is it possible to have ProRes internal recording to CFExpress in the future Canon EOS R1?
Upvote
0
Anything is possible on a product that doesn't existis it possible to have ProRes internal recording to CFExpress in the future Canon EOS R1?
...The pixels are getting so small that I'm not sure how much better the 90MP images will be compared to the 45MP images, but if you have their best L quality R lenses then I can only hope it will be worth getting the R5s instead of a 2nd R5.
how could microlens design help with corner sharpness of the lens?I hope they do something special with the microlens design of the high-res R sensor to improve corner performance. Even high-end lenses like the RF 50 f/1.2L shot at f/5.6 and f/8 show some corner weakness at 2:1 magnification on the R5.
RF is where the lenses are (or will be) at though. Think big whites.I would probably buy the APS-C model if it's a 7D3 equivalent but I don't think the market is all that large. What I wonder is whether could use the same basic architecture to develop something similar for the M-mount and how well such a camera would sell.
Quite possibly yes. Although maybe not. For me it would make sense to have just one APS-C R mount, as in a fast crop sports/wildlife body, but keep the rest of the range full frame... and the M line just be about crop sensors only. I dunno, it’s a confusing one.Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?
Do you think the microlens design at the corner of the sensor has anything appreciable to do with "corner weakness", relative to the weakness caused by the lens itself? I wonder if they take the average angle of incidence into each pixel into account when they lay out the pixel microlens center/shape in the sensor? It's always easier to have the same microlens center & shape for all pixels for ease of microlens design & fabrication, but with advanced computers nowdays you'd think they might have considered this.I hope they do something special with the microlens design of the high-res R sensor to improve corner performance. Even high-end lenses like the RF 50 f/1.2L shot at f/5.6 and f/8 show some corner weakness at 2:1 magnification on the R5.
If the M system is selling well, then I'd continue it as long as it is profitable if I was Canon. It doesn't have an EVF, so it'd be a different body from the R APS version, in case there are folks who want a really small camera without an EVF (which there probably are).Good point but will 1 or more APS RF cameras mean an end to the existing EOS M system ?
I love my R and it fits my finances. Of course, I would not say no to a R5 if it was given to me. But I wouldn't spent the money on a R5 out of my pocket. And the R is a great offer for the money, at least in my opinion.
I'd be happy with the same sensor in the R6 body (IBIS, joystick etc). Maybe better AF implementation. Otherwise I'm very happy with the R.That EOS R replacement is interesting. I wonder if it will get dual card slots. I kind of doubt it. I think they'll keep that a differentiator for the R6. But it will probably have a higher MP sensor with lower frame rates. Ugh that'd be a tough decision as far as what to upgrade to coming from a 5D3.
-Brian
I had the same issues with my Ikelite housing. Moving from the 5Diii to the 5Div was a bigger improvement overall. More pixels, faster AF/fps etc was very useful underwater. Buying the 5Div second hand was not too expensive and I ended up selling it for more than I paid when I went to the R5As an underwater photographer, I’m holding off upgrading my 5DM3 until I see where the R bodies go. It’s frustrating for folks like us. We invest thousands of dollars in underwater gear and the housings we use are made for a very specific camera dimensions and button locations. Those housings usually cost more than the camera itself. One thing I like about my 5D camera is Canon not changing the external dimensions for three cameras (5DM3, 5DM4, 5DSR) so my $4K housing can use all three cameras.
I wonder if Canon will continue this tradition with the R5, or begin changing them as new cameras are introduced, and at a faster schedule than the 4-year cycle that Canon original did with the 5D models.
First-world problem for sure, but it does make me wonder.
How does the naming work with the C-series. Would a C50 be a step down from C70, or up?
how could microlens design help with corner sharpness of the lens?
Do you think the microlens design at the corner of the sensor has anything appreciable to do with "corner weakness", relative to the weakness caused by the lens itself? I wonder if they take the average angle of incidence into each pixel into account when they lay out the pixel microlens center/shape in the sensor? It's always easier to have the same microlens center & shape for all pixels for ease of microlens design & fabrication, but with advanced computers nowdays you'd think they might have considered this.