The stupid choice for Canon in those models is that
They did not enabled the dual pixels technology, which
Makes a huge difference in what AF experience is concerned.
To keep price "low" maybe? Or they thought that the target will
Be mostly the landscapers and product shooters, audience that
Is more conservative on high performance/reliability AF.
And tethers often.
Title:
don't sign the cheque yetAnyway. As it seems that Bruce is on testing mode, why not open the paradigm
And test some high resolution mirrorlesses also?
I mean that DSLR is a dead-end road and where R&D, refinement and sophistication happens
Is in the mirrorless technology.
Before choosing this Canon once for awhile, I'd test a Sony mirrorless.
Because Canon will progressively abandon the dslr market.
People have put side by side 80Mpx from a Pana G9 next to Hasselblad and the img quality matches.
It's no joke and well documented. (Sony has similar capability).
The cam is built under military standards, really weather sealed in a package that is 1/2 the size of a 1d...
It shows the potential of mirrorless technology in the hands of big companies.
Sony does high reso FF mirrorless (not so well built-like-tank than the G9) but still smaller, lighter and
Way more sophisticated than the Canon DSLRs.
If in testing mode, I would not precipitate on a one way ticket but try the Sony before deciding as cost is about the same.
You might be very surprised and change your mind.
2 other considerations.
1) A 2 sides of the coin regarding Sony is that there are tons of parameters
In relation with profiles. As a result, many tempted users with unproper knowledge set the values weirdly and problems
Occur (cast, gamma and sharpening issues etc...). But as you have the knowledge on colour science,
That becomes an advantage in the right hands because you can really
Shape the camera and look as you want and make it behave your way. It just requires profiles with your background expertise be used at its full potential.
2) tons of Sony users use their Canon glasses with no issues.
And oh yeah...stabilisation! It changes a lot.
6.5 stops on the G9 is true and no marketing claim.
The Sony about 5 stops...that's a lot not to be ignored.
Watch this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFxbFJ9jdM3) the sensor size has not changed. Baking more mpx in the very same surface in capture does not mean that much except that it avoids post prod. There is a conssens on a "magic" number in what FF is concerned which is arround
24 Mpx as a well balanced performances included higher isos and also the upsampling
Capacities. I see a lot of difference in upsampling from a 12mpx D2x compared to a D800. But that vanishes by a big margin when upsampling a D610. And it's not Fred's claim. You can do the tests.
While the sensor size is not bigger, the differences are engineering tricks and they are pushing
Limits but loose on higher isos. We don't need high isos until we need them...
My point is that between Sony 40ish mpx and 50, there is no difference.
But an better balanced perf is 24mpx. Sony has both 40 / 24 mpx.
There is no magic. If we really want high rezzz top quality it's MF or pixel shift tech..
4) those high res FF on steroids are not that suitable for people, street and reportage with humans, included
On big enlargements because it deshumanise a lot and you end with pores and autopsy details,
As Rob pointed. And then they all go crazy with frequency separation to clean all that crap.
The make-up becomes critical, often hugly if not perfectly executed.
We were doing big fashion prints with a 6mpx Fujifilms (12mpx) some years ago for Art Galleries and thet were
Better than what you got with those high rezzz unless you downgrade on camera settings.
Because it doesn't look like scans or MF. It looks electronic. Again on what humans are concerned I put my bet on 24 Mpx.
Smaller pixels favorize lands and buildings but do not people where bigger pixels look more natural and not overdone.
Are you going to do landscapes only? Mmmmm