One thing...

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.

Very true, and to be fair I could have used a faster lens but didn't. In fact, it was a 300mm telephoto with a TC on it and I was just goofing around with it. Plus, no stabilization so I had to up the shutter speed to 1/320th. Although I did setup the R5 to stabilize at 420mm and I honestly think it worked pretty well but I didn't push the issue, probably should have tried some lower shutter speeds just to see but it felt so shaky I wasn't confident with the lens as it has no OIS.

And actually the pictures were pretty cool even though they're too dark and very noisy and most of the cat is just a wash of blackness.

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.

That's kinda the point. There are (a lot of) times when we have no control over light. If you see a cat outside in the dark with minimum light, you're not going to throw on a flash and scare the poor animal. Likewise if you're shooting in a school/old gym or neighbourhood stadiums where it's lighting is not ideal, so you're going to be cranking up that ISO in order to get high enough shutter speeds.

We don't just want to use our cameras in good light and I certainly hope we're constantly pushing the tech boundaries to let us get around the problem with bad light, and that kind of tech advancements can get carried down to the more common and lower priced cameras.

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.

JPAlbert wrote:

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

Where is the checkbox for "talent" ??

The closest thing to it, better Auto?

A smart-er Auto function is important btw; the G5X II has a really good auto mode... The other half who knows nothing about cameras is either handed it in Auto mode, or preset for the shot with me in it. I never use Auto on the R, it doesn't make the smartest exposure choices... Like the M series, it ignores the wide open f/1.8 of the RF 35mm, or f/2 of the EF-M 22mm.

I think we have an emerging winner, and I guess it shouldn't be a surprise as folks shoot FF for DoF and low light capabilities after all. The former is determined by glass, the latter by sensor performance / noise reduction. You really don't need a FF solution otherwise truth told.

Aside from a shift of the CFA itself, which I know other folks in the smartphone business have looked at but has drawbacks in color accuracy (obviously not ideal for dedicated camera platforms), or, AI/machine learning application, really the only place for Canon to go is BSI and stacked CMOS or Global Shutter. The trouble with the latter is dynamic range loss that folks thus far who have done Global Shutter have contended with, even though it's rumored that's what the R1 will be Global Shutter, which the 2nd contender here is Dynamic range, again another non-surprise as folks shoot larger formats for image quality.

.

Since the latest Canon's are dual-gain, there's not much else Canon can do for DR, for the moment, other than what they already have, providing a more HDR SOOC format, HEIF, which isn't well adopted. RAW shooters obviously don't benefit, but, HEIF itself is necessary as the existing DR is "wasted" on JPEG formats when displayed on most electronic viewing formats.

.

I am curious what Canon's latest DIGIC has in store for us though. It hasn't been discussed, however, it's a foregone conclusion the R1 will need a new one to handle faster readout of higher megapixels. Battery life is another hiccup of mirrorless vs DSLRs with constant EVFs or LCDs running in addition to constant sensor readout for AF purposes. Hybrid core DIGIC implementation and more energy efficient display panel/EVFs can help, but, DSLRs will always have the advantage. Can more efficiency and better battery tech close the gap? Me thinks no. I do think there is some blood in this turnip though.

.

Interesting results of the poll, thus far. Glad I ran the thing.

.

The rumor of the R1 being global shutter though, I'm starting to think it's going to be an A1/Z9, that is stacked CMOS though, loosing dynamic range for faster readout doesn't seem like a loss tenable for the target audience.

.

Also, curious to see what Canon does for the lower end upcoming models; will they pull forward DIGIC8 or DIGICX with updated software ala M50 Mark II for cost, or, will they give it bleeding edge DIGIC chips for energy efficiency and size reduction? The lower end of the R spectrum is all about size, cost. I'm thinking they'll do the former, DIGIC8 or DIGICX with updated firmware as the lower end is definitely cost-effective, which newer DIGICs aren't.

.

Autofocus is a known Canon is addressing with the R3 and thus R1, so I won't speak to it other than faster readouts and better software are going to be better AF. It's safe to say your R1 and R3 will be better than your R5 and R6. How much? We'll find out in a bit. Whatever the R3 does, the R1 will do, and maybe then some.

.

I gather we'll see some of our wants met (better ISO), and others not (dynamic range, battery life, depending which model).

.

I'm really curious if Canon will do a A7C-like competitor. They have the M though which is even smaller, even more cost effective, so dunno if that's a niche Canon needs to attack.

.

The R makes for a fierce webcam btw, it wouldn't surprise me if the upcoming low end R is somewhat webcam focused, in addition to being a standalone camera.

.

Lastly, although the rumor mill has been dead about a R5R (super res monster), I'm certain from Canon's previous efforts (125MP FF sensor which they've relegated to security cam purposes) one is in the making. Again, like the R1, it's probably waiting on a more capable DIGIC processor to go with that much data handling, and like the R1, waiting for stacked CMOS implementation as that much data needs a faster readout to be effective in photographic/video documentation use cases other then just security monitoring; 125MP is alot of rolling shutter without a faster readout of stacked CMOS.

I’d like ES FPS options below 20.

KiloHotelphoto wrote:

Also wish they would let you choose a slower frame rate when using the electronic shutter. Sometimes I want to shoot silent and not to disturb a animal but don't need 20 fps. Just to save time going through shots in post, it's amazing how fast they add up.

Yes I still don't understand why Canon did not propose 10 and 5 fps too in e-shutter... I guess it's not out of reach for Canon engineers !!

Sometimes I prefer using the one-shot mode, even if I have to press several times on the trigger.

... more talent.

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.

I use Canon RP - it already has more megapixels than I need, I wouldn't even mind if it is replaced by a 20 MP successor. And I don't use RP for videos, so I don't care about 4k or 8k.

I also never needed more than 8FPS (RP lags in this regard), but I would love fast BSI sensor in future. Better low light performance due to circuits behind the pixels, and practically unlimited shutter life as you can use electronic shutter all the time without any drawbacks is why fast BSI sensor is so interesting. But I understand that it is completely unlikely that fast BSI sensors will appear on low cost cameras any time soon. I expect 8 FPS without any visible lag in the EVF.

I would love to have the option for HEIF in the future RP replacements. I will probably not use HEIF files until their use become more widespread, but I love that you can get HDR PQ like jpegs from converting HEIF files in camera or using DPP to convert raw (currently DPP does not allow to make HDR PQ like jpegs from raws of RP, but it allows it for 5D4, 1DX3, R, R5, R6). If you use Highlight Tone Priority and then get HDR PQ like jpegs from either converting HEIF files in camera or from DPP, you can get jpegs that almost completely match the scene as seen by the eye in terms of DR/ highlight roll off/ tone curve. Even if you do not need natural looking jpegs, these files can work as the excellent base from which you can tweak to get the look you want.

I will also love head tracking AF in future camera - that can seamlessly transition between face and eye detect depending on the visibility of  the face.

And a larger viewfinder, with a magnification of 0.76x will be most welcome too (RP, R6, R5 users already have that).

If there was a "None" option, I would have picked it. Battery life initially stood out, but then again I've been using a power bank with my R6 for all-day shoots in static locations or home studio, which means I never have to replace the battery. And realized that I have two spare batteries for those outdoor shoots. Do I wish I only have to carry one spare battery? Maybe, but not a deal breaker. The rest for me - Canon already gave me a camera body that is as close to being perfect as possible for the kind of photography I do.