I was speaking about some of us. I see what you are saying. I am not criticising the camera. For me i am quite open right now. I had already made up my mind on getting an a9 so that shift has to happen, especially so because i own few Sony lenses.
I don’t really have a need for 45mp’s but those files from a7rIII are just great. So I don’t mind if IQ is similar. I will be pissed if it has noise at 1600 or 3200 and this whole talk of normalisation to equal size makes it cleaner than 24mp begins. I am bewitched by the thought of being able to make a 100-500 into whatever longer FL but I don’t really need those things as i hardly do birds, and this has got to do with always indecisive me* and not the camera.
Other consideration for me is obviously that it should be at least equal to a9 in AF. Because that camera is a reality for last 4 years and its a benchmark. So why should i buy something that’s inferior to a9 (we don’t know that). Which is why all this unwarranted and perhaps misplaced comparison with a9. Maybe Canon will do an a9 with R1 and R5 was not for that. It easily beats the a7RIV, the actual competitor, is not at all hard to see, outside tripod based ISO 400 and less shooting envelope despite Sony’s great AF but again dwarfed by a9 tech.
Ziffl3 wrote: nandadevieast wrote:
I wish some of us still photographers could have saved 1000 bucks if video features were not there. It was still a great body. Now we will have to pay 1000 bucks more to buy what we won’t need.
well ....consumer products tend to be this way.
Like buying a blender and only wanting the high speed. bums me out i have to deal with pulse and other speed.
or buying a laptop and wishing i could save money on the integrated graphics chip/software because the laptop has a separate GPU.
want a stills only camera body... go buy one.
Jul 12, 2020 at 11:44 AM
Previous versions of nandadevieast's message #15280955 « Canon R5 R6 Reviews LIST/HUB, see 1st post // review hands on specs »
