JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Pretty sure I’ll get flamed for this. But I think there is an excess of glass half empty perspective here, which is the wrong way to look at the R5 IMO.
For all the things Canon got “wrong” here, they’ve also given you an unmatched tool in what it offers as a package. A good way to look at it analogously would be assessing the A9. It too, is still an unmatched tool in the market if looked at holistically. Sure, the sensor has less dynamic range among other differences than the R2/R3/R4, the S line, and the A73 (price ranges all significantly less than the A9 line with a few being less than half the cost). But taken as a package, the A9 is still able to offer us a very specific set of features in a very specific tool that no other tool in the market offers. The R5 accomplishes the same feat so long as you are looking through the glass as though it is half full as opposed to focusing on everything it does worse than it’s peers aka half empty.
The problem is the new cameras initially created a huge amount of excitement and hype mainly due to the new video features like 8k recording promising a true hybrid camera, a jack of all trades for both still and video and for any kind of photography and videography. I have to say, even I also found it very tempting depending on how performing the sensor could have been. Of course, when it turned out the new models have serious over-heating flaws that renders it useless for most people who truly need and use the video on their cameras, people got disappointed.
As still cameras, both R5 and R6 are still interesting cameras with a good IBIS, particularly R5 with its high resolution sensor. But I don't think there is now any reason at all to switch to Canon because of the new models. For video focused users, there are good reasons to use other systems such as Sony instead. The new A7s iii is exciting and I may consider purchasing one to focus more on video.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Pretty sure I’ll get flamed for this. But I think there is an excess of glass half empty perspective here, which is the wrong way to look at the R5 IMO.
For all the things Canon got “wrong” here, they’ve also given you an unmatched tool in what it offers as a package. A good way to look at it analogously would be assessing the A9. It too, is still an unmatched tool in the market if looked at holistically. Sure, the sensor has less dynamic range among other differences than the R2/R3/R4, the S line, and the A73 (price ranges all significantly less than the A9 line with a few being less than half the cost). But taken as a package, the A9 is still able to offer us a very specific set of features in a very specific tool that no other tool in the market offers. The R5 accomplishes the same feat so long as you are looking through the glass as though it is half full as opposed to focusing on everything it does worse than it’s peers aka half empty.
The problem is the new cameras initially created a huge amount of excitement and hype mainly due to the new video features like 8k recording promising a true hybrid camera, a jack of all trades for both still and video and for any kind of photography and videography. I have to say, even I also found it very tempting depending on how performing the sensor could have been. Of course, when it turned out the new models have serious over-heating flaws that renders it useless for most people who truly need and use the video on their cameras, people got disappointed.
As a still cameras, both R5 and R6 are still interesting cameras with a good IBIS, particularly R5 with its high resolution sensor. But I don't think there is now any reason at all to switch to Canon because of the new models. For video focused users, there are good reasons to use other systems such as Sony instead. The new A7s iii is exciting and I may consider purchasing one to focus more on video.
Jul 28, 2020 at 01:55 PM
Previous versions of raminolta's message #15297719 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
