- Stacked crap
- FPS of any kind
- More megapixels
- Video
YES:
- Square sensor
- ISO 50 with DGO
- High quality UI similar to Leica
- Battery life of 1,000 exposures per CIPA
Every brand deserves a photographic flagship. Not everything needs to be a kitchen sink for every imaginable fringe use case.
I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'd bet the home that it is not going to have a square sensor.
EBH
I was thinking about the “square sensor” business last night, and it occurred to me (as a person who used to use square sensor TLR cameras years ago) that hardly anyone got them because they wanted to make non-square images and avoid rotating the camera 90 degrees. I think that it would be the same with a digital square sensor camera today.
I cannot see it happening.
- - -
It isn’t uncommon for a lower-tier (or different tier?) model to pick up some. features from the prior generation of higher-tier cameras at introduction… and then for the next model of the higher tier product to pick up even more capabilities and features.
It makes sense for a lot of reasons. The technology has often dropped in cost — take high MP sensor for example. And by initially selling the new, lower tier model as “getting features from a more expensive model!” upgrades are encouraged to buy. And then, a few months later, when that top-tier model comes out with ITS improvements, that encourages even more purchases.
- - -
nineblade wrote:
Honestly, I'm not ready for 67mpx at 30FPS. Have you seen how much hard drives and SSD's cost these days?
There are not THAT many situations in which 30fps is an advantage, and often it is actually better to shoot at a lower fps such as 10fps or so.
You don't have to the use the highest FPS, but sometimes on penguins jumping from the water or fastly birds flying, or animals like Wildebeests crossing the Mara it's very nice to get more frames. If a lion is not doing much then 15FPS is enough. I wish Sony could do 12FPS mechanical like Canon rather than 10FPS assuming the sensor read is not so fast, but it would not stop me from buying.
EBH
That’s why I wrote “uncommon.”
There are some situations where super fast frame rates might make a difference, and there are definitively situations in which burst mode is powerful and just about the only way to reliably get the shot. (Though even in those cases, a slower than maximum rate may be the best choice.)
10-15fps seems fast enough to me for birds, and I most of the time actually pick a lower rate. YMMV.
May 01, 2026 at 02:50 PM
Notice: Undefined offset: 0 in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewedits.php on line 155
- Stacked crap
- FPS of any kind
- More megapixels
- Video
YES:
- Square sensor
- ISO 50 with DGO
- High quality UI similar to Leica
- Battery life of 1,000 exposures per CIPA
Every brand deserves a photographic flagship. Not everything needs to be a kitchen sink for every imaginable fringe use case.
I'm not sure if you are joking, but I'd bet the home that it is not going to have a square sensor.
EBH
I was thinking about the “square sensor” business last night, and it occurred to me (as a person who used to use square sensor TLR cameras years ago) that hardly anyone got them because they wanted to make non-square images and avoid rotating the camera 90 degrees. I think that it would be the same with a digital square sensor camera today.
I cannot see it happening.
- - -
It isn’t uncommon for a lower-tier (or different tier?) model to pick up some. features from the prior generation of higher-tier cameras at introduction… and then for the next model of the higher tier product to pick up even more capabilities and features.
It makes sense for a lot of reasons. The technology has often dropped in cost — take high MP sensor for example. And by initially selling the new, lower tier model as “getting features from a more expensive model!” upgrades are encouraged to buy. And then, a few months later, when that top-tier model comes out with ITS improvements, that encourages even more purchases.
- - -
nineblade wrote:
Honestly, I'm not ready for 67mpx at 30FPS. Have you seen how much hard drives and SSD's cost these days?
There are not THAT many situations in which 30fps is an advantage, and often it is actually better to shoot at a lower fps such as 10fps or so.
You don't have to the use the highest FPS, but sometimes on penguins jumping from the water or fastly birds flying, or animals like Wildebeests crossing the Mara it's very nice to get more frames. If a lion is not doing much then 15FPS is enough. I wish Sony could do 12FPS mechanical like Canon rather than 10FPS assuming the sensor read is not so fast, but it would not stop me from buying.
EBH
That’s why I wrote “uncommon.”
There are some situations where super fast frame rates might make a difference, and there are definitively situations in which burst mode is powerful and just about the only way to reliably get the shot. (Though even in those cases, a slower than maximum rate may be the best choice.)
May 01, 2026 at 11:51 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #17030295 « Sony A7RVI »
