I thought the new Highlight tone priority light metering was **the**biggest feature upgrade. Still, I see they tried to "out specification-sheet" Canon;'s 5D Mark III, which is sort of the other gorilla in the room at $3,200. There are some dubious new decisions too, like moving the metering selection mode button AND moving the bracketing button to the left side of the front of the body...two totally "WTF?" moves, or a Hogan calls them, "Moving the cheese." The biggest question I have is about sRAW: Hogan said earlier it would NOT be 12-bit, but only 11-bit, and he seriously dinged the Sony A7 and A7r' raw for being 11-bit--he said it caused VISIBLE artifacting in images, really, actually visible artifacting...I want to hear more about the sRAW's fine details; he says it's, "Not raw," which I think by that he means the data is being "cooked" a bit. But...then again, he wants a camera to collect optimum data, to use his words, and I think a lot of shooters want to shoot smaller-than-36MP RAW files to 1) save space 2)increase buffer or frame rate and 3) just to have the easy white balance and tone curve lattitue for post-processing away mistakes and oooopsie! situations. I do not think the majority of wedding album shots seen at 4x6 inches need to be made at 36 megapixels. Neither do headshots. My gawd, 24MP is MORE detail than I want to see on many peoples' faces!
The new 5 frames per second is a nice speed bump, and will probably allow people to get whatever they need in CL (continuous Low) and CH (Cont. High) set to tailor the cam to their needs. I think the ONE THING a camera like this needs is what the pro Nikons offer: full-field, 5:4 capture AKA 8x10 enlargement proportion; and also 1.5x or APS-C also formerly called High-Speed Crop Mode in Nikon-speak. Why the 5:4 aspect? Because it's actually a better aspect ratio for taking tall portraits, and headshots, and so on, and it's more of a full-page magazine aspect ratio than 3:2 is. Hell, with as many damned pixels as this thing has, I think it's also a blunder not to offer a 4:3 aspect ratio, which looks GORGEOUS on computer screens. It's all "done in software", so to speak...it's not like they need to do all that much except not read bunches of pixels around the perimeter. It's a PITA to have to crop like 500 frames when the camera could do it, and you could actually COMPOSE for the framing you want in camera, like a real old-school photographer might do.
Anyway, looks like a nicely-spec'd camera. I sure would not mind owning one of these.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/36/36135-6594fe1d58af0053c3e939665e543ce4.jpg?1734168245)
