I'm still wondering if the R6 is the video body. That said, I am still waiting on the XC MILC follow up.
Upvote
0
Like a mirror, perhaps?Some other questions: Illuminated buttons? ... there must be something that this camera don't have...
Indeed, its pretty much the same camera (same sensor, same quality...)Well the R is just a 5D4 with no mirror and (frankly) lesser ergonomics
Let's review. The R5 knocks it out of the park for all things video. So yes, the R6 will be the video body. /sI'm still wondering if the R6 is the video body. That said, I am still waiting on the XC MILC follow up.
I don't give a rats ass if I go from 22 mp on my 5D3 to 20 on something new if it gives me more of, well, everything except megapixels. Not getting hung up on the numbers here (stills guy going off!)Quite a few stills shooters feeling neglected right now (myself among them) with all the video spec excitement at least until the R5 price is announced. Naturally, we stills folks immediately wonder if the R6 is going to be a viable alternative or not - at the latest rumored resolution (20mp) it might not be for many.
I bought it for the video features and to replace my aging and damaged 5D3. I'm happy with it for what I needed. I still use my DX2 for most general shooting. I become very accustomed to that ergonomic set and balanceIndeed, its pretty much the same camera (same sensor, same quality...)
Only difference:
- touch bar bullshit instead of wheel
-- only one card slot
o bit smaller
o EVF
+ swivel screen
+ more modern video codec (though the rolling shutter is the same inaccaptable catastrophy)
In my opinion its super close to being the same camera. At least when we look at the features and image quality
That's what Bryan at TDP came up with as wellThere is clearly something wrong with the numbers ... The 8K resolution is 7680 × 4320, if you take 3:2 on the long side, you get 7680 × 5120, that is, 39.3 MP.
Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.Let's review. The R5 knocks it out of the park for all things video. So yes, the R6 will be the video body. /s
Seriously, It won't be, it will be the 6D equivalent.They have pretty much made it crystal clear they are following the dslr nomenclature. It will also be less expensive and what more people might buy. Unless of course, a lot of those people don't mind debt. I didn't say you, or you or you...I know everyone here is fabulously wealthy, will buy 3 R5's to complement their stable of 1DXlll bodies.
There is clearly something wrong with the numbers ... The 8K resolution is 7680 × 4320, if you take 3:2 on the long side, you get 7680 × 5120, that is, 39.3 MP.
Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.
That 4k 120 is far more impressive than 8k 30. There are some good possibilities if 1080p can also scale up accordingly.And the 4K 120fps, pretty crazy.
That 4k 120 is far more impressive than 8k 30. There are some good possibilities if 1080p can also scale up accordingly.
Canon has exciting new feature called deluminated buttons, everyone will gasp!Some other questions: Illuminated buttons? ... there must be something that this camera don't have...
What I find interesting is that the greater the video specs seem to be, the more some folks feel that it takes away from the R5 as a stills camera:Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.
This is a good point.I think where you might get that idea from is some of us in the past always stated a hybrid camera body had the reputation as not being sold at a higher price just because it had a video feature. The logic, science and electronics behind this thinking were solid, for those cameras.What I find interesting is that the greater the video specs seem to be, the more some folks feel that it takes away from the R5 as a stills camera:
45mp full-frame CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
5 stops with IBIS alone
7-8 stops of correction when used with in-lens stabilization
12fps mechanical, 20fps electronic
Dual card slots
Scroll wheel added to the back
I am assuming the performance of the sensor will equal that of the 5DIV
I mean really. Can't it be a great video camera and a bad-ass stills camera too? Why do some think they are mutually exclusive?
45MP is indeed what most people who could do the math have been predicting. I think it was more likely than not that the R5 would shoot DCI. However, there's one other alternative, just within the realms of possibility, that I haven't seen people talk about: a sensor whose native aspect ratio is wider than 3:2! That would require a larger than FF sensor to be able to crop FF 3:2 stills, and video (at least DCI) footage, then, would be "wider than FF" which some might even consider a feature.