[KiloHotelphoto]

Well your description of double back button focus is a little off but close. You can customize a lot of the buttons to do whatever you want so a lot of wildlife shooters will have the rear AF button set for single point and then have the * button set to animal eye AF or reversed depending on what you prefer. If say a bird is in a busy scene and it doesn't see the eye you can just use single point and move the joystick to get the eye and then try eye AF to track if needed.

Some guys even use triple back button focus where on the third they will have a zone set up. I use my depth of field button to switch between single and zone it works better for me that way.

After my study of 8x10 large format cameras, I see this R7 and R10 with some distance, i.e more of the same thing digital. No matter how I turn it, it's again a ridiculously small sensor (22mmx15mm), still the same boring 3:2 aspect ratio, with quick operation for lucky spray & pray compositions, quantity of random images.

Different cameras for different jobs. Taking a 8x10 large format camera to a rivers edge trying to get a shot of a bald eagle or osprey fishing is just going to end in disappointment for you. Now taking a camera with good tracking and 15 or 30 fps could still end in disappointment but you will have a better chance of getting the shot.

[BigMackCam]

After my study of 8x10 large format cameras, I see this R7 and R10 with some distance, i.e more of the same consumer digital camera. No matter how I turn it, it's again a ridiculously small sensor (22mmx15mm), still the same boring 3:2 aspect ratio, with quick operation for lucky spray & pray compositions, quantity of random images. Canon R7 and R10 don't offer tilt & shift, no rise & fall, no scheimpflug, no perspective correction, it's sad; the resolution at 32Mpixels is pathetically low compared to 8x10 low ISO black & white film.

---

A lot of us here still choose to shoot with APS-C sensor gear, and find it works really well for our use-cases and the specific compromises we're willing to accept. Many of us (most of us, I'd guess) wouldn't want to lug a 4x5 around, never mind an 8x10, and would find either inappropriate to our use-cases and style of shooting. As @KiloHotelPhoto said, it's a case of different cameras for different jobs...

[Rondec]

I think biz is actually right in the sense that camera brands have run out of new concepts and so they are back to the ramping up of megapixels (although how much difference is there really between 24 and 26 and 32 megapixels?), autofocus points, and frame rates (as though most folks need 60 fps).

When you are living at the low end of things (a K-1 has 4.5-ish fps with a pretty small buffer), a moderate increase can be much appreciated, but few people need this level of speed. Honestly, I would spend all of my time deleting images that were basically the same.

Sigh ... if only Canon would bring back the daguerreotype.

[BigMackCam]

I think biz is actually right in the sense that camera brands have run out of new concepts and so they are back to the ramping up of megapixels (although how much difference is there really between 24 and 26 and 32 megapixels?), autofocus points, and frame rates (as though most folks need 60 fps).

I don't know... given Canon's dual-pixel and other AF tricks, I think I get the R7 (less so the R10) as a birding / sports body when paired with RF full frame lenses, assuming the glass performs well with such high pixel density. 32 vs 24MP isn't a huge jump, no - but it's a jump in the right direction (for some folks) if noise isn't problematic. The EOS 90D - with the same sensor - seems to fare quite well in this respect. Plus, the smaller sensor enables faster performance than full-frame (though the 30fps quoted seems ridiculously high - but whatever). Whether the Canon's share (or potential share) of that specialist market alone is large enough to justify the camera's existence and provide enough sales is something I'll be interested to see, unless of course Canon intends to release some good dedicated APS-C lenses that also stand up to the sensor's resolution. That said, its APS-C DSLRs seemed to sell well-enough without much of a dedicated lens catalogue, so maybe it doesn't matter after all...

I had the 90D and noise was problematic. The files from my 24mp KP are much cleaner.

[surfar]

(the EOS 90D - with the same sensor - seems to fare quite well in this respect)

From what Ive been reading, it started out as the same sensor that has now been modified.So Canon are saying "its a new sensor".ha ha...I'll say its the same sensor thats had a tweak or 2.

The significant difference to the 90D performance(which is good) is that the Digic X processor is a BIG upgrade.

The fact that they have even put that processor in the base model, marks a major change of direction for Canon.In the past a entry level body would use older parts.

Even the R10 has great capability and(I think) provides excellent value.

The ball isnt out of the park but is firmly in the Nikon(d500 replacement) and Fuji court to match or better the Canon effort.

---------- Post added 05-25-22 at 08:15 AM ----------

Many of us (most of us, I'd guess) don't want to lug an 4x5 around, never mind an 8x10, and would find either utterly inappropriate to our use-cases and style of shooting

The 430gms of the R10 is certainly easy to carry, probably the lightest HIGHly capable body yet.

Canon has targeted 2 important markets with these new releases and most likely continue to be the most bought brand.

[biz-engineer]

Different cameras for different jobs. Taking a 8x10 large format camera to a rivers edge trying to get a shot of a bald eagle or osprey fishing is just going to end in disappointment for you. Now taking a camera with good tracking and 15 or 30 fps could still end in disappointment but you will have a better chance of getting the shot.

The problem is for me any photo taken with high-volume consumer camera has no value. Such photos are in flickr, 500px, abundant like saltwater in oceans , or sand in deserts, there are so many of such pictures that it's every hard to retrieve photos from two or three years ago due to the volume of images being constantly dumped in online servers. Canon could deliver the cameras with photos already taken, tin order to reduce even further the skills and efforts required by the photographers.

---------- Post added 24-05-22 at 23:48 ----------

it's a case of different cameras for different jobs..

We can't use different cameras for different jobs because the camera industry impose on us what camera we should use (small consumer cameras). Consumer cameras dominate the market, and making a wide range of other types of cameras disappear.

[surfar]

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

---------- Post added 05-25-22 at 08:53 AM ----------

Canon could deliver the cameras with photos already taken, tin order to reduce even further the skills and efforts required by the photographers.

You could go back 100 + years to the very roots, wouldnt that be nice and retro.Just get a horse and cart and your kits complete.

---------- Post added 05-25-22 at 09:08 AM ----------

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[BigMackCam]

The problem is for me any photo taken with high-volume consumer camera has no value. Such photos are in flickr, 500px, abundant like saltwater in oceans , or sand in deserts, there are so many of such pictures that it's every hard to retrieve photos from two or three years ago due to the volume of images being constantly dumped in online servers.

We can't use different cameras for different jobs because the camera industry impose on us what camera we should use (small consumer cameras). Consumer cameras dominate the market, and making a wide range of other types of cameras disappear.

I think this deserves a separate discussion thread, biz. If I have time, I may start one later today - unless you'd prefer to? You and I think quite differently about this, but I'm sure there are many others who share our respective views or hold completely different ones. It might be interesting to discuss.

In brief response, I'll say that the proliferation of photos in flickr, 500px, social media, forums etc. demonstrates the thirst we have for capturing and creating images, and for consuming them in one form or another. Some folks enjoy taking photos, some of them enjoy exhibiting them (whether in a gallery or on social media - it's effectively the same), and some enjoy viewing them. The majority of us fit within at least one of those three groups... so there's your value.

It seems to me that your problem is actually more to do with curation, distribution and filtering of all the photos out there, such that you only see what interests you. That should be easy to achieve in theory, but in practice it's difficult because personal artistic tastes and appreciation of technical standards come into it. There's a lot of subjectively good and bad photography regardless of the equipment used. If you filter out consumer cameras, you'll miss out on a lot of great photos along with those you consider to be rubbish... and if you search only for photos taken with 4x5 and 8x10 equipment, there'll be plenty of mundane, uninspiring shots along with the good stuff. It has far more to do with the artist and their use of the equipment to achieve their goals, rather than the equipment itself...

[surfar]

It has far more to do with the artist and their use of the equipment to achieve their goals, rather than the equipment itself...

When you consider the digital age and how photos are shared.,equipment doesn't mean lots imo.BIZ can veer off onto his tangent all he likes.Everyone else on earth will continue using their phones and cameras to capture moments that are important to the individual.

What a good photo is to me,isnt to some one else.The old cliche"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" rings true.

ps,dont forget the Fuji summit 1pm London time May 31st(I know you will be interested)

[BigMackCam]

When you consider the digital age and how photos are shared.,equipment doesn't mean lots imo.

I largely agree. Doesn't seem to stop us talking about the latest and (supposedly-) greatest gear, though...

What a good photo is to me,isnt to some one else.The old cliche"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" rings true.

Bingo

ps,dont forget the Fuji summit 1pm London time May 31st(I know you will be interested)

Yeah, I've cleared my diary, obviously

Seriously, I'm not especially interested in - nor excited by - equipment-focused events by any brand. FujiFilm produces very nice gear, Canon too, but so do all of the manufacturers. Every modern ILC is way more capable than I'll ever need, and they're becoming more feature-packed and complex in operation than I have any real appetite for.

Rather than follow gear, my time and money are better spent honing and extending my skills by getting out there and shooting the equipment I already own and enjoy, and learning from the many photographers who are far more capable than me...

[house]

The problem is for me any photo taken with high-volume consumer camera has no value. Such photos are in flickr, 500px, abundant like saltwater in oceans , or sand in deserts

If you think what gear you use will differentiate your photos you're deluding yourself. People are photographing the same things in the same way. Mostly just aiming for pretty pictures or ones that closely resemble genre icons. The content is rarely of interest, it's only about the look. Such photos will naturally have very little value unless the look is so layered and sophisticated it in itself becomes content. Only a tiny selection of artists achieve this.

If you're a lawyer or nurse producing images as above is a great rewarding hobby and important for the person and perhaps people close to them. This is fine, great actually, but expecting the photographs to stand out or be meaningful to a global population is unrealistic. That said a hobby photographer nurse *can* of course be better than all full time artists but you shouldn't expect it.

[3by2]

After my study of 8x10 large format cameras, I see this R7 and R10 with some distance, i.e more of the same consumer digital camera. No matter how I turn it, it's again a ridiculously small sensor (22mmx15mm), still the same boring 3:2 aspect ratio, with quick operation for lucky spray & pray compositions, quantity of random images. Canon R7 and R10 don't offer tilt & shift, no rise & fall, no scheimpflug, no perspective correction, it's sad; the resolution at 32Mpixels is pathetically low compared to 8x10 low ISO black & white film.

I can see you as a modern version of the Abraham brothers, although even they didn't use an 8x10, not far off but not quite.

Canon obviously still thinks there's a market for the r7 and 10, which is good, it might encourage other manufacturers to release slightly cheaper versions of their own flagships because at the moment I'm pretty much priced out of any new cameras. It's not that I can't afford it, it's just I baulk at paying more than a certain amount.

The lens roadmap looks fairly uninteresting too. Isn't there an R4 to come as well, I thought I read that somewhere?

[BigMackCam]

at the moment I'm pretty much priced out of any new cameras. It's not that I can't afford it, it's just I baulk at paying more than a certain amount.

That's pretty much where I'm at too. For what I do in terms of photography - a bit of everything... Jack of all trades, master of none - I simply can't derive sufficient benefit from upgrading to justify the expense, especially when prices are increasing and the economy is tanking. My K-3 has plenty of life in it, and my K-3II backup (bought new for GBP £625 at the bottom of the market, just before it was discontinued) has barely been used... it's almost a brand-new camera, with (I hope) a good, long life ahead of it. A newer, more-capable camera would benefit so few of my potential shots that it would be wasted on me...