Okay. Well, it may be confusing because when Canon Rumors calls an image a "mockup" what they really mean is that it is a fictional illustration based on nothing. They just grab an image off the internet and maybe do a quick Photoshop job on a few details. It isn't a mockup in any real sense of the word and is a bit misleading.
I said no inherent benefit, not no benefit. Just because you learned to do it that way doesn't make it correct or the only way. Have you dried using a screen to focus and frame for more than a few minutes? You write as though your first effort with a viewfinder was a masterpiece and took no practice.
Yes, I don't use the EVF at all, it's pointless for video and doesn't add much for the occasional photo.
Not convinced at all...
I think using an RF-S lens will just make the full frame R bodies crop the sensor automatically. Just like when you use an EF-S lens with the adapter. Unless if Canon decides to change their mind and only wants full frame lenses on full frame bodies making people buy the more expensive RF full frame wide angle.
Putting them on an APS-C crop narrows the field of view by a factor of 1.6, but it doesn’t increase the reach 1.6x. The maximum extra resolution you could get on a 24 Mpx sensor vs a FF 45 Mpx is 1.17x, and that’s with a very wide aperture lens at very low iso. With a narrow f/11 lens at higher isos there would be very little extra resolution or reach because of diffraction and noise. What the R10 would give you would be a much cheaper way of getting similar resolution to an R5.
Exactly, the R10 will be a lot more affordable and will pair well with the 600mm and 800mm F11.
So, 25% fewer megapixels than the M6 Mk ii? I don't get it.
Just a guess, but perhaps Canon's thinking is that that people buying the R7 will also be buying higher end lenses that will better take advantage of the 32 MP sensor. There are some websites out there that have kept track of which lenses do not really have the optics to take advantage of the 32 MP sensor that Canon put in the 90D and the 6D II. So 24 MP may be just as good as 32 MP for many folks with consumer grade lenses. So, I'd be perfectly happy with 24 MP for a crop camera. I think 32 MP would give little or no ACTUAL benefit in resolution, but would would create bigger files, slower processing, less files in the buffer. I know spec lovers and internet influencers will howl, but they don't really bother to look at photos and see what happens in real world results.
True. From experience, I had to use f/4 lenses or wider and very low isos to get more resolution than from a good 20 Mpx sensor.
Yes, all the time. It is the best way to do macro. Every try focusing through the viewfinder when it your subject is sitting on the ground and you want a side or front view? Shooting slow moving wildlife it is a great way to shoot using the back screen, of course I seldom shoot hand held and almost always use a monopod.
Have you tried? Not as a one off, I mean. I shot film SLRs for years, then DSLRs. I’d used little PowerShots with only a rear LCD, but I thought I’d really miss the VF on an ILC. After buying the original M (at the fire sale price), it turned out I didn’t.
I did!
There is an inherent benefit of an evf/ovf when the camera plus lens has to be braced against your cheek for stability or for rapid tracking. Other situations have their own requirements.
