villagranvicent: For a medium format user full frame starts at 6x4.5cm... For a large format user full frame starts at 10x12.5cms, so which one is full frame? Agree with DavinaG, we spend too much time reviewing new gear instead of going out and taking pictures with whatever camera we have. At the end a bad photographer will create bad pictures not matter the camera and the other way around.
Villa's point is true, but the reverse is also true: there comes a time when a good photographer needs a good camera to maximize his skillset. Sure, the best photographers can make great images out of the worst equipment, but it will take them longer to. Why try to chop a tree down with a pair of scissors when a chainsaw will get you there faster?
dash2k8: Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
Anyone who only ever aspires to an APS-C body is not going to go far in photo (which is fine, since for some ppl, photography is just for fun). However, it's one thing to not be able to afford an FF system, it's another to be complacent and say "this is good ENOUGH." When that word appears, you know corners are cut and goals reduced. We should all aspire to FF bodies and beyond.
To clarify, I have nothing against ppl who shoot for fun. But I do have a problem with the words "good enough."
@guyfawkes, you raise a good point. I think we should all aspire to achieve the image quality of Hasselblads. It's too bad they were too cumbersome back in the days, and now too expensive for many to afford, myself included (can only rent one occasionally). I wish all my pics had medium-format or larger quality.
tabloid: Real world..Personally as a full time professional photographer i would never go back to a SLR….its morrorless all the way for me.
I dont do sports, or fast moving objects….I photograph people.
Just a couple of reasons why mirror less is great : Focusing via the mirror/pentaprtism in a SLR doesn't mean that its in focus on the film/sensor plane.For me a digital SLR (with mirror) can't be used for view-back in bright sunlight.(please don't say put a hood on it).
SLR (with mirror): Constant overheating in video mode.
Ive set my Sony A65 so that when i take a picture, the image stays in my viewfinder for about 4 seconds so that i can see if what I've taken is acceptable, or if the person has blinked. Great for group shots, where one person has always blinked.Can do videos via the viewfinder. Can play back videos and stills via the viewfinder….great stuff.I could go on, but i won't, as people who own mirror less cameras know exactly what I'm talking about.
@karl, I cover weddings and live events, so there you go. ;) The AF just flatout isn't fast enough to keep up. The a7s/metabones combo to me turns it into a full manual camera, which is absolutely fine for landscape/portraits/stuff-that-don't-move, but for anything with motion the keeper rate is too low.
No such issues for video, though, since I use manual focus anyway. Loving the footage taken with the a7s + Shogun!
As for the Nikon thing, the D750 is calling my name because of its supreme noise control. As you know, weddings can get pretty dark and most of the time flash isn't an option, so I need the extra ISO. Got some Nikon lenses from a friend who recently retired so it's a relatively low cost experiment.
To captura, I respectfully disagree with your notion on 'good enough.' There are always going to be shortcomings in any system. You may love your current Sony camera but is the satisfaction 100%? Of course not. It's the desire for something better that pushes makers to keep improving their products. If full frame ever dropped in price and weight and form factor (highly unlikely, but let's just play along), will the APS-C still be good enough?
@Davina, I think sports cars and motorcycles are apples and oranges.
@villagranvicent, I think you get my point. We should aspire to not settle for what we currently have, but what we can have next. It's not so much about dimensions or MPs, it's more about asking for more.
Of course full-frame is the end-point we should all aspire to, otherwise we're not much for aspirations, are we? It's like saying we should only aspire for a cheap sedan because it has a lower maintenance cost than a luxury vehicle. Such a defeatist mentality is selling ourselves short. Had NASA thought this way, we would never have gotten on the moon. The higher we aim, the higher we will go.
dash2k8: Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.
@pazin, no prob, bro, I hear ya!
@caerolle, I'm aware of the practice and loath it. I think it's plain dumb that Canon gave up trying to lead a segment that they inadvertently pioneered. Why not have great video in DSLRs and even BETTER video in their high-end stuff? Lots of cinematographers bought the 5D2 for video purposes and Zacuto and other brands came into being mainly because of the 5D2. I can understand the financial reasoning behind this move, but sentimentally I wish it otherwise.
@karl, kudos to you, my friend! I love an open mind. I myself have Canon (for stills) and Sony and Panasonic (for video). I have peers who frown upon such "lack of devotion." ;)
As for your point regarding Canon sensors, have you considered jumping ship to Nikon? I tried the metabones thing on my a7s and hated it.
On the flip side, sports photographers will be holding on to DSLRs for a long time yet. I don't understand why people can't love both systems and must crucify one or the other. It's like a Canon user must hate Nikon or be branded a pariah. I'm sure our household electronics vary in brand from TV to BD player to smartphone, yet when it comes to camera systems/brands, people are deathly loyal to a specific category.
Yeah, it's true. It's sad that they decided to focus on video in their higher-end products, leaving the rest of us out in the cold. I now shoot video with an a7s and GH4, but take stills with my DSLR.
PhotoFactor: They would rather fight themselves than have their competitors do it, if they knew what was good for them.
Apple cannibalized its own MP3 player business when it launched the iPhone.
Well, to be fair, the iPhone is doing pretty well... and the MP3 player market died anyway with the advantage of the smartphone.
yslee1: Surely it greatly depends on Nikon and Canon? I don't think these two will give up market leadership in three years.
I think Canon said they were looking into the mirrorless market over on CR.
@pazin, I think you're nitpicking here. GH4 is better than 5D3 in video regardless of the mirrorless/DSLR factor. It's not the mirror mechanism holding back the 5D3 in video, it's Canon's total disregard for video quality in this particular body. The 1DC is a DSLR and its video is much better than the GH4.
@wombat, I don't know where NX1 came up.
@Caerolle, hey, if you don't believe mirrorless will outsell DSLR one day, that's fine. As I said in my OP, I don't see why ppl get all upset about this. It's either going to happen, or it won't.
Uh, I just said that.
Not arguing with you on the "DSLR is better" point. It's not even debatable. But as I wrote elsewhere, our next door neighbors who don't know what a lens mount of f-stop is will want what's simplest and most convenient.
CameraLabTester: When consumers (not professionals) consider SIZE as a major factor: MIRRORLESS will kick in.
Oops! It already has!
PROS: big and bulky
CONSUMERS: small, comfortable, and wise. (smart too)
I don't think my next door neighbor cares about the used lens market. Neither does my aunt. Or my dentist's sister. They will buy a camera if they think it fits their needs and doesn't intimidate them with a bunch of buttons and a 300-page manual. Many who buy mirrorless don't even know what a lens mount is. Remember that 99% of us on this board are enthusiasts/pros who speak the geeky stuff. For the average Joe and Jane, they just want something they can take pictures with. What's shutter speed?
Outsell? I actually believe it. Mirrorless will be more appealing to the masses. Ma's and pa's looking for simple family photos will prefer the smaller, lighter and more portable options. And honestly, mirrorless is closing the performance gap to make it good enough for most consumers. Pros will never outnumber amateurs so I don't see why people don't think mirrorless will outsell DSLRs. I also don't understand why ppl are upset at this eventuality.
dash2k8: That camera bag... must be pretty heavy.
LOL Yeah, I was expecting that. :) Hope she doesn't carry the majority of the inventory. ;)
That camera bag... must be pretty heavy.
RomanC: Dear Dpreview team,
I have to decide if I will buy a A7 II or a A7 S. For wedding photography I currently use an old Sony R-1 (don't laugh!). It was always possible to work with it without a flash in the church if it was bright enough outside, I don't like flash lights, especially at wedding ceremonies. And: I love this camera because it's shutter is nearly unnoticeable, so can work without attracting attention.
Now I want tu upgrade to a full-format Camera. I read that the A7 S has an (activatable) electronic shutter which makes it possible to take photos without any noise. What's about the A7 II? I could not find any information if this 'noiseless mode' is also available on this model.
No problem, friend. I guess I wasn't clear in my original diction, anyway. 12MP is definitely enough for weddings. Otherwise how the hell did wedding photog's make a living back then, right?
My rant at the time was against people who think extra MPs are worthless. I was defending the use of high MP cameras and medium formats.
As for the 5x7 thing, this is where my diction was unclear and I apologize. I was referring strictly to fashion and jewelry. As you said, if it's a wedding, it's the story that counts and I totally agree. I myself am a big believer of story over image quality, so I do not find your comments offensive at all. As I said, "when shooting MODELS for COSMETICS," that's when the extra MPs do most certainly count. I painted myself into a corner with 5x7. Should have said something much larger, and again I apologize. 12x17?