If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Unless the news is delaying release a couple more months to make sure they also out do the R3...
The thing is that you can always shoot a high MP body in crop mode if you don't need the high rez. But if you don't have the pixels you don't have them.
I was really hoping to be able to see how the eye control AF works in the videos, but it seems the display information doesn’t transfer to the external recording units. The initial impressions are it works really well. It’s unfortunate the only way it seems to see it in action is to use the camera.
The HDR spec of the EVF is only for the "OVF" mode where you lose your WYSIWYG feature. DPR video seemed to like the feature and I know there are some use cases for it like flash photography. But I wouldn't turn it on as I want my WYSIWYG.
Keep in mind that cameras like this are often more the sum of their spec sheets. As compared to the a9ii, it's a heck of an upgrade for sure and it's probably close to the a1. Keep in mind the maximum frame rate for the a9ii is 20FPS and you have to go to 12 bit lossy compressed to pull it off. The R3 can do 30 lossless at 14 bit (according to Jeff Cable, a friend of mine who was testing it at the olympics). That in and of itself significant. Even the a1 can't do 30FPS with dropping to 12 bit lossy RAW.
In addition, we don't know how good the AF is. I can tell you that the R5 is incredibly close to the a1 for wildlife work. This camera will likely have better AF performance than the R5, so I predict it'll edge out the a1.
I do wish it had identical memory card slots, for this level of camera two different types is not ideal - but @ $400 for a 160 CFa card, at least the CFb cards for this camera won't set you back as much.. Also, if you like having a grip, it does add $400 to the Sony cameras as well.
Also, 24MP isn't bad at all IMO. I shot the D5/6 for years and the D4 before that. Low MP is fine if you know how to use it (i.e. learn how to get close. don't crop, etc). I have hundreds of thousands of images at 20MP and have never had an editor balk at the resolution (although, admittedly, I don't do concentrate much on editorial work anymore) and have fearlessly made large prints as well.
The EVF is a bit less than expected. I had hoped for higher res and frame rate, but I suppose we'll have to see. The a1 EVF is so good I forget I'm looking at an EVF!
Still, overall, I think this one is a winner. I think $5500 is probably a better price, but I still think the R3 is going to impress. I may just go pre-order one
Folks playing old records in some cases. With new sensors their isn’t much if any negative higher iso performance with higher MP vs lower MP sensors. Also with lossless and compressed raw it has reduced the file sizes. Unless you are using an old computer there likely isn’t an impact to workflow. I know my 2017 imac has zero issues with the a1 or D850 files.IIRC an R1 is in the works. How many megapixel will that one be?
All of a sudden it seems like people are down on high Rez. That seems crazy to me, maybe I’m crazy, what….
I agree. And when one downsamples 50mp to 24mp with modern sensors the differences in noise shrinks to nothing unless you get in the super high iso ranges.
IIRC an R1 is in the works. How many megapixel will that one be?
All of a sudden it seems like people are down on high Rez. That seems crazy to me, maybe I’m crazy, what….
Yea plus with post processing noise really isn’t an issue anymore.I agree. And when one downsamples 50mp to 24mp with modern sensors the differences in noise shrinks to nothing unless you get in the super high iso ranges.
i get that a photographer at the olympics who has to transfer thousands of files to an editor half way around the world, to have said editor sort through the files and pick winners for web display certainly prefers to work with smaller files - makes sense. But for our type of photography, I don’t see much downside to resolution besides needing bigger RAM and bigger disks in our computers
well, one big downside in most cases is the additional cost. Comparing the Z6 to Z7 or R6 to R5 and the extra resolution costs $1000 more. If you don’t have a need for the extra resolution, it’s better to save the money. I agree there isn’t much if any of a downside from an IQ perspective; at least comparing the Z6 to Z7.I agree. And when one downsamples 50mp to 24mp with modern sensors the differences in noise shrinks to nothing unless you get in the super high iso ranges.
i get that a photographer at the olympics who has to transfer thousands of files to an editor half way around the world, to have said editor sort through the files and pick winners for web display certainly prefers to work with smaller files - makes sense. But for our type of photography, I don’t see much downside to resolution besides needing bigger RAM and bigger disks in our computers
Yeah but the R3 ain't cheap. I'm sure it is a great camera but why not have higher res if they can?
Maybe the R1 will have both? Will pros go for the R3 if a 60MP version is available?
I knew the A1 was a good deal soon as I looked through the EVF
Not surprised. Certainly looked like it was too much to handle.@Ralph No he didn't
It is interesting that Canon chose to build the R3 with 24MP when the A1 and Z9 are higher resolution. I would assume their market research showed a need. It may also have something to do with Canon dominating the sports market. I was hoping it would have been a little cheaper as this means the R1 will likely be $6999.
