Re-thinking about new camera

raven4ns wrote in post #19484102
I was thinking about the R6 mdii as my next camera but it has a lot of bells and whistles that I won't use. Shooting 40 frames a second is of little use in shooting abstracts, having high burst numbers, again of little use to me.What is important is low light capabilities. I saw some shots that were shot at ISO 10000 and 12500 and they were great.
What I am looking for is a camera that can shoot at these high ISO levels and still give quality shots. There is no reason to pay for these bells and whistles when they are of little use to me. Even video is of no interest to me but it is included with most high end cameras.
If any of you shoot at the higher ISO's I would like to see some of your raw images. It's not that I will be shooting at these higher ISO levels it's nice to know I can if need be. Thank you.

All the bells & whsitles are there to induce upgrades from dSLR owners like me

All cameras record video as it has little or no cost to implement them. If these were omitted it would reduce sales because other brand/model can do X Y & Z.

Have you considered other RF bodies

- R6
- R
- RP
- R8?

I've never understood shying away from a camera because it does things you won't use even though it does things you want to do well. It's easy enough to ignore the features you don't want in favor of the one you do. I rarely use video. There are tons of features like auto exposure bracketing and such that remain unexplored ony camera, hidden away in a menu I never use.

Pick the camera that does the job you want the most and does it the best. Canon isn't going to make specialist ceras anymore, the market won't support it.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19484420
I've never understood shying away from a camera because it does things you won't use even though it does things you want to do well. It's easy enough to ignore the features you don't want in favor of the one you do. I rarely use video. There are tons of features like auto exposure bracketing and such that remain unexplored ony camera, hidden away in a menu I never use.

Pick the camera that does the job you want the most and does it the best. Canon isn't going to make specialist ceras anymore, the market won't support it.

If a camera does 95% of everything you need better than needed, but is missing one minor feature you would like to have, but another camera has all the same features including the one you would like and many more, but costs 2X, you might shy away from the more expensive camera has that one feature as it is not worth the extra cost.

I have Canon FT,A1, A2E, 2xEOS3,1DS mkii and several canon lenses as well as a Sigma 70-500. I loved the EOS3s but wanted more immediate availability so I switched to digital. Now with higher ISOs available I'm looking for a camera that has great low-light capabilities while keeping an eye on costs.

I enjoy shooting in the woods or around wharfs etc. especially moody weather.

raven4ns wrote in post #19484566
I have Canon FT,A1, A2E, 2xEOS3,1DS mkii and several canon lenses as well as a Sigma 70-500. I loved the EOS3s but wanted more immediate availability so I switched to digital. Now with higher ISOs available I'm looking for a camera that has great low-light capabilities while keeping an eye on costs.

I enjoy shooting in the woods or around wharfs etc. especially moody weather.

The R6mk2 and the R8 have the same sensor. I would choose from among these.

I wish Canon introduced a camera with
" à la carte " options! So Canon has has a blank camera, let's say R5a (a - designation for
à la carte). They list all the options available, and
then a buyer will pick options and features they want and gets priced accordingly.

Like my R5, I like everything except video that I never use. By excluding video capability, the price could be lower.

Who knows, it could be the norm in the near future!

strobe monkey wrote in post #19484599
I wish Canon introduced a camera with
" à la carte " options! So Canon has has a blank camera, let's say R5a (a - designation for
à la carte). They list all the options available, and
then a buyer will pick options and features they want and gets priced accordingly.

Like my R5, I like everything except video that I never use. By excluding video capability, the price could be lower.

Who knows, it could be the norm in the near future!

Uhm no it wouldn’t be cheaper, actually it would be more expensive. Video isn’t a hardware thing, it is software already included and other things would cost more to not include them due to special assembly needs. This comes up all the time, special order anything costs more than mass produced packaged goods.

Let’s approach this from a different angle.
A) video has been on our cameras for over a decade at this point, if this was something canon could have done back at the peak of sales, wouldn’t they have?
B) with the huge decline in sales and the reduction of work staff, do you think canon would sell more ala carte options requiring staff to assemble all kinds of different combination of orders?
C) Is video really going to cause you to not buy any ILC camera because it is there in ask cameras? Or will you just buy one anyways and ignore the feature?

Overwhelmingly the answer is C and it requires canon to change nothing.

gjl711 wrote in post #19484425
If a camera does 95% of everything you need better than needed, but is missing one minor feature you would like to have, but another camera has all the same features including the one you would like and many more, but costs 2X, you might shy away from the more expensive camera has that one feature as it is not worth the extra cost.

Well put. It is the very reason that I have not ventured into mirrorless yet.

Mirrorless does have some very nice unique features, like eye focus and meter using the AF position (like the 1Dx cameras), which are not available in the dSLR. Yet in my own shooting, I have not found myself saying to myself, "Gee, I wish this camera did X or Y or Z!" when utilizing my dSLR, where X or Y or Z were found only in mirrorless. So given the extra expense of the FF mirrorless, vs. the whizzbangs that I do not feel the need for, the migration to mirrorless is not I am driven to do...it is, at best, only caused by the desire to have a newer toy.
That should be a deciding reason for the OP, unless you are merely driven by camera lust..."What can you do with a new body that you simply CANNOT do with your present body?"

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19484604
Uhm no it wouldn’t be cheaper, actually it would be more expensive. Video isn’t a hardware thing, it is software already included and other things would cost more to not include them due to special assembly needs. This comes up all the time, special order anything costs more than mass produced packaged goods.

This is true for most of the features as most are software only. Toss in the testing of all the possible combinations and the cost of the camera would skyrocket.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19484604
Let’s approach this from a different angle.
A) video has been on our cameras for over a decade at this point, if this was something canon could have done back at the peak of sales, wouldn’t they have?
B) with the huge decline in sales and the reduction of work staff, do you think canon would sell more ala carte options requiring staff to assemble all kinds of different combination of orders?
C) Is video really going to cause you to not buy any ILC camera because it is there in ask cameras? Or will you just buy one anyways and ignore the feature?

Overwhelmingly the answer is C and it requires canon to change nothing.

My 5DIV is way more camera than I will ever use but it's the one with the sensor I wanted so... C it is. I just don't use most of the features the camera is capable of.

strobe monkey wrote in post #19484599
I wish Canon introduced a camera with
" à la carte " options! So Canon has has a blank camera, let's say R5a (a - designation for
à la carte). They list all the options available, and
then a buyer will pick options and features they want and gets priced accordingly.

Like my R5, I like everything except video that I never use. By excluding video capability, the price could be lower.

Who knows, it could be the norm in the near future!

Be careful what you wish for. The auto industry is flirting with Ala carte sales of feature via subscription. Want heated seats? Pay a yearly fee. Imagine canon doing something similar, throttling fos, or disabling IS if you don't pay an additional recrr8ng fee?

raven4ns wrote in post #19484566
I have Canon FT,A1, A2E, 2xEOS3,1DS mkii and several canon lenses as well as a Sigma 70-500. I loved the EOS3s but wanted more immediate availability so I switched to digital. Now with higher ISOs available I'm looking for a camera that has great low-light capabilities while keeping an eye on costs.

Well there's always the R3, expensive, but it has the best low-light response of any Canon camera and the eye-control focus of the EOS 3, but much more capable and with many more bells and whistles. Just putting' it out there.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19484637
Be careful what you wish for. The auto industry is flirting with Ala carte sales of feature via subscription. Want heated seats? Pay a yearly fee. Imagine canon doing something similar, throttling fos, or disabling IS if you don't pay an additional recrr8ng fee?

Hmm.. I rely on naturally heated seats. Of course, certain food leed to hotter seats. Just need to make sure you ingest the correct fuel the night before.

raven4ns wrote in post #19484566
I enjoy shooting in the woods or around wharfs etc. especially moody weather.

I looked at your Flickr photos. Very nice. I saw lots of good reflection shots. You have a good eye.
I have the R6 Mark II and I like it so far. I do not have an abundance of high ISO shots to share.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19484637
Be careful what you wish for. The auto industry is flirting with Ala carte sales of feature via subscription. Want heated seats? Pay a yearly fee. Imagine canon doing something similar, throttling fos, or disabling IS if you don't pay an additional recrr8ng fee?

We all let it happen starting from the CD to MP3, then streaming music. We used to be able to pay and own things, but no more, little by little over the years, we have relinquished ownership for recurring fees.

We will be leasing just about everything we live on in the future and the days of paying once and using indefinitely will be over.

I looked at your Flickr images. No EXIF, but next to all of them... I'm not sure why you need high ISO at all.
It looks like you'll benefit more from IBIS than from high ISO.

Anyway, here is the link to technical test page on Canadian site, where you could select RAW view and different cameras at ISO they support.

https://www.dpreview.c​om …ark-ii-in-depth-review#IQ