One thing...

tkbslc wrote:

Eddie Rizk wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

DigitalAmnesia wrote:

RLight wrote:

There is often, but not always, something one wishes they had more of. Curious to hear other R owners (all of them) thoughts on the following:

.

What is the the most important thing you could use more of?

.

I'll followup with another poll in a minute though for ownership so there is context. If a bunch of RP people respond for example, it's going to sound like the higher end R's have no FPS, battery life and dynamic range, for example

.

The polls don't permit multiple answers; feel free to also respond below with comments as I'm sure many will.

The R5 meets my needs 99% of the way. It is hard for me to imagine how it could be better, not saying it couldn't, just saying I don't know what that would look like in normal conditions. I really didn't know how the R could be improved upon either, but when I got the R5 every shot got more "atmospheric". It's easy to point and say "more ISO", or whatever, but I get along pretty well with what the R5 can do. Yesterday however I took pictures of a black cat in a poorly lit home and the ISO was up at 25600 and the images were I hate to say, cellphone quality. You might be laughing about the black cat in a dark room scenario but it happened. So, that is one case where maybe the R5 isn't a perfect camera.

At some point the light is just so low that it is bad light. Being able to capture horrible light with less noise isn't going to make for good photos. If it's a bad photo because of the bad light, who cares if it is noisy or not, it's not a photo you are going to want to use.

It’s only bad light, if the camera can’t handle it.

It's bad light if it is ugly and makes for ugly photos.

That's true, in literal terms.  In the context of this discussion, we are referring to light that is too low for the camera/lens combination being used.

To restate, in literal terms, low or lower light, all other factor being good, is only bad light, if the camera can't handle it.