Jman13 wrote:
I get your point, but I don't think the comparison is valid, as before AF there really weren't cameras that were truly marketed as sports cameras. The 1D IV was the absolutely pinnacle sports camera as recently as summer 2011...this is not that long ago....and the R5 is better for action shooting in literally every single way. Better AF, deeper buffer, better sensor, faster burst rate.
Heck, it matches or exceeds essentially everything on the 1D-X, which was the top sports camera until 2016! To say that the R5 is not a viable sports camera is just absurd to me.
Holger wrote: Jman13 wrote:
I love how somehow in the past 10 years 10fps just became far too slow.
The 1D series from Canon was THE sports camera for years and years, and topped out at 10fps and was 8fps for many iterations. Many Olympics and major sporting events were shot with those cameras, with award winning photos created. Is 20fps a nice advantage? Sure. But 10fps is plenty to shoot sports with.
lightskyland wrote: Fred Miranda wrote:
By chasing, I mean it’s been a long time since Canon challenges Sony in features and specs. Video’s specs are the most exciting, but they also improved IBIS and fused a high MP body to a high FPS body. Basically a high resolution sports camera.
How is 10FPS a sports camera? The 20FPS electronic shutter will be pretty useless for sports due to slow readout.
I think the important point here is "was"
People made award winning sports images with cameras without AF, too. That, for me at least, isn't an argument in itself.
With this definition almost every MILC with 8fps + is a sports camera.
I respect your opinion and I could be wrong of course, too.
SAR just reports the first issues with overheating on the R5 with 8k. For him it seems like malicious joy.
Jul 10, 2020 at 06:38 AM
Previous versions of Holger's message #15278333 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
