Search results

Canon Imaging made a profit of 332 billion Yen in 2021. That's money they chose not to invest in R&D and after sales support. Money they so earnestly didn't want to spend on R&D that they decided a better idea was to throw away a quarter of it as tax instead. If Canon don't offer a...

Try to 'maneuver closer' at an airshow and you'll have security on top of you... Sometimes there's no substitute for reach.

The 300-800 would be an astonishing airshow lens. No need to have two bodies with close and far lenses... f8 shouldn't be too much of a problem given the usual season for airshows coincides with decent weather.

So will the prices return to their previous levels when the "challenges" have been overcome?

Canon doesn't say this is for "professional cinematographers", they say it's for "imaging professionals". If it was just for cinematography they'd have left out the bizarre reboot-to-stills-mode feature. Saying that I've really no idea who it's for...

What a shame they invested time and effort in this Frankenstein monster instead of getting an R7 into production.

Maybe Sanyo could make a battery even better than Canon, but Canon won't let you find out. That's why battery DRM is morally wrong.

I'd assume that like most events the client wouldn't be handling 80MP files. For push-to-web publishing they'll be reviewing medium-sized OOC JPEGs of whatever dimensions they specify. To them it doesn't matter what was the original resolution. What high-res gives is the flexibility to (1)...

How do they have such data? Beyond CPS members who fill-in their profile, that is. Which is a tiny proportion of purchasers.

There's not so much a 'shortage' as a displacement of supply. For example, car manufacturers massively reduced their production requirements for 2020 onwards so the chip fabs switched to other contracts for other industries. Bosch has brought its own fab online for internal use, there's no...

Sigma improved upon it and pushed theirs to f/1.8 And in terms of raw resolution the 135mm TS-E easily beats it. It's a lovely lens, but like the 400mm 5.6, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 it was long overdue for an overhaul. Consider that the 600mm went through four versions in that time!

Now let's flip that around and apply the camera market paradigm... There are six different cars in the range, each only available in one trim level. If you want the heated steering wheel you can't buy that in a pack, you have to buy the biggest SUV in the range. Oddly though, it doesn't have...

Because sometimes / often at 1200mm they can't fill the frame? Same at airshows nowadays with ever-increasing 'safety distances, when the closest you can get to a small fast-moving jet is 230 metres horizontally.

The R3 is not solely designed for "sports & news". In the marketing release for the R3, Canon refers to wildlife and nature photographers. And they absolutely do buy the biggest big whites. While most sports photographers are happy with 200-400, wildlife shooters often go to 1200mm. It's a...

Canon explicitly mentions wildlife and nature photographers. Unfortunately one of the key requirements of many such people is pixel density to allow cropping when focal-length-limited. Which 24MP doesn't provide. So I'd argue that there is something missing. As a result I'll not be buying...

Not duped, no. Just disappointed. My point was that the 1D line was distinguished by comparitively high pixel density, which contradicts the subsequent retrospective fora narrative that pros didn't need that. Notably Canon themselves never said that...

If speed-to-publishing is critical then you'll be outputting medium-JPEG and not even saving the RAW. So a high resolution sensor really doesn't have any downside.

The 1D line always had higher pixel density than the 1Ds, just on a smaller sensor area. For example the 1D IV scaled to full-frame would have been 27MP equivalent, well beyond the 21MP 1Ds III. It was only with the 1DX series that the 'explanation' that 'pros don't need resolution' arose.

Well then just store the medium-resolution JPEG. And anyone else who wants maximum resolution can store the RAW. If you have 5000 shots from a day's event it doesn't matter if they're 24 or 45 MP RAW, you still have 5000 JPEG thumbnails to review. And discard the ones you don't need.

Is contend that total captured light is irrelevant because ISO amplification works on the pixel i.e. photosite level. So the key factor is received flux at each photosite, which is independent from how many photosites exist.