Different photographers, different needs or preferences.You really won't miss it if it is not there. I don't. Its just as fast and easy to use the rear screen, and even the EVF can display all the settings you normally change via the top LCD. The bonus there is that you don't even have to look away from your subject to change them.
Certainly everyone can have their own preference.I really really miss it on my R6.
My turn for a mea culpa. I read a review that indicated the 1D X III has an intervalometer, but searching the cameras instruction manual that does not seem to be the case. Apologies, you nailed a good example of nerfing the higher end model.Does the 1dx3 have both kinds of
intervalometer? One where you get a bunch of images and one where you get only a movie?
It could very well be that I mixed up introduction dates and the lower end model was introduced after the 5 series I was looking at.
That;s just as bad! It's that kind of bad faith towards its customers that gets people to jump platforms for a different set of compromises and problems.
Canon has an interesting marketing strategy, they offer great value for money on entry-level budget cameras such as the M50, and Rebel series. Quite a few people remain happy with that gear and stick with it, case closed. Some photographers grow in proficiency (or don't and get addicted to collecting gear), get hooked by the Canon brand, and decide to upgrade. It's then that the cracks begin to appear in Canon's veneer of benevolence...
It appears that Canon's strategy is to design intentionally incomplete camera systems below the highest tier, to remove really convenient features that the hardware in the camera can do, reducing the versatility of the tool for the purposes of market segmentation.
When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier. Sometimes Canon's actions are miserly, restricting features that other brands offer across their range only to higher tiers. Other times its just downright malicious, removing certain video modes, such as 24fps from vlogging cameras, or the overall number of video modes and custom memory recall modes from EOS R to R6. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they would do something like omit the metal lens mount from the old 55-250mm STM, how much more would it have cost to put a metal one on like every other lens? How about a sh*tty rubber gasket under the lens mount of non L-series lenses. Yes, I know that a few cents saved here and there, and over millions of products that increases profits, but that's exactly what I meant by mean-spirited bad faith towards their customer base.
To put this into perspective, most cameras these days can take decent images, especially when coupled with a decent lens, and cameras above $1,000 are probably sufficient for most people's needs. If you're happy with a tool for a certain task, and it works, and stick with it, and don't upgrade until you need more. Why reward bad corporate behaviour?
If you have specialist needs, or are into collecting camera gear, then it becomes a game of diminishing returns, the more you pay, the less you get for the extra money. That's a typical marketing strategy to create exclusivity, products that few have are highly desirable products, and they can be priced accordingly to create this impression, beyond the actual increased cost of parts within the product.
When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier.
Your point is good, Rebel doesn't cover the two digit numbers.But doesn’t the rebel range only cover the 100 series? Don’t you still have a 70D in the USA. So it’s not APS-C that has a different name, just that one segment.
i am not doubting what it can do, but the reduced convenience features for no reason doesn't make sense. It's like a dude is at Canon saying "let's take this out just to piss people off"I'd say that the R6 is no sleeper when it comes to video. For many people it has the upper hand over the R5, as not a lot of people need 45 megapixels, 20 is perfect for me. Now back to video, the R6 shoots oversampled 5.5K video up to 60 frames per second in 4K, with 10 bit color and the Canon Cinema Gamut if you're using CLOG-3, which is just so awesome, as it can match with higher end canon cinema cameras. (Yes, I'm aware the R5 can do it too, but for much more money!) It's quite underrated for video. While yes, there are better cameras out there, and if you want 8K, go ahead and get the R5, but I really think people should reconsider the R6, it's a fantastic value, a great all-around camera!
Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.How is it bad faith to sell a camera for less money that is less capable? How would the world be a better place if the R6 didn't exist at all?
Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:Because a lesser cameras will have something the middle camera doesnt. These are weird omissions. It's like when the RP didnt have 24p in the beginning and people had to wait for an update after complaints. Even the 5d Mark II had 24p. 24P is the standard for film making. It's like making a video game system that doesnt support 1080p.
2K isnt as widely used. It would be more like the bronze has 1080 the silver has the 2K. so in a way it is better but not a standard res for tv. SO every video you do in hd either has black bars or you have to crop in so it makes it inconvenient. Also if you crop every video for 1080 you would have to keep the framing in mind during filming that there will be a crop. There was the dilemma with the c200 it had raw but no 10bit. so you get something better but also some that was extremely data hungry and needed very expensive cards. That is Canon (il)logic. The intent may be to buy a collection of cameras instead of one liek cameras arent already expensive enough.Well, I think the analogy you're actually trying to make is that it would be weird if you had 3 video game consoles from the same vendor, and the video support was:
Gold: 4k 2k 1080p
Silver: 4k, 1080p
Bronze 2k 1080p
Making it so that if you wanted 2k, you'd have to buy either Bronze or Gold.
Now, I agree that would be a strange omission, and that I sure, Canon has some odd feature mixes whereby a low end model has a feature a mid-range one is missing. However, I don't see how that would possibly be "bad faith" - bad faith requires some intent to deceive.
Unlikely given there would likely be more than one of them. I did suggest that the crops could be Rc7 etc so they could have an Rc7 at the top end, Rc10, Rc100 if they wanted too. Then the R10 would be the logical successor to the R and the R100 for the RP.Yup.
With the RP they added another letter. Maybe the R-mount APSC camera will be called RC?
I’m a travel photographer. I wear my R6 on a holster at my hip to have it always ready. However I prefer having the main LCD closed to prevent from scratches etc. It also makes it faster to set the LCD (when needed) from closed position than from the normal position. And when I use the main LCD then I prefer it clean without anything blocking my composition. With the R, I could check or change the settings on the top LCD even before I put it up to my eyes. It may sound strange but these milliseconds often make a difference between the shot being taken or not.Certainly everyone can have their own preference.
That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP. The RP almost seemed like the first 6D. It existed for the purpose of making FF affordable, but is too slow for it's own good, and just didn't feel "complete".It will have a different model name, but Canon can't afford to abandon the lower end FF mirrorless market.
I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.
If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?In my opinion Canon would need a line-up like this to attract customers:
R10: crop camera
R7: crop-pro camera - I hear y'all birders
All depends if the crop sensor R body will be at the high end or low end of the market.If we see cropped RF cameras, market wise it'd require "RF-S" lenses wouldn't it? I mean, the birders will happily shoot RF long lenses, but the general market is going to want an 17-55ish lens and cheaper glass right?
...I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but in Japan last month (BCN) the RP was Canon's best selling RF camera.
For most buyers, spending $1,000 on a camera ($1,300 with a lens) represents the most they have ever spent or ever will spend on a camera. My guess is they aren't choosing between R models, but between an M and the RP and have decided to splurge on the RP.That surprises me. I'm going to move to RF, and tried an R, R6, and RP this week. I didn't see a happy me after going from 6D2 and 80D to an RP...
Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body....If a low end crop sensor R body, then yes, RF-s lenses would be needed to fill out that market which would potentially remove the xxxxD/xxxD/xxD products over the long term. It means supporting a 5th mount though....
Of course. I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The question is whether there will be RF-s native lenses when (if?) a crop sensor R body comes along.Not picking on you David, and I know I sound like a broken record, but people really have to get out of the EF mindset. Any lens designed for a crop sensor R body will mount seamlessly on any full frame R body. No additional mount or adapter needed. The camera will just crop the image when you mount the lens on your full frame body.