So...What's wrong with the R5?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Thomas A Anderson Regular Member • Posts: 482
Re: Are you sure about that?
2

J A C S wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

J A C S wrote:

Thomas A Anderson wrote:

J A C S wrote:

PGSanta wrote:

Guy Roberts wrote:

Looking at the Nikon Z7 the R5 is $1000 too expensive imo.

Yeah... I mean how much could superior IBIS, EVF, touch screen, ergonomics, dual card slots, FPS, build quality, 4k60+, 8K be worth... it should be priced the same as the far inferior product. Silly Canon.

Dual slots, 4k60+, and 8K are worth nothing to me...

I don’t NEED dual slots, but I’d use them. You wouldn’t?

No. I had the 5D4 for two years. The two slots were an annoyance. The camera would switch to the card I did not want to use because I took off the first one, for example, to download the photos. I often found the images on the CF card when I expected them on the SD card. Since I do not have a CF card reader on my laptop, that was annoying. I ended up removing the CF card.

Is it possible after several years the implementation is better? Not having a CF reader hanging around seems weird...heck, I just bought a new high speed reader that includes CF.

I meant - no CF slot on the laptop. I do have a reader but when I travel, I do not take it with me since I rely on the SD slot on my travel laptop.

And those video specs are an indication of: way better processor that enables all the eye, face, head, animal, animal-eye tracking; a very deep buffer for continuous shooting; greatly improved rolling shutter that will make the electronic shutter dramatically more useful; 100% DPAF coverage on 45 MILLION pixels....I’m sure I’m leaving out some implications those specs have for stills.

An indication, maybe be but that does not mean that those video specs are needed for that.

This is our reality. To sell cameras they must have video. And video is just about the last thing in the camera tech race.

Price isn’t the problem. The problem is that you don’t find the stills features worth the price. You. DR will improve, DP RAW is better...stills will benefit noticeably.

Yes, I said me. And no, there is a difference between stills features and 8K.

It’s like saying I want a new car but don’t want speakers and a radio.

Actually, premium audio is optional.

Where did I say “premium”? I said speakers.

I did say 8K though. That is premium. "Speakers" today is 2K.

Yeah, and when you buy the Ferrari you’re gonna get premium audio. The R5 is a flagship camera. You don’t get to tell the factory to leave off the speakers.

That’s just not an option any more. I don’t want to pay for 8K either. Thus the R. The price isn’t the issue....it’s that making a flagship product requires big specs and that costs lots of money. The problem isn’t the price: you don’t need a flagship.

I do not want 20mp either.

The R is 30MP.

Exactly. The R6 is 20mp.

I don’t want 61MP. But that’s a Sony sensor. Are we talking about the R5 or R6 or all R bodies or all FF mirrorless?

Heres the thing: Canon moves sensors down their product lines as they recoup costs. Until this 45MP sensor pays some bills and gets cheaper to make it can only be in a premium body. That’s just economics. And it will be in a cheaper body at some point and probably do less video stuff because the body won’t have all the expensive buffer and other hardware.

I think your original “price” objection should have been “the reality of cutting edge sensor development in the modern digital camera marketplace.”

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
YWG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow