The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.
Upvote
0
We might have more faith in your input if you were a little more precise. The Canon 1D MkIII was a 10mp APS-H sensored camera.The 85mp is correct allas misinterpreted by the whistle blower. Its a quad af sensor and the actual resolution is 85/4=21.25Mp which is comparable with 1Diii.
Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.You’d have to define ‘hours at a time’ because I have never held a camera of any kind up to my eye continually for hours at a time.
On a typical shooting day - out hunting wildlife or whatnot - I’ll be out anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. Depending on what I’m looking for, my camera will be up and down from my eye constantly all through that period. Sometimes for minutes at a time, sometimes only for seconds. I don’t know how that equates to what you’re saying. It’s really hard to equivocate.
The EVF transition was truly seamless for me - I honestly didn’t know I was supposed to have trouble until I started reading about it on the internet.
The first things I notice when I shoot my 5D4 or 7D2 now is how dull and dim the OVF is, and I have to remind myself to take test shots to make sure my settings are close before I start trying to move in on a subject. With the EVF I just lift the camera and keep walking and adjust as I’m going knowing beforehand what I’m going to get as I go...
I agree. Shooting international sporting events for a week or more, waking at 6AM and shooting until dark or into the evening we take extreme stress on our eyes before we edit a single shot. No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.How often do you look through them for hours at a time? Genuinely hours at a time.
I'm not quite 57, I also have pretty crap eyes, I just don't get on with EVF's the same.
Hours at a time would include things like soccer matches, and tournaments where you cover three or four matches a day of continuous play, or three day music festivals where you are shooting for 12 hours a day three or four days in a row. Wildlife from blinds. All kinds of things really.
No one in the world can tell me an OVF is not superior for sports. Looking through glass is pure and your eyes for days and weeks on end will never stress. Shooting tight fast sports is tough on the eyes period. No EVF can match the speed, agility, clarity of an OVF in all lighting conditions.....anyone who shoots pro sports in these circumstances will understand.
Hey Guys! RF mount you think for the Canon EOS R1?
If shooting wildlife in crop mode for extra reach, 85MP would translate into 33MP. About the same as 90D and M6 Mark II.
So 85MP is not TO much
A bit OT, but if you are seriously looking at a Digital MF camera, I'd suggest you give the Fuji GFX100 or the new GFX100S a serious look.<P>I guess I'll just hold off on my plans to buy a Hasselblad X1D II. [Also CR0]
Deutsch Photography, Inc.: NYC Wedding Photographer | Actor and Corporate Headshots NYC | Family and Baby Portraits
I'll wait until they introduce the mkII with 170MP 80fps at full res for $1800.
I admittedly am not the expert on it, but from my perspective, even if they're under the same lens, wouldn't they still have a different perspective from each other simply because they're different positions under the lens? After all a lens does have a coverage area and doesn't project exactly the same points of light across the whole coverage area it's projecting.The microlenses above each pixel (divided into 2 for dual-pixel or - in the future - 4 sub-pixels for quad-pixel AF) are designed so that each of the subpixels covers exactly the same surface area on an in-focus subject. That is the whole point of DPAF or QPAF. Therefore, you cannot increase the resolution by simply outputting the information from every one of the sub-pixels, because you'd simply end up with 2 (resp. 4) identical images of the in-focus areas. The out-of-focus areas of the image appear shifted (to the left and right for dual pixel and to top-left / top-right / bottom-left / bottom-right for quad pixel), and the amount of shift is dependent on the distance of the out-of-focus point to the focus plane - the further away from the focus plane, the larger the shift. Furthermore, each of the sub-images only covers half (or a quarter) of the aperture. So the sub-images have less background blur than you'd get from what the aperture actually is set to, and the background (or foreground) blur in the sub-images will be shifted w.r.t. to each other (see bokeh shift function on DPRAW files). By adding the individual sub-images you get the image you'd also get without having split the pixels in the first place. I don't see that there's anything to gain w.r.t. resolution.