Search results

That does limit its usefulness significantly, but doesn't make it completely useless. The jpeg engine in R5 is pretty good if you can be bothered to learn how to tweak it. With a scene where you don't need much dynamic range and have time to adjust jpeg settings you can get quite good results...

Seems the Technically, no. At least some of those could be implemented with a firmware upgrade, possibly even all of them. E.g., I'm sure the 30 min video limit could be easily removed, lens breathing almost certainly as well, new tracking modes depending on how much spare memory space there's...

I will elaborate: In 2007 EU imposed a higher duty (import tax) on video cameras than still cameras, and defined as video cameras those that could record 30 minutes or more continuously. Consequently camera makers limited (many of) their cameras to less than 30 minutes of video to make them...

Have you tried a gimbal head? I find it way faster than any other type of head with long lenses, fast enough to track a flying bird. I've never tried it with aircraft though, so I don't know how well it'd work there.

Also, as it requires a physical aperture ring it won't work with any (?) Canon EF lenses, only some 3rd party ones. I guess it could be a nice addition to the Laowa 12mm lens though.

OK, I guess my information is outdated. The situation was as I described when I researched it in... let's see, 2016. Eons ago. Good to learn they've fixed that, and apologies for spreading information that's no longer correct.

Removing the 30-minute limit would mean it'd be classified as a video camera in EU, which would imply import duties that do not apply to still cameras. Besides resulting in higher prices due to the duties directly, it would mean re-certification process, which takes time and money. It might also...

There are more than a few photographers who use a tripod all the time, for every picture they take. Including some who only take pictures at night and never use a viewfinder. Different strokes for different folks. And as others have already mentioned, with good technique it's perfectly possible...

Well, I have L-brackets in all my bodies anyway, and ones that allow extending the side part are neither bigger (when not extended) nor heavier than ones that don't. And sometimes it is convenient to be able to hold the camera with left hand, too, even though I don't have such problems with...

Consider getting an L-bracket. One that allows the side part to be extended as needed.

Maybe it uses the R3 24Mp sensor. A new 24Mp sensor would be better than an old 32Mp one.

Agreed with the first paragraph. If it's basically an R5 with a crop sensor but higher pixel density and better AF, I would consider buying it even at close to the R5 price. I wouldn't mind if the crippled the video features, either. The second, I'm not so sure about. For several people...

Yes. So is the R7 at the moment. Reality in each case remains to be seen.

I fear it won't even appear before the second Trump administration...

Agreed. A crop R makes sense to Canon only if it brings money in - if it increases their net profits, counting everything including its development and manufacturing costs and its impact on their other models' sales. A really cheap "Rebel R" might do that, but it would not be called R7. The...

OK, I misunderstood you. But that explanation doesn't make any sense. Other countries outside EU are also cheaper than the UK and Norway.

In case you didn't know, Finland is in the EU. So is Germany.

Why are they more expensive in the UK than in (many) EU countries, then? Comparing to Finland, I find that UK prices are usually 10-15% higher (excluding taxes). And Finland is not generally cheap compared to, for example, Germany. Of course USA is much cheaper still.

Because they cannot afford more than that. :) I don't see any limit to the desire of more pixels - as long as they actually provide more detail, there's obviously no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, for example. Of course for most uses 45 or 30 or even 20 megapixels are...

Indeed, the RF 50/1.8 is smaller than the EF40 + adapter. Actually it's not all that much bigger than the EF40 *without* the adapter, so perhaps Canon considers it a reasonable alternative. But the difference between 40mm and 50mm is significant, and I'd love to see a really small RF40 pancake...