Nobody needs to frame you as anything.By the time this camera hits the market, the specs it has will be oldscool.
Sony will be far far ahead of the game with another mirrorless camera that makes Canon shiver.
And yes, I am a Canon user. Seeing colleagues making the switch to camera's that are as sharp as a knife.
Making me look like an amateur with not even half the sharpness these small Sony's can achieve.
And please, stop framing me as an idiot. The truth hurts, and Canon needs to step up.
Increase RND, decrease prices.
Please provide links to these 'cheap cameras' You just throwing it out there means nothing if they are garbage in other aspects besides those two specs.If the IQ is not substantially better... why buy it?
Focus, IS, Resolution, DR, White Balance Rendition... Auto MA would be sweet... However if the IQ in the end is not much better everything else is moot. Just marketing hype! I see cheap cameras with 30+ MP's shooting at 30fps in RAW. We are waiting.....
Somehow I doubt this is the case for two reasons: 1) Pretty much all the IBIS hardware sits behind the sensor while the mirror box is in front of it, 2) DSLR are far more bulky than mirrorless bodies (compare the Canon 1DX mark II or Nikon D5 versus the Olympus E-M1 mark II and try to guess which one has the 5-stop IBIS built-in) so size alone shouldn't be the barrier to adding the extra few mm necessary to accommodate such tech. I think there's more to it than just size.I think it is because there is generally less room in a DSLR due to the mirror.
"and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times."... so you do need IS at other times...So IBS will add an additional stop? Professional sports photogs are laughing. I'm shooting at 1/2500 and above and it's to my advantage to turn IS off at times. People can crow about IN Camera Stabilization but 1 to 2 stops it's not a reason to buy a new body. Now give me a 30MP frame at 15fps in RAW to enhance post-production. All we want is an OVF, at 15fps RAW and 30MP frames with our big whites we spend $6K to $13K for and more cross-points across our OVF. Give me the solid Canon tools we're used to. I'm a photographer, not a videographer. If I want to take 60fps or 120fps 4K video I'll buy a $1,000 Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I'm a professional sports photographer not Steven Frig'n Spielberg. Has anyone at Canon walked down the sidelines in the press pit at NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL? No one has come to us! No one asked us at America's Cup as we're getting drenched in water following a moving object in a moving object. No one came to us. We are professional sports photographers! Please don't fill my body with TOYS that take away from my photographs. Devote the MKIII to photographers... not enthusiasts. You took away our stock of CFast for Express cards. OK!!! Why give me 20 or 24MP's when that technology is in you $600 consumer cameras? If Canon can't deliver a 15fps, 30MP camera with enhanced IQ, DR, Resolution, Focus and Auto MA for our Big Whites I've got to wonder why we, or our agencies are to invest. Every pro sport I shoot 15fps is more than enough. I'm not producing a frig'n movie. When we broadcast it's a $200K Canon lens!!! Why screw with our cameras, we are photographers. Please don't take away from my photographs by devoting so much of the camera to videography. Take that space and give us a better camera for photography. We know what we shoot. The games, the sport, the athletes, the rules.... And 15fps is plenty. We want the DR and focus so at 15fps RAW we get the money shots. If we had 30MP's we can express more latitude in production for post. Can an executive sitting in an office in a chair understand that??? We are sports photographers.
It's because those who had IBIS went mirrorless while Canon and Nikon stuck to their in-lens IS which at the time was superior. IBIS appeared on Minolta cameras first, starting with the advanced compact A1 camera, then later in the Dynax 7D DSLR before selling the operation to Sony who went on to create a number of DSLRs using IBIS (which also evolved during this time of course). And then eventually Sony went mirrorless. As for the third DSLR manufacturer, Pentax, well, who knows, they just seem to have fallen behind in general?Is there anything inherently different or technically insurmountable about an IBIS on DSLR versus IBIS on a mirrorless camera? It seems that everyone who builds a mirrorless camera have figured out how to get it up and running a decade ago, while the DSLR giants are still trying to figure it out. Can anyone who understand that stuff shed some light as to why DSLR IBIS has lagged that far behind?
It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.I do not have body with IBIS, and having limited knowledge for IBIS.
But I’m wondering how much benefits of IBIS to sports shooter, while catching the moment normally need higher shutter speed.
With moderate to fast action you will have motion blur. With or without IS.It's a myth sports/action shooters won't benefit from IBIS. It's the same benefit as from any IS. As an example, say you have an EF 70-200 IS. Will you prefer to shoot with IS enabled or disabled? Obviously you don't compensate the motion blur, but hand/camera shake blur adds to the overall blur and it can be critical. Personally I can't shoot action say at 200mm and 1/500s and without IS.