3 ms·

I don’t know how much you’re actually missing. Pixel shift is nice for architecture but if the purpose is to increase resolution, it’ll just kind of work for la

I don’t know how much you’re actually missing. Pixel shift is nice for architecture but if the purpose is to increase resolution, it’ll just kind of work for landscape and certainly not street. Leaves move in the air, and water moves. People definitely move. Birds, it takes practice to get the right shutter speed. There is this kind of weird and intense competition for features and specs in this space of photography, and it doesn’t always make sense. I think if Canon dropped pixel shift, they probably figured that people wouldn’t terribly miss it, but for a little while, it was the feature of the moment. I did appreciate that they added it in firmware for the R5, but I never found a use for it.

atoav 2y ago
As someone experienced with cameras, we are living in an age where upperclass smartphones look superior to many cinema production cameras on paper. Yet the smartphone picture still sucks, as it is too compressed, the colors are off, weird post processing is applied that ruins the picture, the sensor may have impressive resolution, but all other specs are not as impressive and of course the lens assembly doesn't even compare due to size constraints. Which in the end leads to a mix where the unprocessed gamma-adjusted picture of the cinema camera will look like the real thing, while the smartphone picture will have its flaws, that will come through or not depending on the source material. As for features, making more use of existing hardware is good. I wouldn't need pixelshift in most cases, but when I would it is there.