i would say "JUST WAIT AND SEE".canon is not from yesterday.and sony is just problematic player at any technic. always.canon,nikon,fuji,leica are real photography producers since ever.and to be honest,how many of us are taking photos with iso above 1600 in real world. Martin Osner.Any problem with 5d iv.
Anyone who shoots night/indoor amateur sports all the way up to medium colleges lives at ISO 3200 or above. Lots of event/wedding photographers. Concert/theatrical photographers. Photojournalist covering spot news at night. The list is near endless.
About the only folks that don't need high ISO these days are most landscape specialists, studio portraitists (including those who move their lights outdoors), product photographers, daylight sports and wildlife shooters who can choose to only work in ideal light, and some real estate shooters that have enough time and budget to light the interiors they shoot.
It is always a battle between optical resolution from increasing the pixels vs diffraction. IMO ore pixels always wins (30D vs 7D vs 7D2) - unless you can show me the same image shot with high and low MP presented at the same viewing size that shows me any different.
It's the difference in viewing size that gets a lot of people. They don't realize that when pixel peeping a 20 MP image at 100% (one image pixel = 1 screen pixel) on a 24" HD monitor they're looking at a piece of a roughly 54x36 inch full display size, but then when they look at a 50 MP image at 100% on the same monitor they're looking at a piece of a roughly 96x64 inch display size.
That also goes for noise and motion blur. If the display size is the same, the sensor size is the same, and the focal length is the same, then the same amount of camera movement will produce the same amount of motion blur regardless of the comparative sensor resolutions.
There is imo no chance something like 7D III is going to happen in an EF-M mount. First - ergonomics / size aspects - you want your 7D III being larger than M5, right? Second - with EF-M, there is no upgrade path to the RF mount lens. I think that if something like the 7D III is going to be released one day, it is going to be the RF version. And once that happens, it is going to be the last nail in the coffin of an EF-M mount, not that it will die off, but anchoring it definitely in the hobby segment.
The "hobby" segment is by far the biggest part of Canon's total sales units of ILCs and lenses. Maybe even the biggest part of revenue and profits from ILCs and lenses.
You shoot whatyou have to. If you are doing landscape f5.6 will probably give too little DOF - sometimes these diffraction comments ignore the necessities of the art and end up being purely philosophical.
Can you show me an image where a high-res sensor 'diffration limited' photo has less resolution than a lower-res sensor image that (in theory) is less 'diffraction limited'??
At the DLA, diffraction
begins to be evident when pixel peeping at 100%. If you're not pixel peeping at 100% on a monitor that allows your eyes to resolve a single pixel, diffraction will not be evident at the DLA. As the aperture is closed down further, the effect increases. It's just like depth of field. If you look at an image at 8x10 it has more DoF than if you look at the same image from the same distance displayed at 16x20.
- MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity.
- Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
- DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
- I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR.
By that logic, the Canon 5D Mark II was useless for video, since it could only record video with the mirror locked up in Live View. Ditto for every DSLR since the 5DII that has offered video recording. No one would ever think of using the 5D Mark II, the original 7D, the 1D X, the 1D C, 5D Mark III, 5D Mark IV, etc. to record award winning films, would they?
IF the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, and the 90d will not be displaying that real time. Even with increased pixel density it's still less points than the current R when in live view. If you use the digic 8 to interpret phase detect focal systems it will not even begin to tax the chip.
The 2020 olympic ready mirrorless sports 1dx type camera would need both the increased readout speed AND a newer Digic 9 chip. If they release a full frame version of this newly designed chip in the 70-100 megapixel range the increased readout speed of the sensor would make the current Digic 8 chip work in a hypothetical 5ds replacement, but with slower fps than the R, just like the 5ds versus 5dIII.
The more I think about it, the more getting rid of the 7D line makes sense from what I always considered the primary reason why the line existed: Fast fps, 1dx level tracking
Both the RP and the R exhibit tracking on par with the 1dx, even if they can't fire off shots as fast as it can. This level of tracking will be in ALL future mirrorless bodies and all future bodies with live view. The only differentiation is in FPS speeds. The 80D already was only 2 fps lower than the 7dMkII, and had a better sensor to boot. So why wouldn't they add in the 1dx tracking and use the digic 8 to handle it? Even with that advanced setup, in some respects it will have worse tracking than the R and RP outside of speed! If you add that in, at that point what you are losing is better weatherproofing and a joystick. And I'll bet we'll see at least one of those on the upgraded (and upgraded price) body.
Increasing readout speed by that much by 2020 is a BIG
if since it hasn't seemed to move at all for Canon in the last 5+ years.
What do you think is the reason for
only 30fps 1080p with full frame sensors?
What do you think is the reason for increasingly higher crop factors for 4K video as the sensor resolutions increase?
What do you think is the reason for the dismal AI Servo frame rate with the EOS R?
For all of the above it is sensor readout speed and probably nothing but sensor readout speed.
The EOS 1D X Mark II has dual DiG!C 6+ image processors, plus a DiG!C 5 processor for combining distance information from the PDAF sensor with color information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist in tracking moving subjects using EOS iTR AF. The 7D Mark II has dual DiG!C 6 image processors plus another non-DiG!C designated processor to handle EOS iTR AF.
I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?
I
must have Reptile Eye AF (REAF) in the next Canon model or I'm switching to Hasselblad!
Without a surprising new sensor, it’s highly unlikely. To achieve the “zero blackout,” the A9’s sensor reads in something like 1/150s. Most sensors read in closer to 1/30s.
BINGO! it's all about sensor readout speed.