Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.Bigger wingspan...
Upvote
0
Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.Bigger wingspan...
Not necessarily. I've taken shots of R/C airplanes as small as 10 inches in wingspan. As big as 23 feet too.
As entertaining as it is (not) to repeat the same pedantic discussions for the millionth time on this forum, I wonder if those who are actually interested in an R7 might be willing to express their opinion. (@Michael Clark?)
If an R7 is essentially an R6 with a crop sensor and comes in at close to the price point of the R6 (give or take $100 or so) would such a body meet the needs/desires of those who want an R7? I am unfamiliar with the R6, but it seems like the main differences between the R5 and the R6 (aside from the sensors) are the dual SD slots and the mode dial. While a CFExpress slot might be preferred by some, I suspect Canon might opt for dual SD slots instead.
It strikes me that Canon will need to balance features and price point to reach a target that is affordable enough, yet feature rich enough, to attract sufficient buyers to make it profitable. I suspect that a mirrorless 90D (R90?) would not be attractive to those who want a crop sensor R. So I wonder if a crop sensor R6 with a sensor resolution in the 90D range, would tick enough boxes.
If Canon does a non-L zoom with that range I doubt we'll get a constant aperture. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 always seemed to be out of character for Canon to me, like the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Maybe that's how Canon keeps us guessing, by releasing a solid L-like non-L lens that doesn't work on the high end bodies.
That might be true if the owner also owns a FF body. Otherwise, the R7 also would need a wide zoom, perhaps a 10-20 f/4 and a fast and small 30mm prime.
If Canon makes an R7, might they also introduce an M7 that is 90-95% common with the R7?
Exactly. I can't name any digital stills camera that doesn't also have at least basic functionality. Which is why I found cgc's comment odd.
Let's be clear that 7D users were quite happy with 18mp at the time and 7Dii are also happy with 20mp. Yes, they would like more and the 90D/M6ii showed a higher density sensor but "measly" is a poor choice of words
I recall the chorus of A7siii fanboys saying that 12mp was more than sufficient for stills.
I7 Mpx is hardly measly, it’s pretty close to the 7DII, in fact it‘s only 8% less resolution. I had a 32 Mpx 90D for a while and had to use f/4 or wider to take advantage of its resolution. At the isos we use for bird photography, 800 or more, the noise ratchets the resolution down and I was getting as good images on the 5DSR, though in ideal conditions the 90 D is very nice. 50 Mpx FF is bit of a sweet spot in practical terms.
The Df was no slouch in its time, it carried over a lot of tech from the D4. If you shot Nikon (glass) but had a penchant for Fuji design and dials galore as well, that was a good body for you. I have an acquaintance that still uses it.
Oh yeah I’m not denying it was a good camera. Just the design and decision to leave out video was the retro noveltyness.
I am expecting a 24MP stacked sensor with no blackout that can push 30 or more FPS 14bit. That puts it well ahead of the R5 for wildlife unless you are just taking pictures of stationary animals that don't move. Though I do recall the 7D as being popular for all kinds of sports shooters so I fully expect the selling point will be high FPS at full bit depth with a blackout free fully electric (perhaps even shutter free) sensor.
The Z9 gets around them by matching the read speed of a mechanical shutter. Stacked sensors like the A1 where already dreadfully close to hitting the magic number and by the R3 Mk2 and Z9 Mk2 we'll be surpassing the mechanical shutter I expect.
As for the product segmentation. The R7 doesn't have to be cheaper than the R6, the 7D and 7D Mk2 at least here were priced at or above the 6D and 6D Mk2 and I would argue the 7D was far more capable.
As for R3 sales for a start it isn't an R3. The R3 is full frame, in a 1-series body, has more buttons, the fancy touch joysticks, and eye control.
I appreciate your point, but think 50% of R5 price is a bit over-optimistic.
If the camera has the same build quality as the R5 (which if it's a sports/wildlife camera, it would need to have), and if it differs primarily in sensor size, the only real difference in manufacturing cost would be the physically smaller sensor. Countering that reduction in cost would be the cost of developing the camera and tooling. So I'd expect the cost to be around $3000.
If the camera is more affordable and designed more for the "Rebel" market, I'd expect the specification and build quality to be relatively poor and far from ideal for sports/wildlife, where cameras are regularly exposed to extreme weather and get more than their fair share of knocks and bangs.
With CF Express you wouldn't run into any buffering on a R7 with 24 MP 30 FPS. AF is just as reliable at 12 FPS as it is on 120 FPS depending on the camera, I just shot a bunch of tests with my Z9's 120 FPS mode and it happy produced over 2000 tack sharp images of my snakes striking things. The time to filter the images is a legit issue, I use Aftershot to help filter but really what we need is the Stacks feature from Aperture brought into Capture One so it can intelligently group a burst into one stack that you edit then promote the keeper candidates to the top.
And FYI I shoot wildlife at 15, 20, 30, and 120 FPS just now. Canon can and should let you pick a variable FPS for the R7.
Using the USH-ii card:
The R5 can record 5.5s of 20fps (110 shots/12bit) or 15s of 12fps (182 shots /14bit).
The R6 can record 9s of 20fps (180 shots/12bit) or >158s of 12fps (>1900 shots /14bit)
CFexpress 2.0 added type A (used and only made by Sony) and unavailable Type C (54 x 74 x 4.8 mm ie huge!) with 4 lanes.
The Type B cards currently in use today max out at theoretical 2GB/s
I have a Sony Tough 128GB Type B CFe card which has 1480MB/s sustained write speed.
8k/30 raw is 2600Mb/s (325MB/s) is far lower than the card speed
8k/30 IPB lite is 340Mb/s (43MB/s) only needs a V60 SD card as per the advanced user guide (page 915-917)
Let's assume that the R5c is also using the same compression ratio for its 8k/30 raw lite (no uncompressed raw option available) so it would need 86MB/s which still can record on a V90 USH-ii card. This is the same bandwidth needed for R5 8k/30 raw IPB
The A1's 8k is compressed and also can be recorded using the USH-ii card although users can insert a CFe Type A card.
So help me out here... how are "USH-ii cards way too slow"? There are many current USH-ii cards that have >200MB/s sustained writes speeds.
What's most exciting about this camera is the 7D II was the first camera to introduce Dual-pixel AF. Could the R7 introduce Quad-Pixel AF to us?
It is not always about cost. Many of us have big whites etc. Here in the UK, the older members of the birding community feat nothing of dropping £10k on a new scope each year, £3K on the latest bins etc. The same group do tend to walk a long way to see and photograph their subjects. Lugging around their scope, bins, two tripods, a 600mmF4 and a camera body is just a step too far. A lens like the 100-500 on a crop body handheld gets all the pixels on subject many desire with a substantially lighter load.
Compared to many in my local wildlife community I am relatively young and fit. I walk many miles each day photographing wildlife. While I occasionally use my FF setup , I prefer to travel light and react quickly. There are plenty of situations where the 100-400II I currently use with a 7D2 has allowed me to get a shot where I would have otherwise failed. Simple things like when laying in the grass shooting hares. Moving around with a 600 I would have spooked them. There have also been many times where the minimum focus distance of the 100-400 has meant I got the shot, that happened yesterday with hareswhen one came inside 3M away. Finally, here in the UK many reserves only allow you to shoot from their hides. These hides are often designed for birders, not togs. As such the windows are little more than slots too small for the girth of any big lens. Some I can only get the 100-400 through if I remove the hood. It is why lenses like the Nikon 500pf has become popular here.
It is not all about long lenses too. I shoot a lot of handheld macro. A crop body with a 60mm allows me to shoot longer without knackered, shaky arms. My MPE-65 is heavy, particularly when extended so gets less use. My 100L IS rarely gets used over my 60mm for the same reason. Hopefully a crop R7 will arrive and become my macro body of choice when the 80D I currently dedicate to the task dies.
I think often people on these forums think more about specs, what can be done. In practice we are often limited so having more options can only be a good thing. I know plenty of wildlife togs who have both FF and Crop setups so they can shoot as often as possible. I am sure Canon know that hence hopefully releasing a suit
BINoculars, given the context of birders and the mention of (spotting) scopes in the same sentence.What is a "bin" in this context?