BINoculars, given the context of birders and the mention of (spotting) scopes in the same sentence.
I love this forum.
We have one set of people convinced this will be an R1 with an APS-C sensor, packed with new features and outperforming the R3 at a fraction of the cost.
We have another set of people convinced this will be a cheap camera that will obviate the need for the EOS M line and Rebel/xxxD DSLRs, so Canon will just abandon those lines.
All we need is a set of people arguing for a pink Hello Kitty R7 and we’ll have covered all the bases.
Well, except the one where the R7 is a Canon smartphone.
£3K would be a lot of money for a trash collection container.Thank you. My weekly trash pickup is in the morning and I still need to roll my "bin" about 300 feet to where the truck turns around at the edge of my property. That's all I could think of.
Why did you contradict the statement that the 90D has a DLA of f/5.2, and more puzzling why didn't you say what it is if it isn't f/5.2. I did check it before posting with https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-90D.aspx (I usually check data before posting.) (Or hadn't you realised the discussion was about the sensor in the 90D?)
View attachment 202337
I have a 90D, well I own one I should say. My daughter borrowed it some time back.
If I ever do get my 90D out of the clutches of my youngest, it will replace my 80D as a macro body.
it's pretty obvious that there will be a high MP count full-frame sensor (and body) and a new aps-c sensor (and body) based on that - meaning if we see a high MP full full-frameframe sensor in the 70ish megapixel range that would translate to a 43ish megapixel aps-c sensor. It's how they manufacture chips, depending on the yield of the material you can also use faulty full-frame sensors and use them as aps-c sensors if they have quality issues in the areas not present in aps-c format.
There is also a high chance that the aps-c camera (r7) will have 8k recording capabilities due to its sensor size - of course with all the usual canon cripple to protect the cinema line, but that will still be an amazing camera not only for birding but also for macro work - I'm intrigued!
Except EVF gives you the real lens aperture wide open and OVF does not. Seeing what you see with your eyes through the camera is less important for photo composition than seeing what the camera does, because the camera is what makes the photo.
Depth of field resides solely within the lens and distance to subject. Since depth of field is sensor independent, I don't like to use the term equivalence for depth of field, because people think it has something to do with the sensor, which it does not.
Equivalence dictates you apply a factor, everybody calls it a crop factor, to focal length, and aperture, and iso. A crop factor can be a positive or negative value depending on if you are going up or down in sensor size. Cropping is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor. Ergo, if you crop all else being equal you change DoF. All else being equal includes, by definition, the same sized output, not scaled output.
So Canon seems to have a history of releasing one-off pleasant surprises in various categories, so "out of character" wouldn't be a good description. Maybe 'sporadic' is a better label for such things.Could it be that the 7D Mark II (far superior to the original 7D in terms of AF consistency, durability, and so much more usable for night/indoor sports with flicker reduction), all for only $1,800 when the 1D X was selling for $6,800 was as equally out of character for Canon as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 was?
I don't think so. Maybe sports shooters aren't interested in wide angle lenses. But as a wildlife photographer it does make sense to have a wide angle lens with you. If you go hiking you are already packed with (not only but mostly) heavy tele-lenses. Having only one small and light wide angle lens (especially Aps-c only) can give you additional landscape shots while hiking. If you ask me landscape is part of "wildlife" shooting. Maybe it's only me, but I would never take an additional ff body with ff wide angle lens with me, at least for hiking.
Which brings me to another point about Canon's fullframe lenses for both EF and RF mount. They totally lack something between budget and L-lenses when it comes to wideangle zooms and normal-zooms. USM zooms that are close or comparable to L-lens optical performance, but in a more lightweight variable-aperture build would be much more appealing to me, but totally lacks in Canon's lineup. Yes, I know it won't completely solve my weight problem, that's why I go for APS-C. But it would still make fullframe look much more appealing to me.
The R5 and R6 are both FF sensors. They're the same size. 36mm x 24mm.Stupid question. Currently I own a Canon R5 with several Canon RF lenses and I am very happy.
I am doing mostly astro (northern lights, star trails, milky way) , landscape, travel and documentary, street sceneries.
I might need a second camera body. The R6 might be the first option (smaller sensor, a bit better dynamic range in low light).... but no weather sealing, and couple of other options removed from the more expensive R5. So I am wondering if the R7 might fit btw the R5 and R6 or might be (as I suspect) a downgrade solution of the R6?
Correct. And what I meant to express but, word salad...A crop factor will always be a positive value.
For smaller sensors than the baseline the crop factor will be greater than 1.0
For sensors larger than the baseline the crop factor will be a positive value less than 1.0
Leaving aside enlargement ration and viewing distance, and to be picky, I thought DOF was (essentially) dependent on entrance pupil and subject distance or f-stop (relative aperture) and magnification. Have I got that wrong?Not true. Depth of field relies on two factors: entrance pupil and total magnification.
Magnification includes:
1) subject distance
2) Focal length
3) enlargement ratio (which is dependent upon both sensor size and display size)
4) viewing distance
You can take the same exact image file and display it at two different sizes and the depth of field for each display size will be different when both are viewed from the same distance.
Or you can take the same displayed photo and observe it at two different distances. The DoF will be greater for the further observation than the nearer observation (assuming the lens isn't so blurry that no details are observable at even very close distances).
Because they left out video..It might have been a very good camera, but Nikon sold practically zilch of them.
Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?Leaving aside enlargement ration and viewing distance, and to be picky, I thought DOF was (essentially) dependent on entrance pupil and subject distance or f-stop (relative aperture) and magnification. Have I got that wrong?
Leaving aside things and only discussing a part of a principle seem to be a common trait here as of late.Leaving aside the +, does 2 2=4 make any sense?
Magnification is the amount of enlargement applied to the image between the size at which it is captured and the size at which it is viewed. Therefore, enlargement ratio and viewing distance are actually part of magnification – you can't 'leave them aside'.
As I said... Maybe(!) for sports shooters (which I'm not!) Aps-c(!!) wide angle lenses don't make sense. But for hiking purposes it does perfectly make sense... At least if you want a good compromise between wide angle, reach and weight!I'm a sports shooter and I'm definitely interested in wide angle lenses. It's just that I have enough sense to pair the telephoto lens with the crop body and the wider angle lenses with the FF body, instead of the opposite.
For example:
5D Mark IV + 24-105mm = 84°-23.3° diagonal AoV
7D Mark II + 70-200mm = 21.9°-7.7° diagonal AoV
So pretty much continuous coverage from 84° to 7.7° (FF equivalent of 24-320mm) with no overlap using only two cameras.
If I swap that, I'm more limited to
7D Mark II + 24-105mm = 57°-14.6° diagonal AoV
5D Mark IV + 70-200mm = 34°-12° diagonal AoV
Now I've only got coverage from 57° to 12° (FF equivalent of 38-200mm) with a lot of overlap.
Or even three bodies:
7D Mark II + 120-300mm f/2.8 (192-480mm FF AoV)
5D Mark IV + 70-200mm f/2.8
5D Mark III + 24-70mm f/2.8
Now I've got the FF equivalent AoV of 24mm-480mm (with overlap only between 192mm and 200mm if the 120-300mm is an honest 120mm at widest AoV), all at f/2.8 with only three cameras (and one lens that weighs as much as a bowling ball). The big lens is on the monopod and the other two cameras are on each side of my dual harness.