Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
128
91
UK
I missed the touchscreen when I upgraded from the 70D to the 7D Mk. II. I appreciated getting it back when I upgraded to the 5D Mk. IV, but I still prefer the 7D Mk. II thumb switch for toggling between AF area modes over the 5D dual button dance. As such, I would hope that a 7D Mk. III would retain the thumb switch but add a touch screen.

PS - It also wouldn't bother me if it picked up the live-view focus stacking trick from the RP. Kind of a shame that they have not yet retrofit that to the R with a firmware upgrade.
Yes the focus stacking on the RP looks very handy! I’ve thought about a feature like that in the past. I do a bit of product photography so it’d be good for that. Also some studio macro!
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
437
260
Yes the focus stacking on the RP looks very handy! I’ve thought about a feature like that in the past. I do a bit of product photography so it’d be good for that. Also some studio macro!
It's using the electronic shutter, so it's quite fast and quiet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jasonmc89

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,466
322
UK
www.flickr.com
I said it is in a previous post. Should I find it for you, or can you do it yourself?

It's biased, just less than photographers who think most other photographers are pros like themselves.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict - even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here. You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that. Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
814
110
I don't have a dog in this fight but I would observe that the way you have worded your contributions has invited a lot of conflict
Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

even this reply is condescending. But in any case considering yourself less biased still doesn't seem to fit the evidence I've seen here.
No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.

You're not interested in higher resolution sensors, we get that.
Great. When will you get my point ?

Extrapolating anything from that preference is no better than what anyone else here is doing, however superior you might feel.
I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,466
322
UK
www.flickr.com
Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.

No evidence to contradict my estimate was produced, only evidence to contradict what I didn't say to begin with.

Great. When will you get my point ?

I wasn't extrapolating from my preference, and you think I feel superior, you haven't read what I wrote, but rather put whatever you want in my mouth so you could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that either.
My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrightTiger

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,090
302
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
You're generalising your experience.

Just yesterday I was working on a 60x40 print based on a 1Ds3 shot ( so 20MP ). There was just enough resolution to achieve it, because of the composition and subject. But don't look too closely at the dog's hair or his eyes.
Don't get me wrong. What I am replying to is the "more megapixels is useless because no-one needs to print huge posters" comments, which are wrong because sometimes they do (as you say) and because there's so much more than just printing large images that a high resolution sensor is useful for.

For me, it's important for macro photography.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,449
2,607
My advice would be, if everyone seems to be misinterpreting you, it's not (just) their comprehension skills that are lacking (or worse a conspiracy to 'twist your words'!), but (also) poor communication on your part. Your being snarky in response to everyone tells me to ignore you in future.
"Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!" Kenneth Williams.
 

BrightTiger

EOS M50
Aug 21, 2015
40
24
I like the philosophy of canon that is based, in my opinion, for photography, that video and everything else, so buy your camcorders.
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,177
229
Davidson, NC
Usually for stills we want to stop motion with faster shutter speeds than we would want to use for video. If you deviate too much from half the frame rate, e. g. 1/60 sec with 30 FPS, the video can look unnatural.
 

scyrene

EOR R
Dec 4, 2013
2,466
322
UK
www.flickr.com
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.
Um, ergonomics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfocused

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,887
1,162
65
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Cameras and videos have long since been converging. There is little reason to separate them as video technology grows. Stills will be nothing more than a frame from video. Heck the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II spits out 60 fps. My Pixel 2 XL spits out motion pix. Select a frame, done. The divide of photography and video is an artificial construct in the modern era.
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

BrightTiger

EOS M50
Aug 21, 2015
40
24
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. ... Photography is about stopping time.
It used to until I took that pause and looked at the mechanics. Video is nothing more than a series of stills. Why this is upsetting is beyond me. Well, not really once you factor human emotion. We need - indeed, crave - attention. We're special. What we do is special. But reality says photography is a subset of videography. You can stop video and hence stop time and space, but you have more dynamic range along those dimensions. A camera - at it's heart - is a video camera with an appallingly bad frame per second spec.
the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film
Really? You know me? My learning? My experiences? Or that my perspective has value? Hmmm.. bold words from such little background.
One can have multiple perspectives. I get the photo =/= video perspective. As I said, been there,, got the FroKnows t-shirt. But reflection, learning, talking and listening with others shows a whole different perspective. And it's ok. Really. The rational and emotional exists at the same time. But the emotional needs to be tempered with reason and reality and the latter two show (1) the convergence is occurring from a camera equipment standpoint, (2) that construct is an artificial one since the photo tech occurred decades before crude video - what would have happened if the opposite were true with robust video recording/playback in place before stills?), and (3) biological systems (vision & brain) generally from a perception standpoint "records" video, but remembers in both "formats" (e.g. "I can see my child's first steps" vs "I can see that time I saw her face standing in time").
 

AaronT

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
154
221
Yes, I am aware that some people have a need to twist what I said (such high res is a niche) into something I didn't say (such high res is needed by nobody) so they could have a dog fight with me. I have no issue with that.
Here is a quote from you earlier "Why would anyone want to print a poster @ 300PPI". That seems to be saying "(such high res is needed by nobody)". Just saying. You aren't flogging a dying horse, the horse died quite a few posts earlier. You are the soothsayer. You believe if you say it often enough we will all become believers. Give it a break, please.
 

BrightTiger

EOS M50
Aug 21, 2015
40
24
I know that you don't seem to comprehend the essential nature of still photograph. I am not talking about equipment, I am talking about the essence of the medium. A good place to start would be with John Szarkowski.
Actually I do - you just don't seem to appreciate the validity of different perspectives. But I can see your love for Szarkowski as he developed a reputation for being autocratic. To paraphrase Szarkowski , "The failure of photography fanaticism in the face of the tsunami of videography stemmed perhaps from the sin of hubris".
By nature, art is mostly BS anyway, or at the least self-indulgent pretentiousness. But I do enjoy it still and find it useful.
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
412
400
Comments like this always make me cringe. Stills and video are two very different animals. The essence of video is to capture motion and sound. It is to show subjects moving through space and time. Photography is about stopping time. Carving a split second out of the continuum and holding it up for examination. Certainly the technology of still and motion cameras have been converging, but the thought that you can simply carve out a single frame from a video and have a great picture betrays an ignorance of both still photography and video/film.
Absolutely. Taking a single frame from good video would produce a terrible still image as a general rule, as the shutter speeds required to produce good videography rarely match the shutter speed required to produce a good still in the same situation. While there are similarities in the art forms there are also massive differences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee