Have you made the switch from Canon to Nikon and what was it like? (Page 10): Okay, Richard … then, I do not know how to read the Wiki chart for Canon cameras ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

The original 5D does not have video.
(I own one)

Okay, Richard … then, I do not know how to read the Wiki chart for Canon cameras ….

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

RichardTaylor wrote:

It all depends on what you are shooting. Any camera will not do in some situations.
Keep in mind for some organisations social media may be the main way of communication.

Yeah, well - I guess I interpreted "Social Media" to represent FB …

But, I guess - the original "Social" site - is becoming more and more - business-oriented …

Richard - I honestly can't think why product from a Bridge - should NOT be embraced!!!!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

The 1Dx2 has superior video capability than the 5D4... Due to the ability to move more data faster I believe...

Todd - the 1Dx2 has a faster frame rate, but the sensor in the 5D4 is vastly improved, over it …

And the new R - is even more superior - I believe …

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Chris T wrote:

Todd - the 1Dx2 has a faster frame rate, but the sensor in the 5D4 is vastly improved, over it …

And the new R - is even more superior - I believe …

The image sensor in the EOS R is a slightly updated version of the one in the 5D mk IV. What makes the big difference between the two is the image processor. The 5D mk IV uses a Digic 6+ while the EOS R uses a Digic 8 processor.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Not sure what your source of this idea of the 5D4 sensor being vastly superior to the 1Dx2 sensor. It is higher resolution but they are two different animals. Better processors and software features enabled are a factor perhaps. I said from the beginning of having mine if Canon enabled the touch screen features of the 5D4 on the 1D2 it would be perhaps the ideal camera, at least for me. That won’t happen though as Canon doesn’t add much through firmware changes to their models during their lifespans.

Here is just one chart from Photonstophotos comparing the sensors DR vs ISO.

Chris T wrote:

Todd - the 1Dx2 has a faster frame rate, but the sensor in the 5D4 is vastly improved, over it …

And the new R - is even more superior - I believe …

(Download)

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Not sure what your source of this idea of the 5D4 ... (show quote)

That chart shows greater DR for the 5D4, but the 1Dx2 wins, hands down, on extended ISO …

The 1Dx3 will have the Touch-Sensor screen - I'm sure of it - come, October … can you wait, Todd?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

rmorrison1116 wrote:

The image sensor in the EOS R is a slightly updated version of the one in the 5D mk IV. What makes the big difference between the two is the image processor. The 5D mk IV uses a Digic 6+ while the EOS R uses a Digic 8 processor.

So, the EOS R - is the most advanced Canon, to date - huh, R? … Did you get yours, yet? An R for R - eh?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Chris you need to look at the chart again... The 5D4 has slightly more DR at low iso but otherwise they are pretty much the same. The 1Dx2 of course goes to higher ISO levels.

The 1Dx2 has a touch screen but it is limited in functionality to focus. That in my mind is a software choice by Canon, not any hardware limitation. I doubt I will be running out to get the next 1Dx model unless it is drastically more capable than the 1Dx2. I don’t consider the 1Dx2 to be greatly superior to the original 1Dx. But I would not buy a 2012 body in 2016 unless it was a huge price difference. So, I bought the 1Dx2. I do like the CFast cards, but they are expensive...

Chris T wrote:

That chart shows greater DR for the 1Dx2, but the 5D4 wins, hands down, on extended ISO …

The 1Dx3 will have the Touch-Sensor screen - I'm sure of it - come, October … can you wait, Todd?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Chris you need to look at the chart again... The ... (show quote)

I did, already, Todd … and realized I wrote it back to front, and - I've already corrected it …

The new Sony cards are super-fast, and provide extended capacity - now, to 512GB - soon to be 1TB. Don't think the C-Fast Cards will allow that transfer speed, NOR the extended capacity. The newer models are doing away with C-Fast, and providing a second SD slot for the QXDs ….

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Are you comparing SDXC to CFast? Looking at that the CFast is still much faster from what I see. The issue comes down to size, cost and capacity. CFast have not really come down in price much not have XQD I believe. The other is is how much capacity do you want on an SD size card? So many seem to prefer a fistful of smaller capacity cards. I can buy a 512 CFast or XQD card today if I want to. Maybe if I was shooting video. But I can fit about 2500 and 5000 RAW files on a 64 and 128GB CFast card. That’s enough for many shooting situations...at least in my world.

Chris T wrote:

I did, already, Todd … and realized I wrote it back to front, and - I've already corrected it …

The new Sony cards are super-fast, and provide extended capacity - now, to 512GB - soon to be 1TB. Don't think the C-Fast Cards will allow that transfer speed, NOR the extended capacity. The newer models are doing away with C-Fast, and providing a second SD slot for the QXDs ….

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Here is what I see in 64GB cards at B&H...

SDXC is slowest, QXD next slowest and CFast the fastest...

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Are you comparing SDXC to CFast? Looking at that ... (show quote)

(Download)

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Here is what I see in 64GB cards at B&H...

SDXC is slowest, QXD next slowest and CFast the fastest...

Well - THAT shows ya, Todd … 440MB/sec - for the QXD … can you beat that with a CFAST?

Ah, THERE it is, Todd … CFAST didn't show, before … yes, you're right … the READ speed's a lil faster.

But, the WRITE speed's about the same - huh, Todd?

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Almost 10 percent faster write speed but speed is relative to actual use not always lab testing. The read speed is quite a bit faster but not sure it would make that much practical difference. The SDXC is clearly lagging the CFast, but less expensive.

Chris T wrote:

Well - THAT shows ya, Todd … 440MB/sec - for the QXD … can you beat that with a CFAST?

Ah, THERE it is, Todd … CFAST didn't show, before … yes, you're right … the READ speed's a lil faster.

But, the WRITE speed's about the same - huh, Todd?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Notorious T.O.D. wrote:

Almost 10 percent faster write speed but speed is relative to actual use not always lab testing. The read speed is quite a bit faster but not sure it would make that much practical difference. The SDXC is clearly lagging the CFast, but less expensive.

Well - I guess you can use - what - just the SDXC and the C-Fast, huh?

I'm limited to just using the SDXC - as I don't have any cameras which'll use the other two.

But that Sony - is plenty fast enough, for my purposes, Todd ….

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I only use CF and CFast... don’t like the small size of SD and only my old 1D MkIII can use them. Even rarely use the CFs any more...

Chris T wrote:

Well - I guess you can use - what - just the SDXC and the C-Fast, huh?

I'm limited to just using the SDXC - as I don't have any cameras which'll use the other two.

But that Sony - is plenty fast enough, for my purposes, Todd ….