hahahaha.In a perfect world, Canon would stop changing their user interface
that was actually in the draft, but it got so long I wanted to dive into it a bit more, just to give y'all the chance to tell me that canon knows best.
Upvote
0
hahahaha.In a perfect world, Canon would stop changing their user interface
It could be smaller, but personally, I'd rather use the RF16mm on FF than the RF10-18 on APS-C. Price-wise I would, like you, prefer an APS-C sensor. But if Canon releases a proper (the lack of EVF bump makes it a proper body) EOS-M inspired body with a FF sensor, I will very likely buy that and sell my R8.It's more the size (and cost) of the overall kit can be much smaller with APS-C than with full frame. With respective compromises.
The R6II, R7, R8 and R10 have it, but the R50 and R100 don't.I don't know why they put that on the m6 Mark ii and then promptly forgot to put it anywhere else.
And Raw Burst works extremely well in the R7. I can semi-consistently get ball-on-bat shots using it with the electronic shutter. The only problem is that the bat is slightly curved. I haven't tried it with the R6-2 but it should work even better.The R6II, R7, R8 and R10 have it, but the R50 and R100 don't.
32MP * (1.6*1.6) is 83MP, or said differently: if you take the wafer that has the R7 sensors and cut that into FF sized pieces instead of APS-C sized pieces, you'd end up with 83MP FF sensors.@Richard CR would you please explain how the R7 has an upscaled equivalent of 83mp? I've seen this mentioned numerous times, but still can't wrap my head around this concept.
Get well soon, Richard, and thank you for praising a Canonet in your article. I am happy if find something of the film era on digital photo sites. I have and still use two Canon 7's from early 60s, since I prefer interchangeable lenses - my set includes a rare Canon 85mm f/1.8 LTM, a gorgeous lens.I'm a little high on meds this week as I hurt my back pretty bad. I'll apologize in advance if something in this article doesn't make senseBut I wanted to get it out sooner than later.
I had something else in this article but I thought it may be a little more controversial so decided to wait on that. I'll write THAT up in a longer article near the end of the month.
I said the same in another thread, where I also explained some of the shortcomings of high MP sensors because of the nature of wave optics due to diffraction limitation. Personally, I therefore would never buy a 120 MP FF camera as long as Canon offers lower MP cameras such as the R6. It wouldn't make much sense for most applications and just pump up the data storage volume for no gain. When I want high pixel density for birding with superteles or for macro, my R7 delivers the image I'd crop anyway if I would use a high MP FF camera.32MP * (1.6*1.6) is 83MP, or said differently: if you take the wafer that has the R7 sensors and cut that into FF sized pieces instead of APS-C sized pieces, you'd end up with 83MP FF sensors.
Also, that 120MP APS-H sensor wasn't dual pixel, so it would only be a 60-ish MP APS-H sensor if the pixels stay the same size.
Yepp, the wish for a new fast 180 or 200mm full macro lens is the "Groundhog day" of Canon users.yeah that's been on alot of wish lists for .. decades now? when did the EF one come out.. 1995 or so wasn't it?
Do you have the link to that?I said the same in another thread
Do you have the link to that?
It's not that they can't see red, it's that a red grid doesn't help them focus. The EL-5 has been out for a while, and on newer cameras it uses the LED modeling lamp for AF assist (and on the newest cameras, it varies the intensity of the AF assist modeling lamp based on ambient light). Of course, it's not sub-$200, that part is certainly a dream.Can't wait for the new Canon speedlite with LED, similar to Godox V860iii and blue/green AF assist beam since the new Canon mirrorless cams can't see red and sub $200. Well, I can always dream.