Your point? I don't see how that will anything but strengthen my argument for a price closer to or higher than the A9 II whereas you suggest it will be lower.
Upvote
0
Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Didn't Canon announce the 1D X ahead of the 5D Mark III as the "first" to have something they both got, but then production delays held up the 1D X and the 5D Mark III actually wound up shipping first? Remember how the 1D X almost missed the Olympics in 2012 and unless you were associated with an organization credentialed to be at the Olympics you couldn't get your hands on a 1D X until after the Olympic games had started?
Upvote
0
Don't worry, I don't like that word too! I have re-added it there, because I expected someone to jump on that. Hey, it has worked
Your point might be interesting, but where we differ is, that I actually think, that there are some things, which could/should be common as a "standard". For me it is IBIS, AF-ON, tilty-flippy from now on, for all R based bodies. Don't get me wrong - 5D line, both in terms of DSLR and MILC, does belong in the professional area.
We will see, who of us is right. R5 might be developed by completly different team than 1DX III. Maybe R5 team did not have enough of time to incorporate it into R5. We will see, if in 1-2 year timeframe, new AF-ON appears on even cheaper bodies. And if so, then it sucks. If they keep it to just the 1D line, well then ....
Upvote
0
Canon wants their 50%+ market share back.
Price is one of their tools in that.
A clear price gap between A9II and R5 will make it even
easier to switch back.
Don't worry, Canon will still make a ton of money from that.
Upvote
0
Don't worry, I don't like that word too! I have re-added it there, because I expected someone to jump on that. Hey, it has worked
Your point might be interesting, but where we differ is, that I actually think, that there are some things, which could/should be common as a "standard". For me it is IBIS, AF-ON, tilty-flippy from now on, for all R based bodies. Don't get me wrong - 5D line, both in terms of DSLR and MILC, does belong in the professional area.
We will see, who of us is right. R5 might be developed by completly different team than 1DX III. Maybe R5 team did not have enough of time to incorporate it into R5. We will see, if in 1-2 year timeframe, new AF-ON appears on even cheaper bodies. And if so, then it sucks. If they keep it to just the 1D line, well then ....
There's alot of things that over the years canon has kept to the 1 series line deliberately. heck spot metering at your AF point comes to mind
Upvote
0
The two kit zooms, which have very good write-ups, for the Z50 both have IS. The Nikon Zs like the Canon Rs have had their AFs significantly improved by firmware upgrades. There is not much to choose between them - they are all damn good. However, we Canonistas are now at a disadvantage because we can port our lenses adapted to Nikon and Sony (but seems better to Nikon) but we can't use theirs. It would be nice to use the Nikon 300mm and 500mm PFs on Rs, but Nikon can use the great Canon EF lenses.
Upvote
0
I get that. So why is the Sony at f6.3 from 300mm-600mm if it is all about the entrance pupil?
Upvote
0
The aperture on the long end seems to indicate little about the aperture in the wide end, or the transition between. If it would be constant, a lens that's f/7.1 at 500mm should be f/1.4 at 100mm.
Upvote
0
There's the Sunny 16, the Loony 11, and the Moonlit -3. So fifteen stops to contain both the moon and a moonlit landscape during a full moon.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I can certainly understand people desiring a consumer product having functions they’re comfortable with based on extended familiarity, but I’m curious how many people are simply complaining for the sake of complaining when they don’t get a configuration precisely how they want, and as a result, they’re denying themselves the potential joy of using the newly designed equipment. A missing button, dial in the “wrong” position, a specific convenience replaced with a different variant, etc. From a personal professional standpoint, I’ve always managed and often enjoyed adapting to new tech and learning new patterns of efficiently utilizing gear.
I suppose my first consideration is “Can I get the image I want out of this thing?” If the answer is yes, then I usually have no problems with adapting to a new comfort zone. Sure, the R5 won’t be exactly like my Mark IVs, 1D series, or the Hasselblad 500 series with Phase One digital backs I used, or my favorite and very first camera/tank the Canon F-1, but I still managed to enjoy using all of them and I produced sellable images from them all. This R5, if I do end up investing in it, will most likely be no different in how I approach utilizing it.
I suppose my unsolicited point is that perhaps, for some people, keeping an open mind and challenging yourself to new designs and modes of use can be a positive and enjoyable experience, as opposed to labeling something as a flaw because it’s outside your singular comfort zone.
Cheers
I suppose my first consideration is “Can I get the image I want out of this thing?” If the answer is yes, then I usually have no problems with adapting to a new comfort zone. Sure, the R5 won’t be exactly like my Mark IVs, 1D series, or the Hasselblad 500 series with Phase One digital backs I used, or my favorite and very first camera/tank the Canon F-1, but I still managed to enjoy using all of them and I produced sellable images from them all. This R5, if I do end up investing in it, will most likely be no different in how I approach utilizing it.
I suppose my unsolicited point is that perhaps, for some people, keeping an open mind and challenging yourself to new designs and modes of use can be a positive and enjoyable experience, as opposed to labeling something as a flaw because it’s outside your singular comfort zone.
Cheers
Upvote
0
The designers of zoom lenses have to compromise to get the best balance over the range. They have had to stop down in the middle to balance aberration against diffraction. Look at these resolution figures measured by PCMag
https://www.pcmag.com/review/368812/sony-fe-200-600mm-f5-6-6-3-g-oss
A7RIV (60 mpx)
Sony 200-600mm
200mm 4300 l/ph
600mm 4000 l/ph
and compare with:
https://www.pcmag.com/review/351081/canon-ef-400mm-f-4-do-is-ii-usm
5DSR (50 Mpx)
EF 400mm DO II, f/4 3576 lines/PH, f/5.6 3909 centre weighted
https://www.pcmag.com/review/365399/sigma-60-600mm-f4-5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-sports
Sigma 60-600mm
5DSR
60mm f/4.5 3376, f/5.6 3456
250mm f/5.6 2968, f/8 3404
400mm f/6.3 2481, f/8 2633
600mm f/6.3 2769, f/8 similar
The 100-400mm II is superb over its focal length range, let's see what the 100-500mm will be like.
Upvote
0
That makes sense, thanks.
So maybe the Sony is cheaper because the lens design is less costly and they covered the deficiencies by reducing maximum aperture at longer focal lengths. Given the RF 100-500 has 'L' classification I would be mildly surprised if Canon relies on the same design solutions - I would expect it to match the 100-400 at least in the same way as other RF lenses seem to at least match current EF designs.
'Move to RF and compromise on where you can use the lens' seems an odd call to arms.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 6 staff post(s)