Curious about why Mirrorless

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Lori2
Lori2 Forum Member • Posts: 59
Curious about why Mirrorless
1

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's.  I  bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.)  I've always dreamed though of having full frame.  But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame.  But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone.  And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

So is there another draw to mirrorless?  It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8.  Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have.  That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots.  The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.  But for portability and general use, use the 50.  Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto.  And was perfectly happy!

Lori

Canon EOS M50 (EOS Kiss M) Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,495
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

The mirrorless autofocus of the RP is better in a lot of cases, and with the R6 and R5 in almost all cases.

A mirrorless camera shows you how your exposure will look in the final image.

You can also choose to illuminate the view in the viewfinder when shooting in dark situations with a speedlite.

For me mirrorless never was about a small size and weight, even when my M50 was my main camera. Although, as a second camera I do find it convenient to have a small camera as second camera.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8.

How about the RF 35mm f/1.8?

Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have.

What full frame lenses do you already have?

That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it. But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

You might have a look at the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM if that's your focal length. I have the 24mm version, and although an adapter is needed, it's still not a heavy bulky combo. And it has IS.  Used ones can be affordable too.

Lori

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +17 more
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,157
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

Sony 1st FF MILC started of very small but the usability was poor that's why every generation has got bigger..also FF users tend to be more enthusiast or more pro like which means more external controls which need a body to be a minam size to accomplish this but as time goes on i think you will see more compact bodys from canon to compensate not updating the flagship M5 ...that's why i left (leaving)M

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

1st you need to decide why you want FF. if you want less noise at high ISO and shallower DOF then FF is what you want but if noise and DOF from APS-c is fine for you then you do not need FF or the increase in size FF brings

benefits of MILC is lenses below 35 mm can be made more compact and easy to make sharper also AF improvements like eye AF .some like the WUSIWUG ..i like the histogram overlay which has changed the way i shoot ..bodys are smaller my R6 feels a lot smaller than my 5D and they even managed to fit IBIS and a swivel LCD in it and kept excellent ergonomics

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.

you are braver than me if you would leave a lens on a bus

but the kit lens on the RP is wider than your 16-28 and has the same shallow DOF at the short end  FF equivalent to 16mm is 25 or 26mm...you just saved yourself some weight

But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

i think an RP with the 24-105 and a prime like the 50 or 35 theirs is not much you can't do and will fill a very tiny camera bag ..the RP and kit lens at 105 mm will crop way past your AE-1 and 135mm prime on film

Lori

-- hide signature --

.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
Lori2
OP Lori2 Forum Member • Posts: 59
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8.

How about the RF 35mm f/1.8?

it’s on the list

Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have.

What full frame lenses do you already have?

not a ton

Canon 135 L 2.0, Tamron 70-300 VC 4-5.6, old old old Canon 80-200 that I affectionately call my pocket rocket ( actually I think that’s it’s moniker) that I love because it’s tiny for a telephoto, typical nifty fifty that I’ll probably sell if I get the rf, and an old kit lens for my Elan ll. In other words I tended to buy for my crop sensor.

I’m planning on selling most of my crop lenses, just keep the ones my husband might use someday. I’ve never been one to sell old equipment, but if I truly move to full frame, it’s time to clear the junk.

That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it. But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

You might have a look at the EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM if that's your focal length. I have the 24mm version, and although an adapter is needed, it's still not a heavy bulky combo. And it has IS. Used ones can be affordable too.

I also excited to see what else Canon and 3rd party companies come up with in the future. I’m not going to go gang busters buying lenses right away. 
I know I need a all purpose lens, kit/50mm. Low light, wide low light, 59mm, 16-28mm, and telephoto. Fill in as needed. It’s been fun planning and researching lenses!

Lori

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

Thomas A Anderson Contributing Member • Posts: 723
Mirrorless is a bad word.
4

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

The R and RP are tiny when compared to even APS-C DSLR’s like the 7D or even the XXD series. And the M line is almost P&S size. There is a balance to strike on FF: 1) The mount needs to be large enough not to hamper lens design, 2) The body must be large enough to absorb some amount of heat for video shooting, 3) The battery must be large enough to power the large sensor and high resolution video features, and finally 4) The grip has to be large enough for many hand sizes when supporting larger and heavier lenses.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

Because pro features create more heat, need more power, have more connections, and tend to be used by serious people who aren’t worried about having a tiny body they can carry easily without a camera backpack.

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

Size might be a side effect of not having a mirror, but here is why I think “mirrorless” is a horrible term for an ILC body: the implication is that removing the mirror is only done because you don’t want that size and weight penalty. Why else would you define a body by a design feature it’s MISSING. Why isn’t the R called motorless? PDAF-less? Filmless? Naming things based on what they don’t have only confuses the uninitiated and leads to antiquated terminology describing modern concepts. There’s a reason we no longer say horseless carriages: that was a dumb term.

The mirror was removed because other technologies made it superfluous, and some companies went nuts on the size and weight savings. Sony loves to make uselessly tiny electronics of all sorts. Their camcorders were impossible to hold unless you were three, and their RX100 bodies were small AND slippery.  By the way, their Mark VII is $1,300....for a 1” sensor.  You will PAY for compactness.

DPAF was Canon’s technology that started matching or exceeding PDAF, which is why they waited so long for a FF ILC body. The more casual shooters we’re fine with the M’s contrast-based, slower AF. Nobody would shell out thousands for a slow AF FF.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

Sounds great!

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it. But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

Lori

The 24-105 f/4 L is great. Small, light, and great IQ.

thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,495
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

Canon 135 L 2.0

That's a great lens, even more so on full frame, and eye AF is definitely a plus using this lens.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +17 more
Lori2
OP Lori2 Forum Member • Posts: 59
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

1st you need to decide why you want FF. if you want less noise at high ISO and shallower DOF then FF is what you want but if noise and DOF from APS-c is fine for you then you do not need FF or the increase in size.

definitely looking for better low light performance. Number one reason. 
I’ve had an AE-2, Elan ll, and got the Digital Rebel when it came out. I wasn’t crazy about the crop sensor from the git go. I didn’t like to have to do math to figure out the actual field of view.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.

you are braver than me if you would leave a lens on a bus

On these trips the bus is like a second home. Everyone leaves their stuff in while we are on site. The bus driver locks the bus and watches it.

but the kit lens on the RP is wider than your 16-28 and has the same shallow DOF at the short end FF equivalent to 16mm is 25 or 26mm...you just saved yourself some weight

Not sure I follow? The 16-28 is constant 2.8, I’m looking at the cheapie kit lens that starts at f4. I’m thinking I’ll want towards the wide end of the 16-28 anyway.

But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

i think an RP with the 24-105 and a prime like the 50 or 35 theirs is not much you can't do and will fill a very tiny camera bag ..the RP and kit lens at 105 mm will crop way past your AE-1 and 135mm prime on film .

I’m looking forward to putting together a travel size full frame kit. I considered Sony, cause technically I need new lenses anyway, but I’m a Canon girl ( old lady actually!) at heart, familiar with their menu system and just feel at home with Canon. Plus the price is right.  
If nothing else, I assume it’s a step up from my 60D and M50.

draacor
draacor Senior Member • Posts: 1,775
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it. But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

Lori

there are a few draws some big some less talked about. Here are the reasons i went with mirrorless.

New mount is the future so it further future proofs your setup.

Being able to see exposure and depth of field in viewfinder is a big plus

seeing viewfinder at night while doing astro is also a big plus

focus peaking is fantastic for manual focus lenses

no longer need to AF Fine tune lenses (for the most part)

There are still some drawbacks of course like blackout lag and battery still isnt quite as good as DSLR

-- hide signature --

Aaron Smith
Wolfe Photography
www.nvwolfe.com
https://www.flickr.com/photos/finalimpact/

 draacor's gear list:draacor's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +1 more
zman2596
zman2596 Regular Member • Posts: 171
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless
1

Top 3 reasons:

1) autofocus hits very well. No more misses like DSLR and having to micro adjust your lenses.

2) see your exposure as is in real time.

3) eye autofocus and tracking is incredible.

 zman2596's gear list:zman2596's gear list
Canon EOS Rebel SL1 Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Tamron SP 70-200 F2.8 G2 +7 more
diness Veteran Member • Posts: 3,738
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

When Mirrorless first came out, it sounded amazing because it would be so much smaller than full size DSLR's. I bought an M50 a couple of years ago, (and I admit, it's almost too tiny, but sure fun to carry around.) I've always dreamed though of having full frame. But I like the smaller form factor of apsc, so have never jumped to full frame. But when the coming of mirrorless, and the Canon RP, I've finally decided to take the leap.

It's almost to big for me and most of the lenses are outside of my comfort zone. And looking at the R5 and R6, those are getting back closer to the size of a DSLR.

So is there another draw to mirrorless? It doesn't seem that much smaller in the end.

Yes, many more!  
1. it allows you to have many more AF points across the entirety of the sensor

2. it allows you to have technologies like eye af

3. it gives your more accurate focusing without the need of adjustment by focusing on the sensor itself

4. it lets you see the exact image you are going to get before you take it

5. it allows for ridiculous frames per second with no mirror going up and down

6. high fps can have no blackout in certain cameras because there is no mirror going up and down.

7. It allows you new options for lens design because the lens can be closer to the sensor

8. it allows you to record video through the viewfinder

theres probably more

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it. But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

Lori

 diness's gear list:diness's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,495
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

1st you need to decide why you want FF. if you want less noise at high ISO and shallower DOF then FF is what you want but if noise and DOF from APS-c is fine for you then you do not need FF or the increase in size.

definitely looking for better low light performance. Number one reason.

In that case you might want to stretch the budget to get the R.  You could also get a used one, and/or or wait for another price drop.

I’ve had an AE-2, Elan ll, and got the Digital Rebel when it came out. I wasn’t crazy about the crop sensor from the git go. I didn’t like to have to do math to figure out the actual field of view.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.

you are braver than me if you would leave a lens on a bus

On these trips the bus is like a second home. Everyone leaves their stuff in while we are on site. The bus driver locks the bus and watches it.

but the kit lens on the RP is wider than your 16-28 and has the same shallow DOF at the short end FF equivalent to 16mm is 25 or 26mm...you just saved yourself some weight

Not sure I follow? The 16-28 is constant 2.8, I’m looking at the cheapie kit lens that starts at f4. I’m thinking I’ll want towards the wide end of the 16-28 anyway.

But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

i think an RP with the 24-105 and a prime like the 50 or 35 theirs is not much you can't do and will fill a very tiny camera bag ..the RP and kit lens at 105 mm will crop way past your AE-1 and 135mm prime on film .

I’m looking forward to putting together a travel size full frame kit. I considered Sony, cause technically I need new lenses anyway, but I’m a Canon girl ( old lady actually!) at heart, familiar with their menu system and just feel at home with Canon. Plus the price is right.
If nothing else, I assume it’s a step up from my 60D and M50.

If you own the M50 it won't be so hard to imagine if mirrorless has benefits over DSLRs?

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +17 more
davev8
davev8 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,157
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

Lori2 wrote:

1st you need to decide why you want FF. if you want less noise at high ISO and shallower DOF then FF is what you want but if noise and DOF from APS-c is fine for you then you do not need FF or the increase in size.

definitely looking for better low light performance. Number one reason.
I’ve had an AE-2, Elan ll, and got the Digital Rebel when it came out. I wasn’t crazy about the crop sensor from the git go. I didn’t like to have to do math to figure out the actual field of view.

I'm planning on getting the RP, the kit lens and maybe the 50mm 1.8. Hopefully find an adapter for the few full frame lenses I have. That way, I'm still pretty small but have the ability to use other lenses as needed.

For example, hopefully someday I'll get to go to Israel again, and I ordered a used Tokina 16-28 2.8 for inside shots in tight spots. The lens looks like a beast, but I'll leave it in the bus if there's no need for it.

you are braver than me if you would leave a lens on a bus

On these trips the bus is like a second home. Everyone leaves their stuff in while we are on site. The bus driver locks the bus and watches it.

thats good

but the kit lens on the RP is wider than your 16-28 and has the same shallow DOF at the short end FF equivalent to 16mm is 25 or 26mm...you just saved yourself some weight

Not sure I follow? The 16-28 is constant 2.8, I’m looking at the cheapie kit lens that starts at f4. I’m thinking I’ll want towards the wide end of the 16-28 anyway.

the full frame equivalent of a 16-28 F2.8 on APS-c for the same field of view and depth of field   is 25.5mm - 44.8mm F4,5 so the RP kit lens starts at 24mm so is wider and starts at F4 so the DOF will be shalower on the RP kit at F4 lens than your 16-28 F2.8 on APS-c

That's the thing when you look at the size difference of lenses for FF vs APS-c ..for same DOF you can have a lens 1 stop slower on FF to do the same job...so both lenses (if there is an equivalent) are about the same size .....but the downside is with the slower FF lens you lose the 1 stop noise agvantage ..but you may get that back with the RP kit lens being stabilized

But for portability and general use, use the 50. Heck back in the 70's, all I had for my AE-1 was the 50, a 28, and 135 telephoto. And was perfectly happy!

i think an RP with the 24-105 and a prime like the 50 or 35 theirs is not much you can't do and will fill a very tiny camera bag ..the RP and kit lens at 105 mm will crop way past your AE-1 and 135mm prime on film .

I’m looking forward to putting together a travel size full frame kit. I considered Sony, cause technically I need new lenses anyway, but I’m a Canon girl ( old lady actually!) at heart, familiar with their menu system and just feel at home with Canon. Plus the price is right.
If nothing else, I assume it’s a step up from my 60D and M50.

yes i did try sony APS-c with a sony NEX as it was the 1st affordable second hand  APS-c MILC as we have twin boys and at 18 month old i not think me and the wife could  not physically carry them through an airport  with my 5D 3 F2.8 lenses a fast prime and a macro lens ..the NEX did not have a viewfinder and i REALLY did not like the sony colors and skin tones and evan with a LOT of editing i could never get the color as good as my canons ..i did look at upgrading, looking at newer sony  with an EVF  and models up to the A6000 but the sony colour put me off ..but i had got used to a small camera alongside my FF 5D so i get a SL1/100D (same sensor as your 60D) and it was like a breath of fresh air back to canon colours ...i upgraded the 100D to a M5 and really liked the 11-22 lens but as canon not update the M5 ..i was not rely happy with the AF ,,its not as good as your M50 ..so i have decided to replace the M5 and my 5D with  1 body a R6 (over my normal second hand budget for a frash camera by over X3)

so what was i rambling about ...oh yes being a canon girl you might not like sony colours

-- hide signature --

.
.
.
.
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me it is bad I know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
.........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
.....................................................................................................
If you wait for a camera that will  tick all your boxes ....by then you will have more boxes to tick..... so the wait continues .....David Appleton

 davev8's gear list:davev8's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM +5 more
thunder storm Senior Member • Posts: 6,495
Re: Curious about why Mirrorless

I tried the A6600, but I didn't like the ergonomics, and the stopped down focusing. The menus where o.k. for me, and the customizability was excellent. It really takes some time to arrange all the functions and buttons the way you like it though, and it's certainly not a camera for beginners.

Although I hate Canon for not bringing out an M5mkII with IBIS, I don't see myself switching to Sony.

-- hide signature --

I love 50mm (equivalence)

 thunder storm's gear list:thunder storm's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads