You are equating contrast and sharpening with resolution, but they are different. Edge sharpness can be improved by a variety of procedures, including USM, and, as Aussieshooter implies, that if edge sharpness is what is important to you, as in architecture and little cropping, then an AA-filter won't cause much problem. But, for resolution, details that are lost by blurring cannot be simply restored by sharpening. So, if you need pixel level resolution, which I often do, the AA-filter does lose detail and gets in the way.
Didn't work on me Keith either ! I did a comparison on the two cameras and came to the same conclusion.
If you compare the two RAW files with no sharpening applied to either, then yes the SR has a little more contrast and is sharper. Add a little judiciuos USM and the difference, to all intents and purposes, has gone.
Even at f/4
In fact I must dig out my comparison files and have a little competition on CR to see if anyone can guess which is which.
nope it's a should-be, not a must-be, in my opinion.
They say IBIS increases sensor heat and therefore noise and therefore decreases the DR.
If there's a tradeoff between IBIS and DR, I'd prefer to have a better DR.
IBIS would be great to have but only if it doesn't affect the DR.
I would buy it with or without ibis
Doesn't the a7Riv drop the bit rate in that burst mode? I'm pretty sure there are some considerable sacrifices to get up to 10fps. I guess it's still useful to get up to that speed when you really need it, but for most applications I'd probably stick with the lower speed and higher bit rate. To each their own though!
I understand this point of view but let's pretend for a minute. If the competition didn't have it, would you demand Canon to have it ? In the past year I have seen 90% of the desire for Canon products to be keeping up with the Sony/Joneses...not asking for bodies and lenses for the sake of particular shooters needs.(meaning, they always mention Sony) I couldn't give a rats tuchus what systems which I am not invested in have features others are using. But that's just me I guess, everyone else is in the 'Play catch up Canon/Canon is *******' race. Perhaps it's the Ebay culture of easily parting with and selling your goods (which I find to be a major PITA) for others that fuels the GAS and self deluded needs.
If there were no difference at all, it would mean that the AA filter was useless.
I've already responded to this in the following messageYou can always turn off IBIS and make your sensor cooler, if you perceive it makes a difference.
Hi cayenne,Keith's website?
Not familiar with that, but would like to look at it if you could post a link please?
I've been contemplating a T/S lens in the near future to play with....
In Japan. By 2%. In a segment that comprises 10% of that ILC market. But good for Sony, and for us – competition benefits consumers.Sony is now the sales leader in full frame cameras (mirrorless and DSLR combined). Canon has slipped to 2nd place. Time for Canon to really get it right!
Indeed, but this is Canon, we need to be wary, what their cpable of offering and what they do offer is different. Also it might need dual digic 9.The M6 II does 32.5 MP 14 FPS with tracking. Assuming the total throughput would remain the same, this puts a 75 MP Canon at 6 FPS. If they can go beyond the performance of their ~ 1k M camera with what will likely cost north of 3k, we can expect very competitive performance I think.
I'm definitely interested in an EOS RS, if that's what Canon calls it. I wonder if this will be the camera that brings back a greatly improved version of the long-gone Eye Controlled Focus? I've seen some rumors that Canon may be working on an updated version of that system. The old systems in the A2E and Elan 2E film cameras weren't perfect by any means, but I've always hoped Canon would bring that feature back to market. Current Eye AF systems are getting better all the time, but combining that technology with the ability to track exactly where you're looking within the frame would be even better. This has been an interesting discussion on the pluses and minuses of fully articulated screens. I happen to love them! As a stills shooter with little interest in video, I use the screens on my M50 and 6D Mark II frequently, both in landscape and portrait mode, often for low close-up shots with wide lenses. The fact that the extended screen extends to the left side of the camera (from the user's perspective) doesn't bother me at all. I understand that the screen wouldn't extend fulliy when using an L bracket; I have the same problem when I attach my bracket for portraits. But the screen does come out far enough for me to use it for vertical shots even with the bracket in place.
You can always turn off IBIS and make your sensor cooler, if you perceive it makes a difference.