That makes perfect sense. Many of us who shoot canon do so because of the ergonomics and intuitive usability of it. No other brand can match them although Nikon come close. Many of us would rather use a sony as a doorstop than a camera because they really are horrible to hold onto(in my personal opinion)The discussion is all about specs. One big differences in my eyes is how a camera works. as i made my switch to FF (from 20D) i tested a lot of cameras and systems and the difference is big in terms of Feeling and Usability (which will mainly be preference things). I hated how the Fujis and especialy Olympus M43 worked so i switched to sony. But Canon is somehow awesome. I dont know if its because i grew up with Contax and Canon but i like it very much. The camera was never in my way taking a picture (the Sony a7II sometimes is) - i hope you get what i mean - im not a native english speaker.
Sony is going to stick head in the sand and pretend R5/R6 don't exist .So far all we know about new Sony A7S3 is that it will have much better EVF and it should do 6k60p/4k120p. It should be video centric camera to go against Panasonic S1H than R5/R6. Price wise under $4k.This will make Sony delay their announcement again...I hope they price it at $2k or $2300 with battery grip.
Sorry, but I don't agree, here is someone using the 5D IV for ages, so I think his opinion is credible.I think the evidence demonstrates that idea that the 1DX-line delivers better high ISO performance than the 5D-line is basically a superstition. Fortunately for us, it means for low light work, we can all get by with cheaper cameras
Can people stop mocking about the 20 ‘only’ MP.
looking at the specs, i think they really tend to go for a video camera on the R6, like the sony a7 III.
i only see photographers crying about it when there’s already a variaty of choices to chooses from with higher MP.
20MP is more than enough for video. 45MP could even be Disadvatagerous.
Except it is the case.
Not sure how often this needs to be repeated. If you want to sell prints you can't work with 20 mp.
You can print a little poster for yourself no problem, duh. Or for a wedding, sure.
What you can't do is sell your photos at stores doing prints for you, unless you are ok with people only being able to buy 15 inch prints, which means wall art is already out of the question.
That's good for you. I take it you sell prints online and have a magic way to upres them to be able to sell them? Because I don't. I'm not talking about personal prints. I don't care about 20 more mp for a picture on my wall. Print services do.
Here is an explanation why the DxO score of the 1D-X III is worse than the Mk II:
Canon simply shifted their focus on low-light performance, which makes sense for such an action camera. People shooting landscapes with low ISO settings are not exactly the target users of such a camera. This is a nice example how pure lab results can create misconceptions.
Btw I always had the eery feeling that the DxO guys are secretly smirking when they managed again to create a stir on the internet about "bad" Canon technology...
For me, the R5 and R6 both have some form of annoyance. The R6 looks great but lacks a top-down screen or locking button for the dial. The R5 - no mode selection dial.
I don't understand why they made the top screens inverted and so damn hard to read. Sure , Ican press the light-up button but it's tiny, not very bright and the buttons are too close to the light one and in a rush you can end up mashing other things.
With the dial they could have easily integrated a power switch into it and put it on the left instead.
It's like with the touch bar, it feels Canon tried to be different 'just because' when it wasn't necessary and in many cases caused a loss of fluidity in when shooting.
I am tied between which one I'd go for as in practise it's all about usability in stressful situations instead pf mp. I change my burst mode more than I do my shooting mode so a screen is useful but enough to miss it? No idea. I can imagine further iterations having further top-down changes. The 5D4 was practically perfect in that regard so I'm surprised they changed things around as they have.
20MP is more than enough for photography too. I have yet to ever feel limited by the 18-22 MP range.
But of course 20MP is enough. It does feel though like going backwards if upgrading from 5-7 years older camera which already has more MP. It's not technical/practical issue ,more psychological effect of thinking about getting inferior product because it has less MP so it must be worse than what I already have .No, it's not. Neither is 20MPX. This is fans with GAS who have over-excited themselves now crashing and needing to normalise their feelings. It will sell by the bucketload. Unless you're shooting for billboards (remember them?) modern day 20mpx sensors are fine for a massive section of the market. Or hey! Maybe Canon are dumb and users on a spoilers forum are much smarter?
And it depends on what your definition of 'wall art' is. Sure. If you are printing massive prints then it wont do. But most prints are NOT massive and 20mo is more than enough to print at A# size or eben somewhat largerIf you’re a true professional and sell wall art then you would know that this camera isn’t the tool for you.
All this moaning about the 20mp really does my head in. This camera is made for situation where 20mp is adequate. If 20mp is not enough, then you need a different camera. Like the other one Canon is releasing.