EB-1 wrote:
Whether the readout speeds are relatively good for the level of technology used, doesn't really help me. Like many Canon products, it will be just good enough for the intended market.
I generally agree about Canon and others making just enough changes to generate some interest, to keep leading us along on an incremental timeline. But at this price point Canon eclipsed both Nikon and Sony in respect to sensor speed until the Z6III's partially stacked sensor pulled even with the R6II. The only usable-for-action in e-shutter Sony cameras are the higher-end a9 and a1 models. Granted, you can buy a 2017 vintage original a9 with a stacked sensor in the R6 category price range. Which to me is why Canon should be putting a 'true' (not partially) stacked sensor in the R6III. If it's indeed the C50 sensor, I might not buy it because it won't improve e-shutter performance over the R6II. I'd probably get a used R3 instead.
Other than the rumors about the upcoming Leica M, it’s such a relief that new cameras no longer lead me to potentially desire them as the new specs don’t deliver anything meaningful for me over the cameras I already own.
johnvanr wrote:
Other than the rumors about the upcoming Leica M, it’s such a relief that new cameras no longer lead me to potentially desire them as the new specs don’t deliver anything meaningful for me over the cameras I already own.
Except for the R7 MkII......C'mon give us a decent APS-C cam. please please.
A true successor to the 7D MkII .....please please....
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Except for the R7 MkII......C'mon give us a decent APS-C cam. please please.
A true successor to the 7D MkII .....please please....
They could sell a lot of units to wildlife shooters by dropping a really nice APS-C sensor in an R6 body.
I’ve been using an R6 since it was introduced, but starting to feel a bit less excited about the R63. I don’t shoot video so photo specs are where my interest are. The MP increase is very welcome, however with it seemingly going to be a non-stacked sensor, it becomes a bit of a conundrum for me. If the price comes in at $2899, a lightly used R52 starts to look really attractive for just a small amount more, or honestly a wash if tax (8.5% in CO for me) is part of the equation on an R63 . I’d get a stacked sensor, even more MP and presumably the same AF specs. I suspect higher ISO performance (without downsampling the R52) will be worse which I’d have to consider for some of what I do, but won’t know to what extent until the R63 is out.
I’ll be eager to see what actual specs are when officially introduced, but not convinced yet I’ll be pre-ordering.
I would have zero use if only SD. I could probably live with the 1/70 sec. readout if the image is very clean. We will see if Canon mangles the RAW files with NR like the R5 II.
This one seems polarizing; I get the utility of folks that use CFe would have with a CFe slot, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the camera beyond that? Would SD be limiting in any way?
And I, like CR, would prefer dual-SD as I have no CFe and no CFe reader; and CFe readers certainly do not come built in to laptops, so it adds to dongle life. Ah well. As an amateur I'd get by using just SD if I have to, no different than my current 6D and EOS-M cameras; I'd probably use the SD primary and just get a decent CFe to abuse as a backup that gets left in the camera.
EB-1 wrote:
I could probably live with the 1/70 sec. readout if the image is very clean. We will see if Canon mangles the RAW files with NR like the R5 II.
EBH
I don't think the readout speed is going to be an issue for most folks. Though I haven't seen any photography reviewers dig into the C50 yet, so long as the R6 III meets or exceeds what the R6 II is putting out, it's not something I foresee as being a real decision point IMO.
johnctharp wrote:
This one seems polarizing; I get the utility of folks that use CFe would have with a CFe slot, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the camera beyond that? Would SD be limiting in any way?
And I, like CR, would prefer dual-SD as I have no CFe and no CFe reader; and CFe readers certainly do not come built in to laptops, so it adds to dongle life. Ah well. As an amateur I'd get by using just SD if I have to, no different than my current 6D and EOS-M cameras; I'd probably use the SD primary and just get a decent CFe to abuse as a backup that gets left in the camera.
I don't think the readout speed is going to be an issue for most folks. Though I haven't seen any photography reviewers dig into the C50 yet, so long as the R6 III meets or exceeds what the R6 II is putting out, it's not something I foresee as being a real decision point IMO.
johnctharp wrote:
This one seems polarizing; I get the utility of folks that use CFe would have with a CFe slot, but I'm not sure it adds anything to the camera beyond that? Would SD be limiting in any way?
And I, like CR, would prefer dual-SD as I have no CFe and no CFe reader; and CFe readers certainly do not come built in to laptops, so it adds to dongle life. Ah well. As an amateur I'd get by using just SD if I have to, no different than my current 6D and EOS-M cameras; I'd probably use the SD primary and just get a decent CFe to abuse as a backup that gets left in the camera. ...Show more →
I have plenty of experience with the R7 that has 32MP so it should be similar in max throughput to SD. SD is slow if you want to capture action or the highest quality videos. If your subjects are relatively inactive humans then perhaps you don't need much buffer. Card readers are cheap so not really a reason not to offer a CFe slot. I guess we will see soon enough.
EB-1 wrote:
I have plenty of experience with the R7 that has 32MP so it should be similar in max throughput to SD. SD is slow if you want to capture action or the highest quality videos. If your subjects are relatively inactive humans then perhaps you don't need much buffer. Card readers are cheap so not really a reason not to offer a CFe slot. I guess we will see soon enough.
EBH
I'm not sure the R7's throughput is limited by the memory card. With the R6, I shoot 12 fps cRAW to 95MB/sec UHS1 SD cards and have effectively unlimited buffer. Bump the image size by 60% and the frame rate to 15, but triple the SD card speed and I don't see the memory cards being the bottleneck unless you want to shoot 40fps raw with abandon.
EB-1 wrote:
At 30FPS the R7 buffer fills quickly. I don't like the cRAW degrading the R7's IQ, which is not so great anyway.
EBH
The R7's buffer is terrible and makes it almost unfit for purpose. I can't tell any difference between RAW and cRAW on the R6 unless I push the files beyond all reason.
I'm on the fence about dual SD vs. one CFe and one SD... For what I do, there are benefits to both. I think my primary resistance to mixed slots would be eased if Canon would allow assigning the second slot (SD) as primary. It would also be nice to be able to buy low capacity (~16GB) slow/cheap CFe cards for certain specific uses I have. But when it comes to maximizing buffer clear times and dealing with high volume RAW shooting, CFe is the better and actually more economical of the two (compared to V90 SD cards).
I have zero use for SD cards - the fast ones are now much more expensive than CFExpress cards, and they are generally less reliable as well. Hopefully Canon doesn't follow Nikon's example of going to micro SD cards...
Cliff L. wrote:
I have zero use for SD cards - the fast ones are now much more expensive than CFExpress cards, and they are generally less reliable as well. Hopefully Canon doesn't follow Nikon's example of going to micro SD cards...
What horror of a Nikon uses µSD cards? They are so small and easy to lose, plus there is no area for heat dissipation so speeds are slow.
