Ed Rizk wrote:
nnowak wrote:
Ed Rizk wrote:
Neither one of those companies has a particularly "uncertain" future. Cameras are not going away. Back in the days of film, camera sales were lower than they are now and still supported several camera companies.
Back in the film days, if you wanted a photo, there was no other option. You needed a camera and film. Now you no longer need a stand alone camera
You don't need a real camera for a snap shot, but you do for anything that requires wide angle,
My smartphone has a 13mm equivalent camera which is wider than any of my "real" camera lenses
telephoto,
Optical zooms that go to 160mm have had development announcements and should be showing up in phones in less than a year
low light capability,
Google Night Sight has shown some pretty impressive results
high magnification,
no true macro capabilities yet, but close focusing capabilities are good enough for general use
or stopping action.
Smartphones are actually better at this with the ability to pre-buffer frames so you can go back and select the moment. Smartphones are also capable of shooting slow motion video at 960fps. That means a 1 second event would play back over 32 seconds.
Smartphones are not even close to replacing all dedicated cameras, but the capabilities are getting very impressive. Definitely not a replacement for a 1DX and 800mm f/5.6, but good enough to replace a M100 and 15-45mm f3.5-6.3.
There will be a smaller selection of cameras by each company and upgrades will come less often.
This is definitely true, but it is too early to predict who or what will be left standing. Here's a hypothetical... Olympus sells off their camera division to Google who then merges all of the smartphone computational wonderstuff with smaller m4/3 cameras. Full frame as we know could suddenly look quaint and wholly inadequate.
That would be interesting. Why wouldn't they buy or partner with a major company with full frame optics and a large sensor. You can't digitally manipulate what you can't capture.
It was purely a hypothetical. However, smaller sensors generally allow for faster readout and a m4/3 sensor with Google's magic could rival medium format. A full frame sensor would be harder to implement and would offer truly unnecessary levels of quality. There is also the consideration that smaller sensors are much cheaper.
Canon still has the largest share.
Well, somebody needs to be number one. But that does not mean that number two, three, etc are inferior in every possible regard.
Agreed. Patent and copyright laws dictate that no company will ever be number one at everything.
Looking at your previous post in this thread about lens selection, I agree with you to an extent. I like the Z offerings better than the R offerings. If you have to have a "mirrorless" lens, Sony is the best option, and Fuji is the only other option with a complete selection.
Canon, however beats them all with the ability to use EF lenses to their fullest capability.
With a relatively complete native catalog such as Sony, Fuji, or m4/3, how many of the EF lenses are even worth adapting? I am not saying that the EF lenses are not great, but how many offer something truly unique above the native options? The EF catalog is very large, but there is a massive amount of duplication. Currently for sale at B&H are six different 70-200mm zooms, five different 70/75-300mm zooms, four different wide angle zooms, four different 400mm primes, three different 24-105mm zooms. Looking through the catalog, the only truly unique lenses that warrant adapting to mirrorless are the MP-E 65mm and the TS-E lenses.
Those come to mind, of course. Three of the TSEs are macro lenses. I had never heard of a TSE macro lens before they came out. I have seen another since by an off brand maker that I can't think of the name of right now, starting with L. It may have been around earlier, but doesn't compare optically.
I have shot macro in the past by using extension tubes on the TS-E 24mm and TS-E 90mm. The tilt function is fantastic for working with the thin depth of field at macro distances. Now, I use an old manual focus micro-Nikkon 105mm f/2.8 on a Kipon T/S adapter.
Then there was the above discussion about the 11-24. The difference between 11 and 12 is just under 10%. It's not earth shattering, but it's relevant.
I think that 1mm was RLight's point. However, the corners are really, really soft on that lens at 11mm.
Canon has the only auto focus F1.2 lenses. I don't care about them, but those that do think they are the best lenses in existence.
That is true for DSLRs, but not for mirrorless.
The huge expensive super telephotos are certainly not for everybody, but if they are for you, your choices are Canon and Nikon. Canon has the edge, which is the reason they have the biggest share of the pro sports market.
Canon definitely had an advantage with telephoto lenses, but much of the current market share is just from the momentum that was created decades ago with the launch of USM AF. Today, I think Nikon can go toe to toe with the Canon telephoto lenses, and in some situations, I would say Nikon is ahead. Basically, telephoto optical quality is no longer a differentiating factor
Then there is your point. How many versions of each focal length lens do you need? Well, how many income brackets do you want to cater to? Three of my lenses are expensive. Four are moderately priced. The reason is, while I do a little business with my camera, I'm also a hobbyist, and I want to be able to shoot any kind of photograph on a whim. I spend too much money on camera gear, but I don't want to spend the money for a top notch lens of every type.
The budget options are the old, unstabilized versions which aren't up to modern standards optically. Personally, I would just buy a used copy of the modern stabilized lens for what Canon charges for a new copy of the unstabilized lens. I would definitely not bother to adapt the old, unstabilized 70-200mm f/2.8 to the R.
Don't forget the interesting cheap Canon lenses. Both of the pancake lenses are tiny, cheap, and good for the price.
But are any of them worth adapting vs. a native mirrorless lens?
The two new crop macro lenses are cheap, sharp, and have dual built in light that are individually controllable. How many of those are there? The RF 35 and the EF 24-70 F4 both are general purpose lenses that have macro capability. There are better lenses for shooting macro all day, but I like shooting other things and being able to just grab a close up photo of something that is small and interesting.
I forgot about the macro capabilities of the 24-70mm f/4. That lens is fairly compact too.
The mundane cheap Canon lenses are cheaper and sharper than most mundane cheap lenses.
Again, are any of them worth adapting vs. a native mirrorless lens?
I'll buy one or two RF lenses for convenience in walking around. (I have two, but will probably sell the RF 24-105. It's not better or longer enough than the EF 24-70 F4 to give up the macro focus.).
If I get the M6 II, I'll buy two to four M lenses for travel, depending on whether or not I add a superzoom instead of M telephoto and normal zoom.
However, my premium lenses will remain all EF, because I can use them on either the M or the R for different AOVs, and I can use them on a DSLR, which I still prefer on a nice day. No other system offers that flexibility and lens selection.
Sony still sells A mount DSLRs and A mount lenses that can be adapted to their mirrorless cameras. Nikon soon be launching their Z mount crop mirrorless cameras.
Yes they do. They just don't have as may of them or as many interesting ones.
I think the missing qualifier is "No other system offers that flexibility and lens selection if you already own EF mount lenses".
Admittedly, that is a factor for me.
It was a factor for me in the past, but I personally hate using lens adapters and now only shoot with native mount lenses.
You have to gather although Nikon and Sony will continue to "catch up", Canon won't be standing still. In the same way as Canon "catches up" with sensors, neither will Sony stand still in that same period.
For mirrorless, both Canon and Nikon are playing catch up.
I'm not sure, at least for a still shooter, like me. (Video is too much like work.)
The superior lens selection is a big deal for me, considering the EF catalogue.
How many variations of a 70-200mm lens does one person need?
The dual pixel focus is vastly superior, both from what I have read and personal experience. A good friend of mine is a big Sony fanatic. He shoots mostly video, so he should probably stay that way. We had a side by side test, and the R smokes the Sony on focus speed and accuracy, especially in low light.
I'll take your word for it.
Don't take my word for it. I have yet to see a review that doesn't agree, when it comes to single point focusing. The Sony is better at figuring out where the eye is, so if you don't know where a person's eye is and want the camera to pick the focus point for you, Sony does that better, as long as it's not too dark. High end DSLRs and the Sony A9 track action better, as long as it's not too dark.
My old M2 with an AF rating of EV+1 was able to grab focus in any situation with enough light to make a decent photo. I watched some of the Youtube videos comparing the R's AF to Nikon and Sony. Yes, the R was definitely better by a wide margin, but these looked like insane situations where you would never capture anything close to a decent image. ISO 100,000 at 1/15 shutter speed? EV-6 is the same light level as being outside under quarter phase moon (half illuminated). EV-3 is the same light level as being outside under a full moon. I don't shoot sports with only moonlight for illumination.
No IQ advantage means anything if your shots are out of focus.
That is why I will absolutely never shoot with a DSLR again.
I don't know. I took both out last Sunday. The OVF is nice on a nice day. Still, I switched to the EVF several times because of lighting, even in the middle of the day. You're probably right.
I have always hated the smaller OVF's on the crop cameras. I liked the OVF's on the full frame cameras, but once I saw the massive high-res EVF on a Fuji X-T1 I lost all desire to shoot with an OVF. The latest full frame mirrorless cameras are supposed to be even better.
I have also found that DPP handles noise on Canon files better than other programs, so the DR difference is less if you first de noise in DPP then retouch elsewhere.
I'm hoping the M6 II is a small R. If it is, I want it. I got rid of my 60D when I got the R. I miss having a crop camera to use with my EF lenses.
