Search results

The one series has never been high megapixel. It is more a sports camera. This is the highest megapixel count ever on 1-series. EOS 1D X Mark III has just 20 megapixels.

I do not get why the adapters are so expensive. I paid some $35 for the Canon one in 2015 when they were dumping them on eBay. The normal price is excessive, about and as 50 mm f/1.8 STM which I most buy it for.

There already was M10, the predecessor of M100 and M200. There likely will not be any significant new development on EOS M. It makes sense that f one is interested in sports shootin one gors to EOS R where the lens selection on tele lenses is much larger.

It does not work that way. You cannot boost APS-C lenses. There is noting where to get the extra light. Also it would be a tele converter.

People do not buy cameras for single use only. Even if they are interested mainly on wildlife or sports photography they generally also want to do general photography and they need lenses for that full frame lenses in general are too heavy and expensive. Now 16 mm is basically only practical...

The difference between f/7.1 and f/6.3 is 1/3 stop, not one stop. 1/3 stop is a meaningless difference.

I put this more like equivalent of the EF-S 55-250 mm (88-400 mm). Canon seems to be pushing full frame even to entry level shooters. IMO this makes sense and makes things much less complicated.

Price and size: 800 mm f/5.6L is 4.5 kg and costs 14000 €. This is 1.3 kg and 1080 €. With DSLRs it was harder to make slower lenses because of the autofocus. These are not for serious nature photographers who shoot at dusk. These are for more casual use carried while hiking in good weather. The...

I got the idea that the invention is that the viewfinder pops out automatically. I wonder how they prevent false popping like if the camera is on the neck.

The point is that it is automatic. I can see plenty of uses for this even though I personally might not use it. In professional work an image could be used in seconds after being taken. It could also protect against card damage.

The total number of interchangeable lens cameras shipped since 1987 has been 235 million units. That means about 42% has been made by Canon.

Why would anyone want to do so? Why not move a better model that has more potential? IMO the most significant new thing and onl thatw oud count to me is the AWB-W setting i.e. proper white balance in artificial light.

It would make no sense to get s FF superwide and waste it with a crop sensor. On full frame such superwide to short tele would be nice.

It is typical to patent similar ideas to prevent others from using it.

I haven't even checked what charger I got. Maybe I should check.

Tilt screns are much faster to change like if you want to shoot from low angle.

No way, G9 X is the smallest zoom camera with one inch sensor. It is a third lighter than G7 X and therefore much easier to carry.

There is demand for quality compacts. After G7 X mark II and G9 X mark II were released the sale of compact cameras rose first time since 2010. Last year when Canon had really nothing new besides the expensive G1 Mark III sale again dropped.

There is a huge difference. Following is the same image with G9 X II, SX280 HS (a small sensor compact) and my Honor 8: Now there are better smart phones but that is pretty typical IMO.

This is quite a conservative update but I can see a point. It makes no sense to start competing with Nikon on the maximum zoom. If you put some 1500 mm those wanting the maximum would still buy Nikon. It is better to make a balanced package. This is slightly lighter than the SX60 HS at 610 g...