More resolution is always better, even if you hit somewhat diminishing returns due to diffraction. Diminishing returns does not mean no returns.Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?
This all comes down to whether a R5 equivalent sized body can handle the heat dissipation.The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.
Only if the heat management can be better than the R5I suspect this will be an R5-type body, like the 5Ds.
I don't use crop mode in my R5. I crop in post if needed.I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.
true, but for my work this is simply a non-issue. Video files are SOOOOO much bigger, so it doenst matter to me, if photos are twice the sizeStorage going to take a hit, as well as wallets and credit cards.
To be fair, in the latest firmware the heat problems are prety well managed.Only if the heat management can be better than the R5
No AA filter would be fine for landscape but wouldn't be okay for portrait and video usage. I know that some people don't use cameras for stills and video but you can't get away with this now.100+ megapixels on FF would be a 1st and A LOT for the sensor size. Be interesting to see what ISO performance is like and which of the RF lenses can resolve those megapixels and resolve them well.
Just hope for potential buyers there’s no AA filter.
I am not following this... Less pixels overall in crop mode means that the processor is not looking at the entire sensor for focus targets but the tracking is only pixel to pixel which wouldn't change from crop or full sensor. Has there been any tests for this?This. When photographing smallish subjects at a distance, the focus accuracy is significantly improved by using the crop mode.
From what I understand of landscape medium format photographers, they need to focus stack to ensure sharpness front to back because of this issue (DLA and depth of field)Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?
For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?
Agreed but I do find 4k30 HQ and 4K120 to run into problems quickly. Note that generally use these modes underwater and there is a partial vacuum inside the housing meaning less heat conduction. A specialist niche of course.To be fair, in the latest firmware the heat problems are prety well managed.
4k25 - no problem
4k25 hq oversampled from 8k - 20-30 minutes runtime
4k50 - rarely any problems
4k100 is the most problematic mode, where overheat may happen after 5 minutes. Though I rarely ever need that much of record time.![]()
I think the context is not that it’s the camera’s focus accuracy that is improved by crop mode, but rather the photographer’s ability to accurately select and track a small subject.I am not following this... Less pixels overall in crop mode means that the processor is not looking at the entire sensor for focus targets but the tracking is only pixel to pixel which wouldn't change from crop or full sensor. Has there been any tests for this?
I don’t understand the need to crop in camera? Wouldn’t cropping in post have the same result plus the ability to choose a variety of post capture compositions? I’d rather do it in post. I have the R5 and forgot it has the ability to crop in camera because I’ve never thought to use it. I’m primarily a portrait photographer though.
Fine but you don’t seem to understand the point being made, to which you responded.The point of a crop camera is $1500 vs $3800. And cropping the $3800 camera gives you only 17MP vs 32MP.
Yes, I would imagine that is the case. It certainly "seems" that the magnified view in crop mode makes it easier to, say, select the eye rather than simply the head. Whether it is the camera or the photographer I don't know.I think the context is not that it’s the camera’s focus accuracy that is improved by crop mode, but rather the photographer’s ability to accurately select and track a small subject.