I saw one of those speculative pre-announcement articles on this last week. I think Canon had to make an announcement because the specs and name had been leaked out already. Full frame. I'm guessing but this will likely be more than the Ra.
Interesting. Whether it's a spec overkill is also interesting, but I guess you can never lose by advertising faster and more. Then, "There's no word on availability or price" - so we will let the equipment fans quiver in their sleep for a while.
Tony Northrup also speculates it will run $3499 (towards the end of the video) when he was ranting about the rumored camera specs back on Feb 1. However, Tony may have missed the boat a bit in this video and the top comment on the vid might make you chuckle.
As someone who works with still images and has no indication so far in life that my current specs are inadequate, this reminds me a lot of sports cars where the amazed promoter tells you how stable this car is at 150 MPH. Like I care if I never, ever drive anywhere near 150, especially living in the city, where going 40 seems like a rare event.
As for cameras, whether my camera can gather a gazzilion or 6 gazzilion pixels at 1000 frames per second, is irrelevant in a world where I'm doing still pictures and where most shoppers are using $90 monitors from Staples. As long as the final product looks at least as good as the cheap monitor, the customer is satisfied even if the I Shoot Raw guy is not.
These spec ravings remind me that the Mclaren sits idle in my garage because it can't handle speed humps and gets clogged up when I'm driving slow. I'm almost exclusively driving the Prius. You'd almost think I don't have a Mcclaren. You'd be right. My stereo speakers are also not wired up with wire that costs $110 per foot due to being elemental, oxygen-free copper alloyed with plutonium. Sometimes I think I've spent too much time in the company of tech ravers.
That said, frame rates, focusing systems, and great high ISO performance, etc. are quite meaningful to pros, especially those shooting sports and action.
It all comes down to an individual's needs and their wallets. If the purchase is not justified and you are not wealthy then sticking with what you have or making modest upgrades is prudent.
I shoot with what I have now as I can't justify dropping $15K plus for a couple of A7 IV bodies and a new bag of mirrorless glass. Would those cameras and bodies improve my shooting...without a doubt it would improve drastically as well as making my shoots much easier.
what i'm hoping for is a smaller, lighter camera, with great iso, and, it would be nice, to be able to use any lens, but mostly the one i own. and not a specialty lens, which is a pain. the frame rate i never cared about, but its nice to have. i like the idea of the internal stabilizer, and wonder if its anything like the pentax has. that one is neat. i need a camera that isn't too bulky, has the same or more features than what i have now, and is good at low light photos.
That system from a long time ago gave about 2-3 stops advantage.
In 2005 I purchased the world's first DSLR with built-in sensor shake reduction which was the Konica-Minolta 5D which also gave a 2-3 stop advantage with unstabilized lenses. That technology was taken from the Dimage series.
I still own that one but have not shot with it in years as it's only 6MP and 3 FPS.
In 2006 Sony released the A100 (Sony bought the Minolta lens patents and camera designs) that I purchased which basically copied the 5D but made it worse with a 10MP sensor...very high resolution but very noisy with the same 2-3 stop anti-shake system. Great at ISO 100 and crap at 400 and above. The KM5D was basically usable to ISO 1600.
I then bought the Sony A700 in 2007 wich gave 2.5-4 stops advantage with its in-body stabilization.
...and then the technology improves further with more axes being stabilized.
Skip ahead about 13 years to the Sony A7 IV which I do not own --> peeps are getting as much 5.5 stops improvement with its 5-axis sensor stabilization.
Over the years other manufacturers have moved to in-body stabilization and I am seeing some people reporting as many a 6-8 stops might be possible with IS/VR lenses and in-body stabilization. That I will have to see to believe.
Anyway, I was hand holding 200mm eq on the early stabilized bridge cameras at 1/30 way back in the day and I loved it. The early KM5D usually wouldn't do quite that well, but it would come close. I've been an in-body stabilization guy for a long time.
Doug it's not always about the specs. Yes, some of the specs do interest me, as Don said, focusing system and ISO performance. Those things are important to me. I shoot a lot of hand held, and a lot of low light. However I'm even more interested in mirrorless cameras in general. Lighter and smaller, far better to carry on a long hike, or even on a city walkabout. And there is an adapter to be able to use your existing EF and EF-S lenses. Also important to me.
All true, but I'm not doing sports and, I suspect, neither are most of the tech ravers that I run into. They remind me an awful lot of another group I've run into, audiophiles that are convinced that, unless your speaker wires were washed in baby tears before use and your amplifier costs $40,000, you might as well just be deaf because there's no worthwhile music to be heard. Many specs actually ARE meaningful, but there are many people out there who just revel in numbers (like the RAW guy) and judge the rest of us to be among the Great Unwashed, unlike them. Some of them hide out behind camera lenses. So far, I've been shooting with "unworthy" equipment and have never had a return, so I'm guessing that many customers are also among the Great Unwashed or that the final product basically has to equal or exceed what they saw on line.
I'm waiting for a mirrorless camera too (when prices come down), mainly because I can't understand why camera companies are only now noticing that that DSLRs were designed for film and digital folks don't need all that mechanical complexity, mainly that silly flopping mirror and the weird prism/viewfinder thing. With phone cameras breathing down their necks, they need to do something to keep their relevance. About half of what I have ever sold came from an iPhone camera, which is always in my pocket. I even attended a wedding recently where the pro photog was using a phone. I can wipe the lens on my shirt, don't need a bag and results have been OK as long as I'm careful about edits. I can't help being reminded all the time that the need for big cameras is getting narrower each day....kinda sad, but time marches on.
Depending on your needs, you can get some nice mirrorless cameras on the cheap these days. While I have not yet bought into mirrorless, I still own a translucent mirror camera (actually a pellicle mirror system pioneered by Sony in 2010, the same year they introduced the Nex mirrorless system). I will eventually move to mirrorless for many reasons which include but are not limited to the massive number of focus points covering the full length and the width of the sensor/frame and Eye AF, etc. etc.. Mirrorless DSLRs have been around for twelve years (Lumix DMC-G1) so companies are not just noticing the "silly flopping mirror". Sony introduced the world’s first full-frame mirrorless interchangeable lens AF DSLR back in 2013, the Sony A7.
If you are not familiar with the translucent mirror technology, here is an excerpt from a DPReview article back in 2010.
Sony's latest interchangeable lens cameras, the SLT Alpha A33 and A55 represent a significant technological milestone - not just for Sony but for the enthusiast camera market as a whole.
The company has rejected the traditional DSLR design and instead created a hybrid that, like a compact camera, is from the ground up built around live view, but one that is also capable of offering full-time DSLR-style phase-detection autofocus. The combination means they can offer features such as phase-detection AF during movie recording and extremely fast continuous shooting rates (10 frames per second on the A55), previously unthinkable at this price.
This is made possible by adopting an approach that has more in common with a mirrorless camera (like the Panasonic G2, for example) than an SLR by removing the bits that pretty much define such cameras: the optical viewfinder and moving mirror.
The designation 'SLT' stands for single lens translucent and it's the 'translucent' bit that's the key to what differentiates these new models both from conventional DSLRs and mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. The SLTs do have mirrors, but they're mirrors that let the majority of the light pass straight through to the sensor, rather than having to swing out of the way to allow exposure. As a result they are fixed in position, always reflecting a portion of the light emerging from the back of the lens onto a phase-detection AF array housed in the top of the camera. A newly-developed 15-point array in the case of these two cameras.
A pretty cool innovation for the time but the main drawback was the SLT design sacrifices a bit of light affecting higher ISO performance. It was a cool purchase for me as I could use all of my Minolta and Sony glass and benefit from the features the SLT provided.
Anyway, I need to upgrade my stereo system soon as I am still listening to a Bose Lifestyle 5 system which was great for me in its day, retailing at about $2-2.5K in 1992, but it pales in comparison to the modern sound systems of today. No, I don't use ultra-expensive wire and cabling either. ;)
FWIW, Fro has come a long way since his first video amassing 1.16M YT subscribers along the way. Yeah, he likes hawking his RAW T-shirts too. While he is not my favorite, he does put out some good info from time to time.
Please login before posting a reply to this message. If you do not have an account on Pixels, click here to create one!