You're right, and it's looking like a good range. The only 'overlap' at the moment would be the EOS R which is around about USD1500 - but who knows the future of it if/when the R8 arrives? If you add a couple of the APS-C bodies in at the lower end of the range, it starts to make even more sense.
I think the better way is comparing MSRP of release date. It means which place manufacturers wants to put it in. It is hard for me to understand Canon seems to give up around 2000USD market. The R7 and R8 are the same 1499USD. And R6II is 2499USD. R7 and R8 are cheaper 1000/USD than R6II. The range is so big. There should be a camera body for around 2000USD, but there is no news and rumor for it.
My limited understanding, based on what I’ve read in various on-line articles, is:
Canon is a huge company and can afford to offer multiple choices, so why not? Be grateful that there is so much choice!
Kwanon is never late, nor is she early. She arrives precisely when she means to. The 1-series bodies have been on a 4-year cycle, coinciding with the summer Olympics, for some time now. The 1D X III was launched in 2020. The R1 should be launched in 2024.
Wasn’t that expression just reserved for their early cars ?
My experience with electronics manufacturing, having worked for a built-in-the-USA <insert eagle screech> CM, it all comes down to the supervisor on the floor, how much rejects you're willing to have during QA and the willingness to incentivize your workers to do better. It doesn't matter which country the factory is in, it's about how far you'll go to optimize costs.Wasn’t that expression just reserved for their early cars ?
My post wasn’t really referring to quality; I accept that cameras made in Thailand, Philippines etc are as well made as those in Japan, assuming the parent company intends them to be, but rather manufacture in Japan is likely to be more expensive.
Or a burst of sub-images that you could map to the corresponding sub-image area of your reference image. Each for each sub-image area worth improving.
You don't need to take them all in the same 1/3200s. You need them to depict the same objects as in your reference image of 1/3200s (in particular, the same wing surfaces), although not necessarily at exactly the same pixel locations as on the reference image.
Absolutely, and I have no doubt about the quality of the R5 and the wildly improved tools within it. I'm sure it would be a pretty good fit. I'm shooting almost exclusively on a tripod and almost exclusively in manual focus, and very often with 5 or more batteries for a week or more without power. With that said, the few times I'm not using a tripod, I'm often shooting out of an open airplane window where switching lenses can be a bit challenging on the fly - I've had a lot more success cropping and upsizing in this situation. When I replace the 5D my biggest wish for improvement is resolution above everything else for cropping and for larger printing. Beyond that, a weight reduction would be very welcome, but if anything comes at the cost of battery performance, ruggedness/weather-sealing, or low light performance, I'd have to really second think the change. I think the R5 ticks most of those boxes (except battery life, and while resolution is far better than the 5DIV, I would't be opposed to going larger). It's a good fit, but I'm not in a rush.
45 is better, but I'm upsizing a fair bit beyond that. I'd prefer to have that data from the get go in an ideal world, but I'm sure I cloud make 45 work if I'm making 30 work now. I don't keep a ton of images unless I have a use for them as it is, and my processing has my keepers climbing up and over 2gb per photo pretty often. I'm not anticipating too much more of an impact in the change to 45mpx or higher, but even if it does start eating space, I'm content to buy more storage before I seek a lower resolution output.
As I wrote in my post, these things work nicely for the subjects of @Skyscraperfan's but for birds flying, turning their heads, twitching etc or insects with wings flapping, those events can cause changes in the geometry of the subject or its movement relative to background so there is no common reference image. I prefer to have a shutter speed of 1/400s or faster even for perched birds that are apparently still. Even if you restricted your time window to 1/100s, to get 6 shots at 1/600s each to lower noise by 60% relative to a single shot at 1/600s, you would need 600 fps to cover that, and 1 shot of 1/100s duration would give the same s/n as the 6 averaged. If the objects are perfectly still, you don't need high fps, and I have used in the past averaging to reduce noise when appropriate and do also focus stacking, which requires merging bursts over a time period when the subject is static. However, with the latest noise reduction software that uses AI rather than statistical manipulations, a single image can have radically lowered noise and recovery of detail beyond what in the past would have been considered possible.
Your point re IBIS is interesting but we see no extra stabilisation in Canon's IBIS-enabled APS-C body versus FF, and indeed Canon's system offered the most stops of stabilisation of any brand on release, despite being for full frame - all of which is to say, in reality, I think it's more complicated.
Most birds flap their wings with the frequency less than 10Hz, so 100Hz time sequences can still be useful. Hummingbirds are a special case with a special approach to the solution: they flap their wings with the frequency around 50 Hz, so, by taking every 2nd 100Hz image you can stroboscopically "slow down" their wing movements.
The reference image is the single one whose geometry you want (could even be chosen out of the sequence after the shooting). Then you calculate optical flows from this single image to all the other images in the sequence, geometrically distort those images back against their optical flows, and merge the resulting image stack.
