For more page-turning fun, you can now download the manual for the Canon EOS R6. The manual is available here.
Canon EOS R6 Body $2499
Canon EOS R6 w/24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM $2799
Canon EOS R6 w/24-105mm f/4L IS USM $3599
Continue reading...
For more page-turning fun, you can now download the manual for the Canon EOS R6. The manual is available here.
Canon EOS R6 Body $2499
Canon EOS R6 w/24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM $2799
Canon EOS R6 w/24-105mm f/4L IS USM $3599
Bottom of page 234.I want this camera too, but I may wait for the first (or second) price drop. As a hobbyist I don't really 'need' it. I have a 5DIII that still works.
One question I had...I thought this had a 12FPS mode and a 20FPS mode, but I didn't see anything about 20FPS in the manual. Was I confusing it with the R5?
Thanks! I was looking in the 'drive' section, which was not the right place, obviously.Bottom of page 234.
I got a 7D for about $280 years ago. Continues to work perfectly till I accidentally dropped it into a lake with non weather sealed Sigma 17-50. But the lens survived till today (maybe due to less electronics and easy to dry).Here i am reading the R6 and R5 manual while i'm looking for a $600 dollar used 7D mark II.
I'm poor.
Does it though?I got a 7D for about $280 years ago. [...] It has better high ISO performance then modern Canon 24MP sensors.
The 7D was my least liked Canon dslr. I found the noise at even modest ISOs to be inaccepable. The sensor in my M3 is dramatically better.It has better high ISO performance then modern Canon 24MP sensors.
The 7D and 7D II iso performance can be radically different depending on the RAW processor you use, I never got on well with either but I have seen remarkably good results from others who were using other software.The 7D was my least liked Canon dslr. I found the noise at even modest ISOs to be inaccepable. The sensor in my M3 is dramatically better.
I got a 7D for about $280 years ago. Continues to work perfectly till I accidentally dropped it into a lake with non weather sealed Sigma 17-50. But the lens survived till today (maybe due to less electronics and easy to dry).
It has been fully used from how it looks and when I test the shutter count with ML, it already clocked 860k+ ! What a badass workhorse! It has better high ISO performance then modern Canon 24MP sensors.
7D series are truly a toughened workhorse. Get one if you can find it cheap. Canon's shutter life is crazy good.
If such crazy shutters as the one found in the R5 become normal, it won't matter anymore either. I'm still shocked by that 500,000 rating.The Sony bodies I just sold were generally used with electronic shutter, so the shutter counts were extremely low. This will likely become more the norm as readout speeds increase, negating much of the benefit of a mechanical shutter.
I should haveDoes it though?
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.www.dpreview.com
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
www.photonstophotos.net
Here you go, something other than my experience (but people looks more at "test" so) ...and high ISO noise performance is not equivalent to DR. DR and noise is unrelated. I have in the past shot with all those bodies in comparison and yes, it's the same in real world too. Is it a concern? No, that difference doesn't matter s*** in real world. It's just a "number" fo the sake of it.Does it though?
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.www.dpreview.com
Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
www.photonstophotos.net
I'm not sure if I understand your reply. It seems you are offended? If that is the case, sorry. That was not my intent.Here you go, something other than my experience (but people looks more at "test" so) ...and high ISO noise performance is not equivalent to DR. DR and noise is unrelated. I have in the past shot with all those bodies in comparison and yes, it's the same in real world too. Is it a concern? No, that difference doesn't matter s*** in real world. It's just a "number" fo the sake of it.
I'm not sure if I understand your reply. It seems you are offended? If that is the case, sorry. That was not my intent.
I simply saw a statement that seemed wrong to me (7D beating the 24 MP sensor) and supplied some evidence for why I believe so. And sure, I accompanied that with a pretty short comment that left a lot up for interpretation. But we've had a good share of people equating lower resolutions to better low light performance (a phenomenon only observed when making a flawed comparison of different magnifications) and I projected that to you. So sorry.
Dynamic range in modern cameras is almost exclusively limited by noise. DR depends on Well capacity of the individual pixels and the noise floor (basically, how far you can raise shadows before noise drowns out details to an unacceptable degree). The amount of noise added to an image by the electronics is both responsible for a loss in DR and the difference in noise we see in those high ISO shots I linked to.