Search results

seriously? Previous 1-series cameras beg to differ. As for the R3 (and future R3 mkII) vs the competition, not really seeing anything interesting from Sony or Nikon. A9 mkIII has global shutter, yes, but at the cost of DR and a ridiculous pricetag for what isn't even supposed to be their top...

Just before the new year, a canon executive confirmed that the 1Dx mkIII was the last carnon DSLR. That means no more EF mount bodies will be developed. There is no point in keeping the cheaper penta-mirror line. They will produce, and sell, these items as long as they make money off them but...

What actually justifies EF-M now that RF is replacing EF though?

because sustaining two mounts doesn't work out well in the segment Canon/Nikon/Sony are in. And because they need to attract people who find the R6 and R5 too expensive while also being underwhelmed by the overall performance of the R and RP. EF-M seems to have served its purpose as a hold-over...

why do people bring up healthcare? I mean, it is what it is and when it's "free" we pay quite a lot to have that anyway (in Sweden you're looking at tax levels at over 50% as there is not just the tax that is obviously declared as a tax but also employer fees which are in fact salary based...

Looking at the pricing around here, the R3 and Z9 are pretty much equally priced at 65kSEK. Both make the A1 look not so attractive at 76kSEK. The Z9 is priced more aggressively than the D6 which one would have to assume is about where the R1 will land (80-85kSEK). I'd still take the R3.

It's a matter of use case I suppose. And what one is used to. Of course, having both would be nice. It's very rare that I miss having more pixels though it does happen and having more pixels would make editing easer in some ways. Most of the time, it just doesn't matter anymore (and when it...

Will be interesting to see what they have once it's launched. Eye-controlled AF, or really eye-controlled focus point selection, is a far more interesting feature to me than high MP count. As for the fps value, ultimate maximum fps is not nearly as interesting as maximum fps with continuous AF...

so judging by the patent it will look like a set of binoculars attached to the front of your camera? That's going to look super weird but makes sense as you'd want the two lenses about as far apart as most humans eyes are. Looking forward to seeing what else Canon have planned in terms of VR.

it's telling that Jeff states that he brought his R5s with him with the intention to mainly use those but ended up not doing so in favor of the R3. And that he didn't do that much cropping compared to when shooting birds. As for the eye-control... He stated he turned it off for some fast-paced...

Compared to how canon priced the R5 in this market (currently at circa $5800 or $2k more than the official US launch price)... I was fully expecting the R3 to be about €8k.

Price in Sweden came in a positive surprise; 1Dx - 87kSEK Sony A1 - 77kSEK R3 - 65kSEK Sony A9II - 48kSEK Yes, prices here are ridiculous but at least Canon didn't shaft us this time. The Sony A1 is really questionable at its pricepoint but then so is the 1Dx (at approximately $10k)

Don't worry about it. If it worked that way, those using the R3 for the olympics would not be pleased. Battery life was mentioned in a review I saw this morning. Can't remember who it was but it was a lady bringing the R3 to what looked like a trackday. I think she was at 4000 shots and the...

not surprised at the pricing. I mean, the R5 was about that much around here when it became available. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the R3 is at $7k here a week after launch. Not that it matters much to me in real life, I'm just not willing to spend that kind of money on a camera at...

Well, the speed, resolution and dynamic range of the EOS 20D is good enough for 90% of the shooters out there. Actually, at least 95% of all shooters out there don't actually need anything more capable than the 1D mkII when it comes to stills. Whenever we think we do, it's just because we're...

The APS-C range is for those who care more about everything else rather than just sensor size. Now that the sensor size does not dictate the size of the viewfinder, FF is an extremely niche requirement but one that manufacturers cater to simply because people are dense. If you compare similarly...

Yeah, much like the FX3 I suppose... Not that I'm interested in either, I just hate it when a camera is designated in such a way that it isn't instantly obvious what it is and where it sits in the hierarchy (which in turn gives clues on what features may or may not be present). Not seeing the...

Sony's naming conventions are horribly confusing. The other ZV camera is a compact. This should really have been named similarly to all the other E-mount cameras.

Wow... people on photo forums can be so obnoxious. Suddenly they can't shoot with 24MP. Because they need the extra reach cropping gives you but they don't want APS-C or m4/3 and they don't want to buy large and expensive lenses but they absolutely must have that 35mm sensor with ISO performance...

I for one would not be unhappy. My current cameras are all 24MP and definitely not handicapped in resolution. If you really want more, there's the R5. Getting fully functional AF at max framerate is far more interesting than whether the resolution is 24 or 30 megapixels.