I must admit that when it comes to these types of discussions, I heed Einstein's "I never think of the future – it comes soon enough."
Upvote
0
Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?Or on the Champs-Élysées (a bit bigger of a sporting event)
There is already face and head AF that is aware of helmets, isn't there? Seems irrelevant if the human is on a bike at that point - unless it is the bike and not its rider you want to focus on.Do you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?
First of all be it known that I have no idea what Canon is going to do, but so of the reasoning I've been hearing for not having 45mp is driving me crazy. First of all the sports camera thing. Why not? Sony's A1 is billed as a sports camera and I believe it is 50mp. Along with that is that Canon has to compete with Sony. Putting a 45mp sensor would help to do that. At 30mp's we'll have to listen to the whiners. Besides, who says it doesn't have 8k....Guess we'll see someday!I tend to agree, if it were 45mp then why not 8k? I am not a tech guy, but would BSI have anything to do with lack of 8k? Doesn't seem so but I don't know.
If canon wants me to switch from EF to RF they'll have to up the 30 MP to 45 MP, or I'll wait and stick with my 5DmkIV.
Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".I'm sorry, but if you think (or insist) this camera must be 45mp or higher to succeed, this obviously isn't the camera for you. Canon knows what it's doing in this space, that's why they have dominated it for years. They built this for people who shoot fast action, not people who shoot photos of perched birds. While I do fall in this latter category, I have an R5 for those shoots. When things start flying or running 45mp is a problem. I have to almost double the shutter speed I used to use for my 1DX II for the same subjects to compensate for motion blur between pixels, which leads to higher ISOs. Higher ISO gives less detail and I may as well have 20mp. Before anyone starts blathering about downsampling, professional sports photogs don't have time to fuss with that nonsense. They need to shoot and upload. No post processing nonsense. Would I buy it at 45mp? Yes. Would I prefer my action camera to be 30? Absolutely. There's a reason the 1DX series never reached above 20mp, and it's not because pros were begging for more or that they couldn't manage the throughput. After all, the R5 sports the same processor as the 1DX III.
Pretty plausible analysis...There is one fact giving hint R3 is actually ~30mpix. Before release of A1 all Canon rumors was around ponential R1 camera but this changed after specs of A1 has been revealed. I think Canon had plan to release R1 with 30mpix but after they realized i won't compete on paper with 50mpix A1 they had to rename it to R3 and left room for future potential R1 flagship with matching or overleap A1 mpix count.
Because they look noticeably softer. The target audience for this camera doesn’t have the time for down sizing. It would be ok with me, but I’m not a sports pro.Seems like an irrational argument. Yes, if you are looking at pixel level, there will be more blur in action shots at the same settings with more MP, but if you use the same framing, then there will be essentially no difference in the overall image and the parts of the image that are correctly tracked, will be sharper with the higher MP body. All you have to do is downsample your R5 to 20 MP, and the shots will appear just as sharp as the ones from the IDX2, but of course, you will only have a 20 MP image. I fail to see how that makes 45MP "a problem".
I came from the 5d4 myself along with the original 1dx. The R5 is a pretty seamless transition. Of course I don't really care about gps in my cameras.R5 just isn't enough of a step to switch to RF given the investment I have in EF bodies and lenses (yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it). The eye controlled AF point selection is what triggered my interest big time as I still haven't gotten over my old-timer focus and reframe shooting style from the old days - it's high time I relearn that but it's hard and I was hoping the eye control would give me enough of a tool to make the jump and finally stop doing what I learned as a kid using my dad's gear that had just one AF point.
As to the R5 itself: I'll lose the internal (and highly reliable) GPS functionality of the 5DmkIV and 7DmkII a feature I use a LOT. Not sure if the R3 will have it back or if it's going to be that kludge where you need the GP-E2 nonsense or an unreliable Bluetooth link to a phone.
...Canon did say this is a "sports and wildlife" camera. Sports shooters don't want big files, but wildlife shooters typically want all the pixels they can get. It will be interesting to see how that dichotomy has been mitigated.
Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.yes there's that converter - but it'll remain a handicap to use it
The R5 could shoot 6K raw but it would be crop... realistically 8k raw is better for downsampling (perfect 8k->4k) ratio with the only downside being the bit rate over 6kSure 6K is worth mentioning. Red even named their camera after it… the “Komodo 6K”, so it’s clearly worth mentioning. R5 could not shoot 6K raw. But that said, I’m not sure why Canon would make the R3 have the same resolution as the Eos R? I think the 45MP sensor makes more sense at this point.
Well, bicycle tracking is the standard AF test for DPreviewDo you think there will be a "bicycle tracking" AF mode along with the "car/motorcycle" one?
We need to understand that AF tracking is all about video processing from the sensor and display in the EVF/rear screen. We cannot separate the two for mirrorless or live view on DLSRs. Canon chose 45mp to be the first with 8k recording in that camera body envelope. The ratios are just too perfect to pretend otherwise. They had the great leap forward with the 5Dii and then the R5.Isn't it ironic that the video sensor math assists those in concluding rumor specs in a stills body?
Correct. The CFe B card slot is definitely not maxed out for write speed. The write speed of the USH-II SD slot could be maxed out though with 45mp raw/20fps. Given that the R3 will have mixed slots again, then it makes some sense for 30mp raw/30fps to enable dual card recording of stills which would be mandatory for this level of camera.You must also be assuming that the bandwidth of the R5 is maxed out.
That need not be true.
This is why I mostly use EF glass on my R5—the drop-in filters.Depends on your perspective. Personally, I find the ability to use only rear gelatin filters with my 11-24, or the fact that I need to carry filters the size of salad plates for my TS-E 17, a handicap. The ability to use an adapter with drop-in filters is an advantage in those cases.