Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway
Upvote
0
Might As well put my kidney on the market now. I only need one anyway
The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?
C
except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.I seriously doubt there will be RF-S lenses developed. How many lens mounts could Canon have in the current marketplace? Now there are EF, EF-s, M, and R. Now adding another one? They want to reduce the number of mounts, not increase.
cayenne said:
Please forgive what is likely a stupid question....
But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?
C
I prefer dedicated crop sensor as I feel the camera and lenses can be lighter and cheaper.
I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful Real World issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density.Sure, as long as you don't mind your DLA running around f/2.8 (I didn't do the actual calculation to get the DLA of a 45MP APS-C sensor, but considering the 90D 32MP sensor has a DLA of f/5.x I can only imagine what the DLA would be with a pixel size a 45+MP APS-C sensor would have!)
Price aside that's the direction I thought Canon were going especially with the introduction of the 100-500 which has finally sold me on RF so I'm finding this rumour rather confusingPlease forgive what is likely a stupid question....
But rather than a dedicated crop sensor camera, could Canon not have a "crop mode" setting for say, the R5 and have it do the same thing a dedicated crop sensor camera does?
Seems that would be the route to go....give you everything you'd want in one body?
C
The R5 already has a crop mode. 17 mpx I think.Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
Just curious.
C
The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
Just curious.
C
Personally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.The crop mode on the R5 (which it will feature anyway) does not make the camera cheaper, and the 17 MP on the R5 in crop apparently are not enough for some. So some people would prefer a R7 with 45 MP on crop at less than $2000
But that still doesn't solve the issue of having a whole new line of lenses in a rapidly shrinking market. I think the best solution is to strengthen the EF-M lens line up then consolidate around the EF-M and RF lines in the long term.except that RF-S lenses would not introduce another mount, but fit the RF mount and could also be used on any FF R body in crop mode.
With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.Two card slots - maybe somebody smarter than me could work out whether CFexpress would be needed?
See also my previous post. Also, the 32MP sensor in the M6-2, when expanded to FF yields about 82MP. There is room in the world for a FF sensor with that many pixels but large pixel vs small pixel is another discussion.Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
Just curious.
C
btw I second Bert63s question about seeing some of the maximum-pixels-per-duck imagesPersonally I'm happy to pay way north of $2k for a camera like that, but a good summation otherwise.
Are there minimum write speed requirements for the cards, or does the camera throttle back write speed to match the card inserted?With the R6 RAW buffer of 240 images, I dont think you really need CFexpress.. Same goes with 4K ALL-I recording.
Smaller in physical size (i.e. APS-C), not smaller in Megapixels...
Larger, heavier and more expensive, with the same sensor size.APS-R system with better everything than current APS cameras and lenses.
I've yet to meet anyone who has had meaningful Real World issues with diffraction limits. I've got an M6 Mk II (same sensor as the 90D) and I can say with absolute confidence that DLA is irrelevant to my use and appreciation of its pixel pitch and density.
I don't expect to be meaningfully hurt by a 45mp sensor, and its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages for me.
It's surely logical to presume they knew what they were doing. A lot has been made on these forums about the 'lack of an upgrade path' from M to R, but Canon knew that limitation would exist, and it seems they decided it wasn't as important as other factors.
My take has always been, APS-C means M, FF now means RF. Canon seems to think the former is mostly about small size. Maybe it'll change a bit as DSLR sales decline relative to MILC, but I'd still be surprised by an APS-C RF body. The new superteles seem to point to their strategy for budget-minded birders.