Search results

I must admit, I feel a little bit shaken (but hardly surprised...). I am from an engineering camp, interested mainly in technical virtues of the equipment (and, by the way, I understand pretty well both limitations and potential of either type of an electronic shutter in photography and in...

And zero time between reading pixels in the rows?

Technically - no. In the rolling shutter case, pixels register a scene in different times. If anything moves with a speed comparable with the readout speed the artifacts will be visible. So, "fast enough" is only relative and thus not compatible with the absolute:

It never was mirrorless either... ;)

How close to reality can be a render of R1 given that it will have a "sleek body optimized for maximum hand feel"?

True, but... It doesn't really "explain" why R3 hasn't been named R1.

♪♫ I had it coming all along... ♫♪

I wouldn't mind if they just keep offering R3 as a (significantly) cheaper version of R1.

Reading between the lines, I suppose they make an educated guess (based on say, a miriad of already taken and analyzed pictures). I am however surprised they don't patent a transient setting an aperture to f/16 or f/22... Maybe they will use it in 800/11 and 600/11 exclusively? ;) I thought it...

That would singlehandedly make R3 a cult camera.

Spotted the idea on another forum and liked it: Use a 44x33 sensor (say, 100mpx) and sell it as a "multi-aspect with all standard lenses". Make the new TS-RFs cover the whole sensor.

Let me regurgitate the old pipedream: 80mpx with optional on-sensor binning to 20mpx. Such an R1 could run with the hare and hunt with the hounds... On the other hand, combining 80mpx and QPAF would really need "a pinnacle of technology".

It's certainly a rhetorical question, but just in case it is not: it matters when together with a camera you want to buy what you lack: a status, appreciation, etc.

In a view of the discussion above (genuinely judicious and rational, in my opinion), it can also be "Einsteinian": a random error projected on a reader's "prison of his own ideas;"... ;) For a non-native English speaker this typo is quite innocuous and innocent. PS I also am disappointed by...

I can imagine such a scenario: Contemporary equipment is (indistingushable) comparable performance-wise* Minor but tangible factors become decisive. = 1. + 2. The lens in the flesh is too heavy, too big... * As confirmed in a variety of tests.

Looks like a slightly modernized version of the Greek mythology. Even EOS fits into the scheme! ;)

I think Canon should take every tenth lens from the 16/24/28/35/50/85 production line, rebadge it, and sell as a separate RF-S one...

If I split hairs (like Canon does pixels in two or four), I would argue that all phase-detection AF systems in mirrorless cameras are hardware based as well (i.e. they require dedicated electronics/optics at the physical sensor level). But I wouldn't...

I confirm. But this is, I suppose, a strong indication that the new TS lenses will have an RF designation.

Right after the long line of RF-S lenses, I suppose.