I agree. I have to show up for certain gigs with as many as 20 cards. It will cost me a fortune to switch. I own a total of 4 Cfast cards that I use solely for backup. I'd much prefer they do what Nikon did with the D5 and have modules for either dual CF slots or dual XQD slots.The dual CFast slots is a deal breaker for me. I'd prefer one CFast and one CF. I'll probably grab a Mk II deal when the Mk III hits the market.
I don't care one iota about IBIS and will buy the camera sooner or later, sooner if it has more MP, later if not as my current cameras wear out.How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.
It won't impact my decision at all as almost all of my shooting is at higher shutter speeds, and my portrait lens is stabilized. Now on my next version of the EOS R, I would be more insistent on IBIS to go with the 28-70mm f/2.How many Canon shooters will decide not to buy this one without an IBIS? I think, a lot. Hopefully Canon has something in mind. In the last decade Canon made enough bad decisions. Those who switched to Sony aren't coming back soon and there are many many of them.
I've never understood what the big hoopla about illuminated buttons is. I rarely actually look at most of the buttons I push. I've already learned where they are before shooting in the dark with a new camera.Olympus had illuminiated buttons even on their entry level 4/3 DSLR E620. Nikon has been selling cameras with illuminated buttons for sometime now and it is a useful feature hoping to see on Canon cameras(maybe upto 7D mk II replacement).
Sorry. My bad. I meant D5.Nikon D6? Do you know someone who is testing it? And if so you compare a future camera with an old one?
Sorry but even so - which I doubt - you failed to address my post which referred purely to Ari's work and nothing else!
You see he has presented so nice pictures shooting BIF with Canon which makes it hard for me to believe him when he says something oposite (to his own work!)
JPEG may soon be obsolete with the adoption of HEIF. 4x the color range of JPEG and half the size RAW. I read that Canon will include HEIF in its upcoming cameras. Sounds good!Believe it or not, most mags use jpeg. It’s often speed to press that matters most. Nobody is sitting there fixing RAW images in the press room. It’s shoot, and transmit. Back at the mag, it’s select and print.
Most wedding photographers (by "wedding photogs" I mean those whose primary market is weddings, not PJs moonlighting by shooting weddings a few weekends per year) want more than 20MP because they hope to sell very large prints. At 300ppi, one can only go to 20 x 13 (effectively 18 x12, 14 x11, etc. at "standard"enlargement sizes). To do a 16 x 20 @ 300ppi, one needs an image 4,800 pixels on the short side, which equates to a 34.5 MP 3:2 sensor.The completely silent Shutter is a big plus for wedding photographers or general event photographers.
The linear difference between 20 MP (5472x3648) and 24 MP (6000x4000) is only about 9%.Remind me what the Sony A9II sensor resolution is? Was it 24MP? So you are technically saying Canon is a incompetent company if they released a specialist camera with sensor resolution 14% less measured along the longest side of the sensor?
Never mind all other parameters, build quality, lens and services eco system. You are going to a Sony. Ok. Do us a favour.
Maybe the reason most Canon shooters think the D5 has better AF is because they never see the D5 shooters' rejects, and the reason the D5 shooters think the 1D X Mark II has better AF is because they don't see all of the Canon shooters' rejects?When did I say any other brand was better than Canon?
Here are a few of my own. By the way, AF works very well when shooting events like these in TV lighting. Shooting in less ideal conditions is when the AF gets challenged and can be improved. In my experience Nikon has had the AF edge for a few generations, but not by much. Certainly not enough for me to switch. View attachment 187819View attachment 187820
That all depends on when almost all web connected devices can display HEIF. Until then, the lowest common denominator is JPEG. Currently only about 1/3 of Android phones in use run Android Pie. There are no current browsers (as of October 2019) that support HEIF.JPEG may soon be obsolete with the adoption of HEIF. 4x the color range of JPEG and half the size RAW. I read that Canon will include HEIF in its upcoming cameras. Sounds good!
How much for the lenses?What Canon NEEDS TO DO is to provide a camera that can take SEVERE lighting situations and Let Loose the Dogs of Noise (i.e. remove noise from low light shots!) I have some photos below taken with a very low end camera! YES! The photos are basically crap in terms of light gathering power and severe noise, BUT would Canon (and others!) not have the technical fortitude to be able to sample a point of light that is UNIFORM ENOUGH across a group of pixels such that noise would be reduced to levels that are MUCH MUCH BETTER than what is noted below?
The camera community is at a cross-roads as of late 2019. The ONLY WAY to really get truly great low-light gathering power is:
a) Increase the sensitivity of the individual photosites at any given sensor size by an at least 1.5x factor.
b) Make each sensor site LARGER so that it gathers more light.
Today, most manufacturers are going with "Option A", when I think it should be more about "Option B" where individual photosites on modern image sensors NEED to be MUCH LARGER than they are today. In order to get 20 to 30 megapixels at the LARGER than 7+ microns per photosite which is the MINIMUM THRESHOLD for advanced low-light capable still photo systems, it does mean the actual sensor size needs to get into the range of 65 mm and larger which is where Hollywood Cinema cameras are (i.e. Arri Alexa-65) but stuffed into a still photo camera body the size of a Fujifilm GFX-100. Once that happens, TRULY IDEAL low-light gathering power can be increased along with noise levels being decreased by a significant amount!
Again, I have previously espoused in many other posts that just such a camera revolution IS coming quite soon now.... BUT .... I have not yet seen Canon even REMOTELY ADDRESS the issue of a larger sensor with larger photosites at 20 to 30 megapixel resolutions. It IS coming sooner rather than later (i.e. a 65mm+ sensor in a GFX100-like body) but WHAT will Canon do in response when that large sensor revolution comes to stills photography?
Questions for YOU the enthusiast photographer:
1) What is your price threshold for still cameras that are greater than Full Frame in size where you would say YES I would buy it?
Is it $3000 US (2400 Euros), $5000, $7500, $9500?
2) Would you buy a Full Frame Camera that was around 16.7 megapixels (i.e. 5000 x 3350 pixels at 3:2 ratio) IF YOU KNOW that the sensor photosites are larger than 7 microns with superior low-light gathering power because they use a much more photosensitive substrate AND larger photosites than a Canon 1Dx Mk2?
3) Would you accept 24 megapixels ( i.e. 6000 by 4000 pixels) from a 65mm sensor (technically 65mm is only 56mm by 38mm at 3:2 aspect ratio) where the photosites would be 9.3 microns or larger giving you at least 70% GREATER light gathering area COMBINED with a much more photosensitive substrate?
4) For such a low-light monster of a 24 megapixel 65mm sensor camera in a body the size of a Fuji GFX-100, would you be willing to pay $8500 US (7700 Euros) for it?
Answer those questions and maybe we CAN make your dreams come true!