Why does the Internet say that R6 pixels are too low instead of 1DX3 and Nikon D6 pixels?

To tell the truth, most people who spit out R6 pixels are echoing the crowd. 1DX3 and d 6 are both flagship machine, and they all use bosses, but they dare not spray.

Technically, some people still think that camera pixels are the most important in this era. That mobile phone is really the second camera. Go and buy a mobile phone. It's economical and light. R6 is a good machine with 20 million pixels. Most people can't take good photos not because there are not enough pixels, but because the shutter iso and aperture, composition and post-match are not in place. To put it bluntly, it is a human problem.

A really good work, even if it is posted in a circle of friends in Weibo, looks shocking and is also a good work. Photos taken by people who can't take pictures in 100 million pixels are also rubbish.

Finally, it is not denied that pixels are very important, and high pixels in special shooting scenes are a necessary condition. It's just that most scenes are shot, and most people who spray pixels can't shoot themselves. Don't spray if you don't like your personal opinion.

I use R6, and I have a certain say.

Personally, there are several reasons why R6 pixel is too low:

1, technical reasons. I don't understand photography and regard pixels as the decisive factor of photo quality.

2. Psychological reasons. Today, with 50 million to 60 million pixels, 2,065,438+10,000 pixels are at a disadvantage in number, and extra efforts are needed to overcome psychological factors.

3. Reasons for demand. 2065438+ megapixels, enough for most subjects. But for people who need frequent secondary composition (such as landscape photography), this pixel does not have much clipping space. Some people may say that it is necessary to make a second composition frequently, indicating that there is a technical problem. On the one hand, it is true. On the other hand, due to the limitation of focal length, it is inevitable to cut the scenery or shoot birds. In particular, it is slightly out of the focal length of the lens. If you have a high-quality lens with super wide angle to super telephoto and full focal length, you really don't need to cut it. However, the cost is too high. For example, if you have 45 million pixels, you can still get a large and high-definition picture by shooting the moon (or birds) with 70-200 pixels and editing it later. This saves a 600mm or even 800 mm lens. If it's 2065438+ megapixels, shoot with a focal length of 200mm, and the photo will be very small after post-editing. For another example, for example, you have 24-70 in your hand, but due to the limitation of conditions, you need to use 100mm to complete the shooting. At this time, if it is a high pixel, after shooting with 70mm, the effect of 100mm can be achieved through post-editing. However, the space for low pixel cutting is limited.

To sum up, people who have the following needs should start with low-pixel cameras cautiously.

1, need to print large-scale outdoor inkjet frequently, with high quality requirements. If the image quality is not high, you can reduce the dpi to achieve a larger size, or you can use the software "lossless amplification".

2. It is necessary to shoot several subjects out of focus frequently. For example, you have 24-70, but you need to use100 mm; Often; Or you have 70-200, often using 300mm at the same time. This time is the most embarrassing. It is too expensive to buy a high-quality lens in order to exceed several focal lengths. It will be used, and there is not much room for later cutting.

Generally speaking, R6 has a balanced performance in all aspects and can cope with most subjects, which is worth starting with. If you are shooting scenery, it is still recommended to start with ultra-wide angle and telephoto, and minimize cropping.

There is still a difference between micro-single and SLR. Although it can be said that there are certain psychological factors, under certain conditions, the imaging of micro-single is still not clear enough compared with SLR. But overall, the gap should not be too obvious, except for special needs, which can basically meet the needs.

I personally express some objective views, don't spray.

I think there are many reasons not to like the low r6 pixel.

First, there are too many high-pixel models at present, and cameras and mobile phones are constantly improving pixels.

Secondly, they don't dislike machines like 1dx and d6, because they also know that the main concern of these box machines for sports ecology is speed, and high pixels are really a bit of a chicken rib for such machines. Moreover, obviously, R6 in hand is not the same model as these Rubik's cube machines. That's why I hate it.

I personally have 850 and z6. To be honest, when I take some photos with quality requirements, I really choose 850 first, and I am used to watching 850 movies. If you watch z6 again, it will be really uncomfortable. This is just a personal feeling.

But if you just do online sharing, to be honest, apart from sharing high-definition pictures in some forums, like sharing in a circle of friends, there is no difference between 850 and z6.

So in view of this problem, I think there is only one reason why I don't like r6, that is, to find a reason for myself to change r5 ~[ Yi tooth].

Canon's machine has poor quality control and the bottom is burnt. How does r6 compare with 1dx series? One is continuous shooting's speed camera, which captures all kinds of extreme scenes around the clock. R6 is not as efficient as 1dx. Since there is no efficiency. That pixel is low, which is a disadvantage. The imaging of the same pixel r6 is not as good as that of 1dx. It is said that the same base is used, but the photos taken by r6 have no advantage over half-frame cameras, and the difference in optimization is just a gimmick. If you take the original picture to speak, Fuji is a better choice. Besides, the machine is not cheap. Machines at this price would rather buy a73 series and Z series. Either one is worth buying than r6. Whether a product is competitive or not ultimately depends on pricing. R6 is more expensive than products of the same grade. The performance may be worse. So if it is not brand control, it is more fragrant to buy something else.

Regardless of the brand, let's talk about why the price in flagship machine is high and the pixel is low. It seems that many answers are unreliable. People usually think that the most expensive SLR camera is the best camera, right or wrong. Professional flagship machine is actually a professional outdoor unit. Its requirements are different from ordinary professional machines. Flagship machine aims at sporting events and shooting wild animals in the wild. The first requirement is that continuous shooting's speed and focusing speed should be as high as possible. The second place is image quality. The extremely high speed of continuous shooting requires the extremely high storage speed of photos, which puts great demands on the processing and writing speed of hardware processors and memory cards. Take Nikon D850 as an example. The photo capacity of 46 million pixels is generally around 50 megabytes. Calculate the continuous shooting speed per second according to flagship machine 14 photos. Memory cards need to write 700 megabytes per second to meet the requirements, while Sony's high-speed XQD card has a maximum writing speed of 440 megabytes per second. We can only reduce the pixel and capacity of each photo to reach the limit of high-speed continuous shooting per second. Press the shutter speed of 1/8000 seconds to take pictures. Is it true that the highest shooting speed in continuous shooting can theoretically reach 8000 frames per second? Although there is a gap between theory and reality, shutter continuous shooting can take hundreds of photos per second, but the writing speed of hardware storage can't break through the bottleneck at present, only the continuous shooting with the highest number of pixels can be reduced. Therefore, expensive cameras do not mean the best picture quality, and high pixels do not mean professionalism. It's just a product of compromise according to categories. In order to pursue high quality, we have to give up extreme high-speed continuous shooting, and in order to pursue extreme continuous shooting, we have to give up high quality. This is a helpless choice.

Different uses ...

Different positioning, D 1DX positioning flagship, ecological movement speed machine, are the best speed. Shutter continuous shooting gives priority to the fastest focusing, and shooting is more important than shooting well, so naturally it does not pursue high pixels. The 20 million pixels of r6 civil aircraft are relatively low, and there is basically no clipping space.

Most people think that Canon's 1D series is a speed machine, and the 5 and 6 series are image quality machines. After years of inertia thinking, this pixel is enough for ordinary people.

If you want to cut photos later, 2/kloc-0.0 million pixels is definitely not enough. Not bad money can buy a low-pixel, continuous shooting speed block, fixed-focus lens with a red circle, cut less and cut less. If money is tight, buy a high-pixel camera and choose a zoom lens for post-editing.