of our current situation for granted and realize their strengths by their absence.
An EOS R version of the 5Ds / 5Dsr line aimed at Landscape photographers sporting increased resolution,
With a high resolution sensor a camera would need a real pixel binning feature, i.e. a mode that combines clusters of smaller pixels to one bigger virtual pixel on-sensor. If Canon would implement such a feature I would seriously consider buying such a high MP monster, because it would be able to combine both worlds - extremely high resolution if you want it and great low-light performance if you shoot in dark settings. But I don't think Canon will offer such a feature. That would require some substantial additions in the sensor hardware and may get in conflict with the DP AF system (not sure about that).Choosing a smaller resolution means that your camera computes a smaller photo out of the bigger one. That's like shrinking the resolution in Photoshop. The problem with small pixels is the sensor noise of every single pixel, that does not really vanish when you shrink your photo. That's why the Sony A7SII with its 12 megapixels beats other cameras even if you shrink their images to 12 megapixels.
maybe not. Canon will be doing the 1DX Mark III, that's probably good enough for this go around. 2012Q2 would be probably too late for the Olympics, it would have to come out in around 2012Q1 at the latest and to be honest.. that's just not going to happen.
Large pixel has better SNR than binned CMOS pixels. It just means that A7RIII uses some SW processing which is not in A7SII or that DXO data are useless.
https://www.atik-cameras.com/news/binnning-the-differences-between-cmos-and-ccd/
If you have CMOS with one large pixel instead of 4 small binned pixels you can look at it as if you used CCD binning from that article. Readout is simply better and it still allows doing SW processing on top of that.
If you are comparing pixel to pixel you're totally missing the point when one has pixels that are one-half the linear dimensions and one-fourth the area of the other.
Viewing a 22-23 MP image at 100% on a 23" HD monitor is like looking at a piece of a 60"x40" enlargement.
Viewing an 88-90MP image at 100% on the same monitor is like looking at a piece of a 120"x80" enlargement.
Viewing the 88-90M image at 50% gives the same enlargement size as viewing the 22-23MP image at 100%. Both are the same sized piece of a 60"x40" enlargement.
Since noise is random (that's what makes it "noise"), averaging multiple noisy pixels together makes the averaged larger pixel less noisy and reduces the standard deviation between each pixel than the four smaller pixels it replaced.
I disagree. You are considering only theoretical properties, not construction limitations.
Possibility of noise is defined by Signal-To-Noise ratio (SNR). SNR affects readout of the pixel. Larger pixels generally have better SNR than smaller ones. That's why FF camera with can achieve higher ISO with less noise than ASPC camera with similar number of pixels.
But let's for now consider that both large and small pixel have same SNR. When you read large pixel, you get read noise X. When you read small pixel, you get read noise X as well (because we are considering same SNR). To create large pixel from small ones, you need to read 4 of them because combining happens on digital representation, not analog => input read noise is 4 times X. Now your digital processor has to work to average that 4X. Since it has in theory 4 times more information, it can produce better result than readout from large pixel.
But that is just theory because large and small pixel does not have same SNR - that is the whole point why we don't have only high megapixel cameras with ability to bin pixels. Using smaller pixels reduces sensitivity and dynamic range. There is also fill factor - not whole area of pixel is photo sensitive. Fill factor means how big area of the pixel really captures the light. Fill factor is dependent on manufacturing technology but again, larger pixel has larger fill factor than smaller one because amount of electronics does not increase with pixel size. There are other technologies like microlenses or back illuminated sensors which improve fill factor significantly but they are much easier to do right on larger pixels.