50 megapixels or 75 megapixels isn’t much of a difference. I expect the big change in this camera will be computing power, look for dual (or quad) digic9 to handle the processing load.
Upvote
0
Perhaps we can come up with some better taglines for Canon. On second thought, maybe the forum wouldn't be such a good place for that. "Canon has 56 percent share, so buzz off" has a certain ring of truth, but it wouldn't test well.
I'll give you that. For this 70mp beast to be good for wildlife they will probably have to improve DPAF continuous AF performance.
Mirrorless is clearly better when it comes to subject recognition tracking, but having had my hands on an A9 (a friend has one) my preliminary judgement is that DSLR off-mirror PDAF still dominates for AF tracking speed if you can keep an AF point on the target.
I am SO excited for this!
Even more for the 1DX III!!!
All I want is a more efficient Codec and I am sold. The 1DX II is pretty much perfect, except for this insane inefficient codec.
A higher resolution, less loud shutter and maybe 4k without the 1,3 crop and I would be totaly in love =)
???seriously. this isn't going to happen. this isn't a video camera.
why do people want to demand high end video features into a camera that is clearly 200% geared to stills?
Canon will most likely do a all rounder camera with good video and medium resolution stills, heck, they even basically stated they will in interviews. this isn't it.
if this camera comes out in the fall it will:
It's nice to dream and then there's the reality, Canon needs a fair amount of time and money to up their game with sensor and DIGIC hardware (and it's too early for DIGIC 9) to have this already in the pipeline and coming out in the fall. It doesn't matter if Sony, Nikon or whoever else can do it, Canon cannot. Not right now.
- not have IBIS.
- won't have high end Video and if it has 4K video it will be a horrendous crop factor
- it will be slow as snails unless there's dual DIGIC 8's in it. and if it has dual DIGIC 8's . the battery life will be pathetic. worse than the EOS R if it uses an LP-E6
you're right .. I'm sorry I didn't catch the III!!! it looked like two I's. I assumed you were talking about the EOS R(s) which was the original post. most of the post was in response to other posts through the first 3 pages though.???
Are you talking about the EOS R II or the 1DX III?
The 1DX II is a tremendous video camera. There is pretty much only one problem with it, and that is the MJPEG codec (and maybe the missing 4k on hdmi out).
There is a 99% certainty that they will include another codec for 4k. there is simply no reason not to do it. And the reason they got not 4k hdmi out on the 1DX II was probably because the HDMI 2.0 specification where too late. 2020 there is NO reason not to include it.
If you talk about the EOS R II - you are probably correct.
I know what you're trying to say about the A9, but what was interesting to me about it is this. I rented one for a week. I actually shot photos at a couple of junior high volleyball games. Being able to pick a small region and have it prioritize face/eye tracking in that region upped my "keeper/possible" percentage tremendously. Granted, I had "Sony Claw" after the games due to the ergonomics, but the files seemed to process fairly well for high ISO.
I don't know if this is relevant but I hated Adobe's profiles for the 5Ds and got the Huelight profiles which I love. Crushed shadow tonality was one problem with the Adobe profiles. I knew this before I bought the 5Ds from test files I had processed.
My first question would be if you have the same experience using DPP? I want to use ACR for the features and detail recovery but had to get away from the included profiles.
Canon dominates the ILC market, and has for 16 years and counting. They've had ~50% market share for the past decade, and have that today. Please remind us all why they need to deliver 'some real sensor technology changes'. Note: "Because I wants it, Precious," is not a reason.
As usual, you miss the point...either through intentional obtuseness or inability to comprehend. You’re the one who claimed that Canon is ‘buying time to bring real sensor technology changes’. Given the common DRumbeat on these forums that Canon’s sensors have been ‘behind’ for many years, and the fact that they haven’t lost any market share, I asked you to explain why Canon needs to ‘bring real sensor technology changes’. Clearly you had no cogent response, so you went with snark instead. Sad.Neuro, you are sounding like a broken record with your constant "Canon dominate the ILC market" rumblings. What does have the market domination in common with the technology advancements? Please go and buy your next 6DII or EOR RP if you wish so, I will gladly pass on, so there is a better chance one is left for you in the store
Neuro, you are sounding like a broken record with your constant "Canon dominate the ILC market" rumblings. What does have the market domination in common with the technology advancements? Please go and buy your next 6DII or EOR RP if you wish so, I will gladly pass on, so there is a better chance one is left for you in the store
40mp is enough. 50-70mp is overkill and only for a niche market, UNLESS it can shoot at lower resolution (30-40mp) with the same or better image quality than the EOS R / 5d4.
I think it is possible that the 20mm flange distance was selected to create space in the body for future iterations of the electronics. E.G. FF 4K would generate a lot of heat. A thicker body could hold a larger heat sink or other strategies for dissipating heat. It could also house larger, more powerful processors for high rate FPS of high MP sensors. IBIS also takes room. IMO a larger area to incorporate it may allow them a more ambitious and effective design.What would be more fantastic is if it had a shorter flange distance than the EF-M system, so you could then mount EF-M lenses on it for such shooting. (EF-M film-flange distance is 18mm. RF is 20mm. Other makes are as short as 16mm. I see no technical advantage to 20mm. It'd be nice to use EF-M lenses instead of EF-S lenses on the R because they aren't retrofocus designs. EF-S lenses, like EF, are compromised to make room for the mirror. EF-M and RF aren't.)
If I had to point to one decision by Canon that was most likely to have me switch from EF to Sony, it would have been the 20mm flange distance.
Oh, I definitely agree. There were plenty of times I was frustrated as it wasn't doing what I wanted and I couldn't get it to focus where I wanted it to without choosing spot. I don't know if it was me, or just the way it was programmed.I definitely need more stick time on my friend's A9 before I can fully judge its AF performance. And I do not want it to seem like I'm hand waving AI subject tracking. I'm certain it can increase keeper rates in certain situations.
[...] many would like a 5DIV equiv. All the things the 5D has (that the EOS R is missing) and [...]
Precisely what 5D things do you want?
Jeah, its gonna be a realy exciting camera looking forward to it. I love the image from the 1DX II, but the codec is realy a hassle. It can be edited easily in Premiere, but there is pretty much no videoplayer that can replay it fluently, which is annoying.you're right .. I'm sorry I didn't catch the III!!! it looked like two I's. I assumed you were talking about the EOS R(s) which was the original post. most of the post was in response to other posts through the first 3 pages though.
the 1DX Mark III would certainly have h.264, and yeah, I would imagine it will have great video. The lack of h.264 (or 5) and HDMI out was a DIGIC problem that DIGIC 8 fixed. I wouldn't be surprised if we see the first oversampled 4K video in that from Canon. They already can do it, just not yet in an ILC form factor.