You mean like how Canon doesn't have a "P" on the RP? Like I said, we don't know yet whether those are two different cams or not. What shall we call the fabled speed demon? How does RX suit you?
In your immediately previous comment (the one I responded to), you specifically said RS. It is important to follow the thread (and good to have respect for your elders )Your reading comprehension is abhorrent. It said "RS or R5, can't tell." But I forgive your ignorance.
Sorry, I mistook your virtue signaling for tongue in cheek.I mean, not really. If you're photographing animals you're in their space. There's also things like waterfowl which are typically on the water negating ability to get closer without a boat, which definitely would disturb the animal.
I was going to buy the 5DSR last year when the rumors of the 80MP RS came out, and was now looking forward to something new to spark my photography drive. Having used Canon SLRs since 1976, but having the issues with the 1D4 help end my sports photography carrer,
I was okay with losing the mirror box. I wanted just two things, MP and DR. I want to do repro work of my 6x7 catalog. I want to do more landscape work. I want to do some Astrophotography, and some 4k video when it makes sense. Maybe a little lighter kit as well.
The RS fit the bill for all of these needs. At 45mp, I will be hard pressed to spend $3,500+ on it, when I can get more MP from the 5DSR at a much lower street price (albeit grey market). Other then an awesome new macro lens (maybe), I can't think of anything the R5 would offer that I would spend $2k more for (not even including the cost of an RF macro).
I see the attraction to the rumored body, but this is not what I (and I am sure many others) have been waiting almost 6 months for!
I would assume the 14/20 FPS means 14 in FF mode, 20 in crop mode. Why would it refer to viewfinder and LiveView - those are virtually the same in a mirrorless body. And that's absolutely realistic, as 14*45 = 630, which is 38% more more than the 14*32.5 of the low cost M6 II can do with an older processor and smaller body (worse for dissipating heat).
20 FPS at FF resolution seems to much, unless that's reduced Bitrate and no AF, like the 8K video option would be. But who would want that?
Probably not. Judging from the rumors and 80D and 90D pixel density I expect it between 60 and 80 mpixels.
BUT: It wouldn't be the first time: Remember the consolidation of 1D4 and 1Ds to 1Dx ? It was a step down in mpixels for 1Ds shooters.
Maybe 80mpixels is too much for most lenses and a DLA of f/5.3 (the one of 90D which will have similar pixel density). Not saying it will not be an improvement but it will not be that much of an improvement.
I would rather have a 50mpixel with less noise, better DR, better/faster AF and more speed (fps and buffer size) that that of the already good 5DsR. Even small improvements in all these areas would make an amazing upgrade.
It's patently bonkers to argue why the the 401mm barrier exists, while competitors & 3rd parties have affordable -500, -600 options. A new 150-600 or 200-600 for (idk) $2k or so is the opportunity for Canon to bring reach to the masses while retaining first party AF and not being saddled with the drawbacks of teleconverters. Such a lens is not that extravagant an ask.
I bird (or travel outdoors in such a place that I'll reasonably expect to see wildlife) maybe once every year. It's not what I usually do. But when I need to shoot wildlife, my options all involved 100-400 + teleconverters or wildly expensive superwhite rentals. The ability to improve reach / the ability to crop is hugely useful.
Sorry, I mistook your virtue signaling for tongue in cheek.
Yes, you're right that it's the storage part which is most absurd. Although 8K video alone is a big stretch, let alone in RAW.The processing power wouldn't be much(remember, the 50D hits close to 2K RAW without a sweat), but the storage requirements would be outrageous. Around 80-100 GB per minute. 8K compressed video would put a heavy load on the processor, especially if it's H.265.