AdamT wrote:
sorta like having good video output out of a DSLR/MILC, once you get a camera capable of good video, than you become hooked.
Again, I simply never shoot video so its ability is irrelevant .
mercy, which they are, well, sluggards compared to Nikon when it comes to things like sensor or processor technology. Two most costly parts of the camera I might add.
This is true - I ran Canon DSLRs from Day one right up to my 1DS-3 and Ls coming to the end of their useful working life and Canon never replaced the model at all , the 5DS was awful so I got a D800E and never looked back . if they`d made a 42Mp 1DS Mk4 with a sensor as good as the one in the D800E I`d likely have stuck with them and replaced my worn out glass .
Not trying to sway you to the Canon R, but even my lowly R handles things like clubs, with ease. So long as you have a f/2.8 or faster lens mounted as on-chip AF needs light to operate.The R5/6/3 does even better.
I tried an R5 with the 24-105 F4L belonging to another photog in one and it still struggled like the Z7 Nothing like a cam with light sniffing AF like the D850 or D6 - AF assist makes a big difference , Faster glass even more so I guess - I`ve not had anything faster than F4 on the Z7 as my fast primes are screw drive so are manual focus on the Z adapter - not that I use primes much for work and never for leisure .
Now this is true, my R doesn't do well in poor light with f/4. You need f/2.8 or faster. My RF 28-70 f/2L doesn't break a sweat obviously just because it's F/2. Good point and touché.
you think about it. That's Nikon's Achilles heel; software development. But clubs are a single use case, hardly a reason to swap platforms if you ask me.
I have the D850 for that and TBH for the amount I do even my old D3 will handle it , the D850 has been barely touched since getting the Z7 as its bigger heavier and the glass isn`t as good . so no swapping back to the DSLR platform main use for me ..
Nikon will get there... It's just a matter of software, but software too takes time and is a work of labor
yeah there was an update for the Z7 Mk1 which made amazing difference to the AF bring it up to (and some say exceeding) Mk2 levels , funnily enough the Mk2 hasn`t had one, I think its Nikon protecting sales ,
I gather this is due to Contrast Detection usage. DIGIC8 is capable of 143 AF points natively with tracking at 14FPS
I get the feeling that "Digic 8 " was utterly wasted on the G5X-II and G7X-III , making no use of its AF ability due to CDAF or the fine detail JPG engine which the M bodies have due to the canon cripple hammer .
Yes, DIGIC7 arguably was good enough, except they needed the extra oomph for 4K processing. Thats the real reason it showed up, not that Autofocus needed it for extra calculations, but, it is there and does help vs say the G7X Mark II, which wasn't bad, but yes, the G7x III and G5X II are (a bit) better due to more oomph.
The lack of EFCS on the M6 II I gather has more to do with it's 14FPS capability.
its down to the cripple hammer, the D90 is the same camera in a DSLR and it has EFCS - the 14FPS thing is easy to side step , just have it turn off EFCS at that speed - in fact Auto-shutter with EFCS coming in during the shock areas like Panasonic etc do would be even better
having another alternative to the M6 II with it, with the 90D sensor, hurts. Be curious to see where the M system goes, if anywhere. I'm not sure it's dead-dead as the M50 is still "the" best seller in many places. It may not be a margin mover, but it's certainly a volume mover.
Canon have never known what to do with M - they`re not prepared to invest in glass for it but not to kill it off either . the 11-22 should be a kit option because the 15-45 is dreadful in all but the best rare copies and the 18-55 has gone (and was also hard to get a good copy in but when you did - it WAS good - at 18Mp at least)
Indeed. But the M platform is selling due to cost. And that 15-45 is a "cheap" lens both to produce I gather, and in price point. 11-22 although may be cheap to produce too, it punches well above it's weight and price; again, internal protection.
This is a good segue for a G1X IV; Canon could do a leaf-shutter with a fixed lens, and, make that fixed lens more aggressive ala G1X II / G5X II at the same time.
yeah - prob is cost, Canon really like to price Gouge the G1X line , from the Mk2 onwards anyway - the Mk1 was only £620 even at launch and was a better camera than the Mk2 overall - the Mk3 is a crazy price for what is at best a flattened M5 + tweaked 15-45 .. a Mk4 with a decent lens and the M6-II guts would cost the earth but likely worth it if they could for once put the damn Cripple hammer away
M6 II guts is cheaper than you think; all Canon fabs. I've heard the cost on these is like, 300-400 USD? Trust me, that's the one thing they could do despite all the crazy supply shortages. The catch? Everyone including Canon is exciting APS-C. Except Fuji. Pro-amateur stuff like the G5X II, Sony A6600, 16-55 f/2.8G, aren't selling well as Sony themselves has halted all APS-C, which is telling of the market conditions. The only reason they'd do a G1X Mark IV, is if they had spare 90D sensors and the throughput to make the lenses, and thought they could make a profit. Those 90D sensors may have gotten repurposed for the upcoming R7 though, or already burned through on 90Ds and M6 II's already in the supply chain. Probably.
Now the 4K in the G5X II isn't binned, but, Canon's JPEG engine which comes into play with all their video, needs help. As we've discussed with shooting RAW, the same applies, things like smeared details at base ISO or overly aggressive NR at high ISOs applies in video, except we can't fix it. And it's CDAF, not DPAF/PDAF so sometimes it hunts. Doesn't hunt much for a CDAF implementation, but it's no match for PDAF/DPAF.
Ahh is that it - I thought ti was doing the same trick as the M6-II . even worse then if NR is killing it as its fixable - leave off the NR !! - silly canon .......
Canon's anal-retentive with being overbearing with noise reduction. They prefer to err on the side of being noise free at the expense of lost efficiency, as I gather they feel it gives soccer mom/dad best results. They're right btw, see the discussion about JPEG engines on the other forum. Folks who will never touch a RAW, are better served with cleaner shots with detail left on the table. Too bad we can't have both, oh wait we can, if Canon would invest more resources into the subject. Again though, they don't pass down their firmware upgrades; they give it to new models as a built-in incentive. Even if they fixed it, you'd have to buy the G1X Mark IV, G5X Mark III, if they ever made one, or both.
That's what's interesting, comparatively my former G1X III with a larger sensor, or the LX100 also with a larger sensor and faster glass still, should blow the G5X II out of the water in low light, they don't. Is that due to DIGIC8 + that Sony RX100 IV sensor?
IMO its down to the sensor & pipline in the G1X-III being the old M5 one (not up to M50 noise levels at all ISOs) coupled with a very slow lens - for some reason the LX100-II despite seemedly having the guts of the GX9 hasn`t got GX9 pixel level low noise even at low ISOs , maybe the Amplifiers aren`t as good or the camera generates more heat but at 100% the GX9 is notably cleaner .
That could be it. Never thought about basic amplification. It matters for being "dumb", it sure ain't. The whole digital world is analog at some point in time. Pun not intended, but funny.
implementations back as on paper, that 80D sensor or G9 sensor should lay waste to the RX100 IV sensor in low light, especially with a faster lens ala LX100.
the G9 has a better sensor again than the GX9/LX100-II - In RAW at pixel level its not far behind the likes of the Sony A6400 and actually marginally cleaner than the M50 at ISO3200 at pixel level (bin down the 24Mp M50 to 20Mp and they`re pretty much the same .. what the M50 had advantage wise was far better colour depth , the G9 was good for M43 (the older 20Mp sensor was more like 1" for this ) but the M50s updated 24Mp sensor was better again ... yeah - theres a lot more to sensors than high ISO noise - my pet peeve with canon is low ISO noise, you have to overexpose and pull back in RAW to get clean skies and shadows , I found the 24Mp onwards Ms are notorious for this as are all the GX series cams made after the 600D based G1X Mk1 . I was amazed at the amount of noise in ISO100 skies in the M100 for instance . you can see it in the RAW M6-II and G1X-III samples on here - overexpose by 2/3 and the pull back and the issue goes away ..... These are my findings anyway .. Canons tend to have excellent highlight recovery even on the 1"ers so work aroundable
This is another Canon preference; they prefer their exposure, soccer mom/dad status. Again, look who's buying these. And pros, advanced amateurs like ourselves know to use highlight tone priority, alter our exposure and adjust in RAW... Again, Canon could correct it, and should if only to stay competitive with smartphones, but again, you'd have to buy the next Canon to get it...
