That much is true.However, it wouldn't be the first time a product was introduced that had a feature which turned out to be not all that useful in practice.
Upvote
0
That much is true.However, it wouldn't be the first time a product was introduced that had a feature which turned out to be not all that useful in practice.
This is an area where I think the camera's 8K raw with DPAF gives me *huge* hope for the stills shooting. If the camera can display a live video feed with autofocus while recording 8K raw at 30 FPS, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to shoot raw 45 megapixel images at 20 FPS with no delay or loss in autofocus.However, it wouldn't be the first time a product was introduced that had a feature which turned out to be not all that useful in practice.
You'd rather see an image flicker & blackout in the EVF than have the frame hold the last image while it runs at (mechanical) 12 fps? Wow, I'd have never thought it would be better that way, but I've never tried it either way.Another thing I'll say for that too is, I hope in mechanical shutter they briefly blackout the frame or use a continuous feed as well. I'd rather experience blackout like a DSLR than a brief incredibly irritating freezing of the frame during shutter action. Just feels more difficult to follow action when you're seeing a frozen image rather than just a brief flicker of black.
We all have our opinions. No need to be insulting.The R5 will be at least $5k. Anyone who thiks it’s launching at the same price the 5DIV with half the specs did FOUR YEARS AGO is dreaming.
I've been using 5DS cameras for a couple of years now, and the conclusion I have come to is that the huge native output size is good for strong cropping of the image and still retaining a large output size, and of course, printing huge prints. Even then, at normal viewing distances you will not see the difference between a good, steady 24mp FF shot interpolated up to the same output size.
Time will tell my friend.The R5 will be at least $5k. Anyone who thiks it’s launching at the same price the 5DIV with half the specs did FOUR YEARS AGO is dreaming.
People seem to think that the video specs mean Canon is trying to move upmarket, but I don't think that is the case at all. In fact I think it's the exact opposite. They're trying to draw in more downmarket customers who might be on the fence about a variety of cameras by tempting them to spend a little more for the improved video specs. If they price it too high they'll be out of reach to a lot of these downmarket customers. $5,000 is way too high, I actually expect this camera to be cheaper than the 5D IV to improve its attainability.The R5 will be at least $5k. Anyone who thiks it’s launching at the same price the 5DIV with half the specs did FOUR YEARS AGO is dreaming.
This is an area where I think the camera's 8K raw with DPAF gives me *huge* hope for the stills shooting. If the camera can display a live video feed with autofocus while recording 8K raw at 30 FPS, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to shoot raw 45 megapixel images at 20 FPS with no delay or loss in autofocus...
++++ nobody could tell the difference between a medium format 1GB film scan and a 4mp 1D when both were reduced to 720px in line images, and it was true, but they didn't like hearing that their magical "medium format look" was utter bullsh!t.Not necessarily true, remember the original point of contention was that a higher pixel sensor alwyas needs to be used with a tripod otherwise camera movement is visible. I pointed out that at same sized output the camera movement is the same so camera shake/subject movement is the same, it might be resolved better with the higher mp but not necessarily.
Picture this scenario, take a picture with a 6D II at a hand held speed and reproduction size you consider just acceptable, by definition you are defining the airy disc size/blur arc angle, now do that with a 5DSr, there is no more detail in the 50mp image as there isn't even detail the lower mp sensor could resolve if higher technique had been used in this specific scenario, either subject and or camera movement limited the resolution before the lower mp count got close to being reached. That doesn't preclude the scenario you talked about, and Sporgon is very experienced with the 5DS, but it just isn't necessarily true in the specific scenario under discussion and is a confusing sidestep. Now at 100% the 5DSr sensor will have blur across more pixels, but the arc will be the same angle, but at the chosen output it will give no more resolution, just 'better defined' same angled blur.
One of the reasons I left Photo.net years ago was because I was pilloried in the medium format threads because I maintained, and illustrated/proved, nobody could tell the difference between a medium format 1GB film scan and a 4mp 1D when both were reduced to 720px in line images, and it was true, but they didn't like hearing that their magical "medium format look" was utter bullsh!t.
They did drum me out because of it, but I really didn't care!++++ nobody could tell the difference between a medium format 1GB film scan and a 4mp 1D when both were reduced to 720px in line images, and it was true, but they didn't like hearing that their magical "medium format look" was utter bullsh!t.
A.M.: oh, that’s heresy. how dare you!
You'd rather see an image flicker & blackout in the EVF than have the frame hold the last image while it runs at (mechanical) 12 fps? Wow, I'd have never thought it would be better that way, but I've never tried it either way.
If it's going at (electronic) 20fps would you still feel the same way? I'm just curious. If you've had experience following action both ways then I find that kind of a revelation in the way I should be thinking about the EVF. I wonder what the image bending will be at (electronic) 20 fps with fast moving subjects? I assume there should be little to no bending with a mechanical shutter, right?
I don't see that happening. If you need a 1Dx for sports, you need a 1Dx. If there aren't any sports to shoot, then you don't need to buy anything. An R5 is not going to be a suitable substitute and sports shooters won't have extra cash sitting around to buy a new body just to play with it.
You'd rather see an image flicker & blackout in the EVF than have the frame hold the last image while it runs at (mechanical) 12 fps? Wow, I'd have never thought it would be better that way, but I've never tried it either way.
If it's going at (electronic) 20fps would you still feel the same way? I'm just curious. If you've had experience following action both ways then I find that kind of a revelation in the way I should be thinking about the EVF. I wonder what the image bending will be at (electronic) 20 fps with fast moving subjects? I assume there should be little to no bending with a mechanical shutter, right?
I wouldn't make that assumption. There is a significant difference between focusing for video and focusing for stills, especially when trying to follow action.
In regards to the 20 FPS electronic, I'd prefer it to work like the A9's 20 FPS. Nothing changes or slows in the viewfinder when you take a photo except for a white box around the frame. As much I did not like the A9 for other reasons, I'd say this is the best-case scenario, since having a nonstop live feed of your subject is the absolute easiest way to track your subject.
Except that the target market is a market that has been least affected by the global pandemic. Travel will resume shortly and most of the unemployed are working stiffs that were never going to buy one anyway. The bulk of the market these days comes from enthusiasts with disposable income who are not as impacted by the pandemic's economic fallout. Working photographers are greatly impacted, but they probably constitute a much smaller percentage of the market than we think.