btw, if you want to shoot 8K video, you can't do it with a 24Mp camera.
Or maybe 8K photos (e.g. to display a slide show on an 8K TV).
Upvote
0
The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is “definitely” coming in Q1 of 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Or maybe 8K photos (e.g. to display a slide show on an 8K TV).
That would be assumed... 8k video needs 33mp (39mp 3:2) for UHD or for DCI 35mp (45mp 3:2) which aligns nicely with the R5/R5ii.
8k video advantages in post for crop/pan/zoom before having a 4k final video... and (at least for the R5) optionally downsampling to 4k for better quality.
I have used 8k and cropped in post to equivalent 4k rather than having a longer lens for instance.
8k TVs are unlikely to be generally available for a long time for cost and viewing distances. In most cases, the content is way below that and needing good upscaling algorithms anyway.
I still don't think that Canon gets enough recognition for the R5's 8k ability in a hybrid body with full AF tracking and then following up with R5c with cinema menus/setup and 8k60
Noting that the A1 only records UHD and not DCI if that is meaningful for you but does seems to be missing in the reviews.
The Z9 can record 8.3k raw or 8k UHD/CDI though (I think that the latter is cropped).
Upvote
0
Fwiw I used a 5Ds for a few years, yet now I most often shoot the R6 in crop mode, as ~7MP is sufficient for most of my needs these days. Last time I checked, phone screen resolutions hadn't increased much for some time - and I suspect that the vast, vast majority of images are viewed on those, not printed nor on monitors/tvs. Regardless, as others have said, choice is good! The user saying that the minimum resolution needs to increase is unlikely to understand because they seem to believe their opinion is universal (cliché alert!).
Upvote
0
dennishensphoto
Wedding & Family Photographer based in Belgium
I would throw my money at canon if they make a small 24-50mm lens, can be STM style like the 28-70, constant 2.8 would be awesome but I would even take an f4.
Upvote
0
Sony has a 24-50 f2.8 but tbh it is not all that small. I wonder how well it sells considering that it is also not exactly cheap. I would assume that a similar Canon lens would be close in price and size.
As for the flash: I do think that an onboard flash can be a very useful tool. Little fill flash in harsh sun light, used to trigger an affordable off camera flash, used to create the "party image" look popular with young people (see the rise of compact camera) or if you are Terry Richardson. Except for maybe weather sealing I dont see a reason not to include it in an entry level body - and these are normally not weather sealed any way. In the end I think it´s better to have something and not need it than the other way round.
Upvote
0
Absolutely makes sense to add the CFexpress slot. The last sequence in the processing is "Write To Disk". Things will certainly bottle neck with data from a stack sensor ----> standard SD card slot. Like going 80mph on the expressway then tapping the brakes resulting in the disk access indicator being constantly lit during certain modes of operation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I literally don’t know anyone who wants or needs to shoot 8K video. In the same way, I don’t know anyone in my circle of friends, family or colleagues who even owns a 8k tv.
Upvote
0
It’s only ridiculous in the cyberspace argument of your mind. To the rest of the shooting world, 24mp is more than adequate to capture portfolio worthy / epic imagery.
Please move on from specifications of a camera, instead, invest in the content of the photos it can produce.
Upvote
0
My ‘need’ is extra detail for macro subjects, but it gets exported as 4k in the end
I can’t really test it right now, no dragonflies, but I suspect that 4k120 would have about the same amount of perceived detail as 8k, due to the shorter shutter speed. So 8k is a nice to have, not a need for the few seconds per week of footage I produce
And I’m not even certain my TV is actually 4k or if it counts sub pixels in on direction as full pixels!
Upvote
0
Not necessarily. The R6 Mark II writes 40fps to SD cards. The R3 does 30fps. I wonder if a new R6 III would go "back" to 30fps.
Yes, the R6 Mark II features anti-flicker with electronic shutter, as well as high frequency anti flicker.
The R8 could have a 12MP sensor and it would still be enough as an entry-level camera. The fact that it features such a good sensor is the reason why so many professionals are purchasing them, despite not being the target users.
It really is enough. I replaced a 26MP 6D Mark II with my 20MP R6, and never looked back.
Clients get full resolution files, at sizes that are way more than what they need, and for web and friends I usually export photos at 2000 pixels on the long edge.
The entry level full frame cameras from Canon never had a built-in flash. The 6D did not, the 6D II did not, the RP does not, and the R8 does not. Plus, the R8 is mostly made of magnesium alloy, like the higher end models. There's no reason to downgrade on build quality to acomodate that.
Because you don't. You carry a 24-70mm f/2.8 for the extra light, the same way I carry a 28-70mm for the f/2, regardless of sensor resolution.
I'll take the extra dynamic range of a 20 to 24MP sensor any day over the 40 to 50MP resolution of the R5.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Why will I never buy an R8?
Only 24 MP? Definitely no reason.
No IBIS? Most new lenses have OIS, so again, no reason.
The size: Maybe, I find it far too small for normal use, but ok as a backup.
No LP E6 battery: Yes!. Having to carry a supplemental set of batteries in my backpack, plus a dedicated charger in the luggage is for me the reason to get another body as a backup: a second R5 II or thanks to the improved EVF, an R6 III.
Size matters!
Only 24 MP? Definitely no reason.
No IBIS? Most new lenses have OIS, so again, no reason.
The size: Maybe, I find it far too small for normal use, but ok as a backup.
No LP E6 battery: Yes!. Having to carry a supplemental set of batteries in my backpack, plus a dedicated charger in the luggage is for me the reason to get another body as a backup: a second R5 II or thanks to the improved EVF, an R6 III.
Size matters!
Upvote
0
FWIW, I don’t pack chargers anymore, I charge batteries in-body using USB-C PD or use 3rd party batteries with USB-C PD plugs.
The best thing about the R8, for me, is the size, I accept the trade off with its puny battery. It’s not for everyone
Upvote
0
I can certainly understand why you and many other photographers like the R8.FWIW, I don’t pack chargers anymore, I charge batteries in-body using USB-C PD or use 3rd party batteries with USB-C PD plugs.
The best thing about the R8, for me, is the size, I accept the trade off with its puny battery. It’s not for everyone
It's nice to have such a wide choice. You, for instance, once wrote you'd like a body without EVF, while I would never even think of getting such a camera.
The M 6II would have tempted me, but only with a built-in EVF or OVF. So it came I never bought this well-made little camera.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Those are the reasons I got the R8. Small size for travel (would not use as a main camera), and the LP-E17 is shared with my full spectrum M6 that I also take on trips. The charging brick/cable I bring for my Mac charges the battery in the R8, so no need to pack a dedicated charger.
Upvote
0
Developing a new 45 MP sensor with cross-type auto focus AF points is different from reusing an existing 24 MP sensor which already has cross-point AF
With the R6ii Canon showed us they didn't mind releasing a mid range camera with better AF than their existing high end bodies such as the R3.
The original R6 had the same sensor as their flagship 1DX mark iii
Upvote
0
Similar threads
