I never got one single advertisement since I became CR Pro, honest. And even before, my ad-blockers were 99,5% efficient.Sorry to put this comment here. Does anyone else who is a CR Pro subscriber see advertisements on the CR site over the last week or so? I am wondering what is happening as one of the reasons for signing up as CR Pro, apart from supporting the site, is to have an advertisment-free experience. Now I am getting unwanted videos, big banners on the bottom etc. Also, when I tried to go to an article, clicking on the link resulted in an ad poping up. It is getting unpleasant. Could CR explain what is happening?
Why do even non-CR Pro folk have to put up with such annoyances anyway?Craig is himself annoyed with what is going on and working hard with the site developers to sort out the problems. This is very much a state-of-the art site and is continually being developed. I too have to bear with problems.
Hey, you are assuming analogue hands move once a minute. Even an old-fashioned grandfather (tall case) clock moves the hands in 1 second intervals. That reduces it to 0.0023%. In 1672 or so, Joseph Knibb made a split seconds clock that beat 1/3s for Professor Gregory at St Andrews University. That would reduce it being right 0.00077% of the time - getting closer to the accuracy of some of the comments here.Yeah, people have been saying that for a decade. Somehow, Canon continues to dominate the market.
But hey, a stopped analog clock is right 0.139% of the time. So keep going, you’ve probably got a similar chance.
Not that I've been getting hit with this stuff (ad blockers--but I did buy the lower of the two pro levels anyway). But I've often wondered the same thing in general about genuinely obnoxious advertising--everything from loud TV ads to popups that cover the center of the screen.Does it not occur to the advertisers and the website owners, that the most obvious responses to such intrusions are:
a) a strong likelihood that irritated users will visit the website *less* frequently.
b) a strong likelihood that irritated users will deliberately avoid buying anything from the advertisers in question.
Fortunately there is enough of interest on CR to keep me here despite the annoyances, but I've already permanently abandoned several other sites that use the same extremely intrusive advertising.
Seems in the USA everything costs some money.Not that I've been getting hit with this stuff (ad blockers--but I did buy the lower of the two pro levels anyway). But I've often wondered the same thing in general about genuinely obnoxious advertising--everything from loud TV ads to popups that cover the center of the screen.
There is a sincere belief in many quarters that ANY publicity is good publicity.
And you can't convince them otherwise.
Oh....you may have misunderstood me. Ad blockers don't cost money here, and I don't have a Canon pro membership. Let me explain.Seems in the USA everything costs some money.
My ad blockers (Ublock origin, for instance), were for free, just like my CPS platinum membership...
Sorry, I misunderstood you...had the same motivation to become CR Pro!Oh....you may have misunderstood me. Ad blockers don't cost money here, and I don't have a Canon pro membership. Let me explain.
The ad blockers are free here as well; I was saying that even though I had adblockers and never saw the ads (and I'm not seeing any now) on Canon Rumors, I still, nevertheless, got a Canon Rumors pro membership--for this site (not for Canon), one of the benefits was you'd never see ads. I decided to give them some money to thank them for the good information and education I got here.
Why not just shoot CRAW for anything you are using high FPS for and RAW for lower FPS stills? I use CRAW for anything wildlife where I want high FPS (birds, mammals, etc.) and RAW for landscape, etc. The CRAW files are quite capable of post editing improvements.I've been on the fence about buying an R3, mostly because of the unknown specs of the upcoming R1.
The main thing "holding me back" from just getting the R3 is that I'd prefer a larger sensor (between 35 and 65 MPx or so). If the R1 ends up being significantly more than that, like 80MPx or more, I'll need to consider whether that's really ideal. Handling 80MPx files would be a pain in the butt, especially if shot at 30fps or more. Noise performance would need to be equal to the R3 when down-sampled to consider it as an option.
There are also a few other features that I'd love to see in the high-end Canon cameras.
- pre-capture mode (buffering shots when half-pressing the shutter button, and saving a buffer once you press it)
- more options for burst rates (not just having 30, 15, and 3 fps options; perhaps also having options for 10 and 6 fps)
Cropping is an unfortunately reality of anyone taking wildlife/ bird images. And mpx are also important in fine art/landscape prints. I know it's a novel idea but maybe someone can make a pro body camera that can do it all. Then we wouldn't have to buy these cameras that are only good at select types of photography. Just because some people are satisfied with 24 mpx, that shouldn't be looked at as working for all.One will debate what is the "best" sensor size, on one hand, most people post things on the internet, or their computer screen which is in best 8K (2400*3600 pixels)? Thus asking why need for 50-60mpx while they can only see a fraction of it. Then you will say "crop", but again does one need to crop or just get closet to the object and fill the frame with the object, not copping it? Higher mpx means lower dynamic range, much more sensitivity to movements etc. I have a friend with the R6, I have the R5, and to be honest, for most pictures, there is no real difference between our pictures when we post them online. For sports and action photographers, speed of "action" is more important then higher mpx. the R1 is made for those people, not those taking higher mpx shots that needs lesser speed.
I can't imagine they can, different use-cases have different requirements and always will. The big bottom grip is useful if you want to take portrait pics, but otherwise it's excess bulk and weight. The fully articulating screen is useful for framing, unless you shoot movies when it makes eyes look creepy and a flip up is better. Full frame is great for various reasons, until you want a small and light lens.can make a pro body camera that can do it all
Cap One is a great product. It's definitely a worthy competitor to Adobe. But the file management of Cap One seems awkward.A bit OT from the thread, but I dropped Adobe like a hot rock years back when they went to the rental model.
I'm currently using Capture One, and love it...the color control, IMHO can't be touched.
But the catalog and library functions are a bit primitive and wonky.
You might look into On1 RAW...they are MUCH more LR like and have some really great tools.
You might give them a look...I left after LR 5 myself....
Smile, I think that you are also willing to spend about 20K++ on a body.. Cause any camera is somewhat a compromise to either side of the table. All in all there is one restriction and that is, TIME. The time needed to read the image, put it in the card and there are forces, beyond us, that manage that time. Higher resolution, higher FPS, higher dynamic range (number of bits for each pixel), and others, each pulling to other side and limits the others. With the advance of electronics the lesser time needed for each of those activities, the first digial camears were.. 1MP sensor and were very limited in speed and such? Now you have 50MP with 20-30FPS... but still having 100MP for fashion and architecture, 60FPS for sports, dynamic range to shoot in the dark, and the IBIS to allow you hand held at 1/2 second... I am sure one day we will get there, but not as for today. Give me R1 50MP, 30FPS, 100-200,000 ISO packed with global shutter 10fstp IBIS, quad pixel AF and that it won't break my bank account.... It will make me happy for more than a few years.Cropping is an unfortunately reality of anyone taking wildlife/ bird images. And mpx are also important in fine art/landscape prints. I know it's a novel idea but maybe someone can make a pro body camera that can do it all. Then we wouldn't have to buy these cameras that are only good at select types of photography. Just because some people are satisfied with 24 mpx, that shouldn't be looked at as working for all.
The global shutter would be pretty cool though, not gonna lie.
Ah! That's very interesting. I hope they implement something similar for the R1.