mogud wrote:
I said in a post on page 2 of this thread that the number of pages would exceed the "OMG - The 7D II is Coming" thread. Well....my prediction was right. Looks like Psychic1 doesn't have the monopoly on predictions.
Here's hoping my prediction for the thread below is accurate. So far, so good.
Three fps would be plenty for me, for a high MP, high DR camera for 'scenic' photography. That's why the A7R is a bona fide contender for Canon users (I'm on the fence...).
OTOH, for action photography, my 1DX and 1DIV have sufficient MP and DR.
jcolwell wrote:
Three fps would be plenty for me, for a high MP, high DR camera for 'scenic' photography. That's why the A7R is a bona fide contender for Canon users (I'm on the fence...).
OTOH, for action photography, my 1DX and 1DIV have sufficient MP and DR.
For Landscape you will LOVE the A7R. The only thing you will regret is not getting it sooner. It is not perfect, the battery suxs, the shutter is not great and you need to obviously use an adapter and maybe some spacers (for use of the tilt and shift lenses) and brackets but if you want to have the BEST image quality using Canon lenses (short of using a Medium Format Digital Back on an ALPA FPS with Canon TSE lenes) that is the only choice.
Canon has obviously made Photojournalism / Event and Sports photography the #1 priority in their top end cameras. It is a shame because their lens line contradicts this since the updated 24 TS-E and the 17 TS-E are fairly recent lens additions and perfect for landscape.
jcolwell wrote:
Three fps would be plenty for me, for a high MP, high DR camera for 'scenic' photography. That's why the A7R is a bona fide contender for Canon users (I'm on the fence...).
OTOH, for action photography, my 1DX and 1DIV have sufficient MP and DR.
I want 10FPS+ and 30MP+. It shouldn't be that difficult.
jcolwell wrote:
Three fps would be plenty for me, for a high MP, high DR camera for 'scenic' photography. That's why the A7R is a bona fide contender for Canon users (I'm on the fence...).
OTOH, for action photography, my 1DX and 1DIV have sufficient MP and DR.
EB-1 wrote:
I want 10FPS+ and 30MP+. It shouldn't be that difficult.
EBH
10 fps and 30 MP would be nice, but I'd prefer 5 fps and 45MP. I'd even settle for 60MP and 1 fps.
jcolwell wrote:
Three fps would be plenty for me, for a high MP, high DR camera for 'scenic' photography. That's why the A7R is a bona fide contender for Canon users (I'm on the fence...).
OTOH, for action photography, my 1DX and 1DIV have sufficient MP and DR.
EB-1 wrote:
I want 10FPS+ and 30MP+. It shouldn't be that difficult.
EBH
jcolwell wrote:
10 fps and 30 MP would be nice, but I'd prefer 5 fps and 45MP. I'd even settle for 60MP and 1 fps.
Well, there would be a Low drive speed mode if you don't need high speed at the moment, but the reverse is not possible.
jcolwell wrote:
10 fps and 30 MP would be nice, but I'd prefer 5 fps and 45MP. I'd even settle for 60MP and 1 fps.
I would prefer if Canon separated high MP sensors from high FPS and came out with different bodies more appropriately suited along those lines. So the studio/landscape/architecture photogs can get the high resolution they need without paying for FPS which they'll likely seldom use, and the wedding/sports/PJ photogs can get the FPS they need without paying for the extra megapixels they'll seldom ever use.
We each buy different lenses for different shooting scenarios...so it should be with camera bodies
artd wrote:
I would prefer if Canon separated high MP sensors from high FPS and came out with different bodies more appropriately suited along those lines. So the studio/landscape/architecture photogs can get the high resolution they need without paying for FPS which they'll likely seldom use, and the wedding/sports/PJ photogs can get the FPS they need without paying for the extra megapixels they've seldom ever use.
+1
artd wrote:
We each buy different lenses for different shooting scenarios...so it should be with camera bodies
Sneakyracer wrote:
For Landscape you will LOVE the A7R. The only thing you will regret is not getting it sooner. It is not perfect, the battery suxs, the shutter is not great and you need to obviously use an adapter and maybe some spacers (for use of the tilt and shift lenses) and brackets but if you want to have the BEST image quality using Canon lenses (short of using a Medium Format Digital Back on an ALPA FPS with Canon TSE lenes) that is the only choice.
Canon has obviously made Photojournalism / Event and Sports photography the #1 priority in their top end cameras. It is a shame because their lens line contradicts this since the updated 24 TS-E and the 17 TS-E are fairly recent lens additions and perfect for landscape. ...Show more →
I second that. The Sony sucks for things that move, esp. with third-party glass, but it's an awfully nice sensor to set up with your Canon lenses and it's easier to use with manual lenses than DSLRs are.
That said, if Nikon had announced the D810 earlier, I'd probably be shooting Nikon with Nikon glass and would never have gotten the Sony.
johnvanr wrote:
That said, if Nikon had announced the D810 earlier, I'd probably be shooting Nikon with Nikon glass and would never have gotten the Sony.
For gears, timing is everything. For real estate, it's location.
Sneakyracer wrote:
Canon has obviously made Photojournalism / Event and Sports photography the #1 priority in their top end cameras.
I'm good with that.
artd wrote:
I would prefer if Canon separated high MP sensors from high FPS and came out with different bodies more appropriately suited along those lines.
I agree. I never understood the unification of the 1D bodies. The old 1Ds/1D combo was really quite a good model and let people choose what they wanted to prioritize. Will be interesting to see if Canon goes back to it or not. One thing is for sure, we won't see the old price structure. I figure the 1DX2 will probably move into the $7K range and a potential high MP 1D will move towards $10K. Ouch!
Archive 2014 · OMG - 1DsX in NYC...
