There are no consumer/prosumer 8K cameras on the market so far, as far as I know. It is understandable that Canon might not know how it should be priced.
Zenon Char wrote:
$6,000 is quite a test number. So far the rumours are under $4,000. That is quite a gap. I wonder what they would achieve by that test. I’m no expert but they could have hired me to tell them how reactions to $6,000 would be. Not good. Cheque please
Zenon Char wrote:
$6,000 is quite a test number. So far the rumours are under $4,000. That is quite a gap. I wonder what they would achieve by that test. I’m no expert but they could have hired me to tell them how reactions to $6,000 would be. Not good. Cheque please
A $6,000 price point could be floated if there were no other competitors. It’s more likely it was an error and not a trial balloon.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
There are no consumer/prosumer 8K cameras on the market so far, as far as I know. It is understandable that Canon might not know how it should be priced.
The R5 is aimed at Sony’s A7r4–they know the price-point required to be competitive.
alundeb wrote:
The R6 sounds like the perfect wedding camera "everyone" has been asking for.
Good AF
Dual card slots
Small raw files
Not overly expensive
I'm not in the business, anyone who is, what you be missing ?
( apart from weddings to photograph these days )
Smart move using dual card slots and 20MP. I would imagine the bulk of wedding shooters out there are doing lower-budget events. Not everyone has the money to pump into a high-end wedding photog with top-of-the-line gear. Canon must have seen how Nikon found success targeting that market for years with the D750 and decided it might be time to risk cannibalizing higher-model sales. The smaller file sizes at 20MP are still way more than sufficient for wedding work without slowing down processing time and taking up storage space, especially if shooting at higher ISO levels where lots of MP ends up getting blasted away by noise reduction.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Smart move using dual card slots and 20MP. I would imagine the bulk of wedding shooters out there are doing lower-budget events. Not everyone has the money to pump into a high-end wedding photog with top-of-the-line gear. Canon must have seen how Nikon found success targeting that market for years with the D750 and decided it might be time to risk cannibalizing higher-model sales. The smaller file sizes at 20MP are still way more than sufficient for wedding work without slowing down processing time and taking up storage space, especially if shooting at higher ISO levels where lots of MP ends up getting blasted away by noise reduction. ...Show more →
So how are you going to close your client when your competitor pitches that they are using a 40 or 60 MP system?
Atlasman2 wrote:
So how are you going to close your client when your competitor pitches that they are using a 40 or 60 MP system?
Do clients actually care about this? Honestly asking, I don't deal in that world, but I'd be shocked if they knew enough about photography where this mattered on a regular basis.
Atlasman2 wrote:
So how are you going to close your client when your competitor pitches that they are using a 40 or 60 MP system?
Easy. Just upscale the 20MP to 60MP in post.
It's been decades since I shot a wedding, but I never had anyone care at all about the gear being used. I was a low to mid-budget wedding shooter, so maybe the higher-end gigs would ask questions. 20MP is still a lot of resolution for doing prints that could easily be done with 12MP.
Atlasman2 wrote:
So how are you going to close your client when your competitor pitches that they are using a 40 or 60 MP system?
Simple.
If the client even ask such a question, just pull out sample 60, 45 and 20mp 8 x 10 prints from your portfolio and ask the client if they can tell you which one is the higher resolution.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't even tell the difference let alone an average non photographer person.
lighthound wrote:
Simple.
If the client even ask such a question, just pull out sample 60, 45 and 20mp 8 x 10 prints from your portfolio and ask the client if they can tell you which one is the higher resolution.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't even tell the difference let alone an average non photographer person.
An yet the megapixel war raged for the last two decades. Why is that?
Atlasman2 wrote:
So how are you going to close your client when your competitor pitches that they are using a 40 or 60 MP system?
lighthound wrote:
Simple.
If the client even ask such a question, just pull out sample 60, 45 and 20mp 8 x 10 prints from your portfolio and ask the client if they can tell you which one is the higher resolution.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't even tell the difference let alone an average non photographer person.
Atlasman2 wrote:
An yet the megapixel war raged for the last two decades. Why is that?
It's a video camera. There is no need for megapickle specs nowadays.
padam19 wrote:
In the current market, it is more like an A7III (or A7IV) type of camera where it has a lower megapixel count with great low-light performance, but it is also able to do most of what the TOL model that at a considerably lower price.
I expect the A7sIII (or rather A9s) to be in the 4000$ price bracket with even higher frame rates, so not a direct competitor.
I was thinking about it, and it just doesn't make much sense that they'd release a budget model now having only 20mp. The R and RP have more, and likely to cost a lot less in the near future. I think it is more likely some kind of high iso or speed body.
I think it was in the front in the photo? Also if you look at the name, R6, it looks more like the successor to the R5, or something. You'd think that they'd name it differently if it's a pared down model.
padam19 wrote:
Also if you look at the name, R6, it looks more like the successor to the R5, or something. You'd think that they'd name it differently if it's a pared down model.
EB-1 wrote:
The naming makes no sense. R, RP, R6, R5, then what next
EBH
It is the same as Canon did with the M series. Originally there was no M6 or any thing like that, it was just the EOS M. Now you have an EOS R as the first of the generation. In Canon terms the higher the number the lower spec'd the camera is. 1D 5D 6D, 7D etc. Now you'll have an R5, R6, and likely in a year or two an R1. I would guess an R7 to be an APSC camera if they decide to make one in mirrorless. Then you might have an R10 or R20 or whatever they decide to start an APSC version in.
JohanEickmeyer wrote:
Smart move using dual card slots and 20MP. I would imagine the bulk of wedding shooters out there are doing lower-budget events. Not everyone has the money to pump into a high-end wedding photog with top-of-the-line gear. Canon must have seen how Nikon found success targeting that market for years with the D750 and decided it might be time to risk cannibalizing higher-model sales. The smaller file sizes at 20MP are still way more than sufficient for wedding work without slowing down processing time and taking up storage space, especially if shooting at higher ISO levels where lots of MP ends up getting blasted away by noise reduction. ...Show more →
Well.... clients are all over the place. but if there is a number it will be megapixels. beside a name brand.
the R5 will be good for me in wedding coverage.
Plus it will have cr3 raw files. this is a 1/2 size raw file. love this option on the eos R.
there are all types of weddings... granted we will be starting small-ish.
the R5 is going to replace my 5DIV.
I will still keep a 5DIV as backup.
Atlasman2 wrote:
An yet the megapixel war raged for the last two decades. Why is that?
Well, I remember looking at cameras twenty years ago and a good model was 1-2 megapixels. So, in those days, that was definitely too small. Then there is a point where it's good to have the ability to crop and still make large prints. Also, there is the fact that many photographers are not purely driven by producing an excellent product to clients. Some might have ten thousand dollar monitors and want to start at it from an inch a way. So there's that....
)
