Canon FF mirrorless...

So the cost of this new 'entry' system is around £5k with the new f2.0 zoom lens - wow !!!!!

I've been following the development of capture enhancement software being implemented into mobile phones and they are seriously catching DSLR/mirrorless up. My view is that in the very near future all of these thousand pound cameras and lenses will be made obsolete, by something that costs significantly less and fits into your pocket. Certainly for users just wanting to take high quality portrait and landscape photos.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
So the cost of this new 'entry' system is around £5k with the new f2.0 zoom lens - wow !!!!!

I've been following the development of capture enhancement software being implemented into mobile phones and they are seriously catching DSLR/mirrorless up. My view is that in the very near future all of these thousand pound cameras and lenses will be made obsolete, by something that costs significantly less and fits into your pocket. Certainly for users just wanting to take high quality portrait and landscape photos.
Click to expand...

I suppose a lot hangs on your definition of "very near future" but in my definition I'd say there's no chance, zero.

At the mo smartphone or anything like a smartphone or tablet or anything else similar we may envisage pictures can look lovely on the phone or tablet but on my pc they show issues both in image quality and due to the settings, for example shots which look sharp on the small smartphone screen are often revealed to be suffering motion blur due to too slow a shutter speed or mushiness due to the restraints of the small sensor.

I would say that for people who look closely at pictures smartphones / portable device things are at the moment waaaaaay behind 1" and MFT never mind FF and will be for a while.

And then you've got the 28mm FoV which is fine if that's what you want but not so good if you like 50 or 85 or any other FoV. Yes I know that dual lens smartphones exist (I think...) but there are a lot of focal lengths you can easily use on dedicated cameras.

YMMV and if all you want is a picture to look at as a whole picture on a smartphone they're probably lovely.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
So the cost of this new 'entry' system is around £5k with the new f2.0 zoom lens - wow !!!!!

I've been following the development of capture enhancement software being implemented into mobile phones and they are seriously catching DSLR/mirrorless up. My view is that in the very near future all of these thousand pound cameras and lenses will be made obsolete, by something that costs significantly less and fits into your pocket. Certainly for users just wanting to take high quality portrait and landscape photos.
Click to expand...

If people nitpick between APSC and 35mm FF sensor then they will forever nitpick phone sensor vs FF sensor.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If people nitpick between APSC and 35mm FF sensor then they will forever nitpick phone sensor vs FF sensor.
Click to expand...

To get better quality with the tech we have now any portable device is going to need a bigger sensor and a better lens. Neither of these things will shrink. Future disruptive technologies may well come along but I think we'll need at least two disruptive technologies, one to give us big sensor performance in a smaller package and one to give us flat or at least very compact lenses or maybe just the flat lens tech will do the job and we could then fit a FF sensor to a flat phone like device. Until new tech comes along and then comes down in price (because initially it'll be expensive) I can't see the quality of any smart phone like portable device matching what we get from "cameras."
 
I know this topic around dust on the sensors is user use specific but do you turn the camera off when changing lenses?
I always turn my camera off when changing lenses and yet to really have any big issues with dust on my sensors. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I know this topic around dust on the sensors is user use specific but do you turn the camera off when changing lenses?
I always turn my camera off when changing lenses and yet to really have any big issues with dust on my sensors. :)
Click to expand...

If I remember...
 
simonbarker said:
If that's your reasoning, why upgrade at all?
Click to expand...

I don't follow - I was saying that when I look to upgrade it will be because there'll have come a point when I want enough features that my current body doesn't have and that's what I'll compare any candidate to (as well as ease of upgrade) rather than just picking the 'best' available body at the time (regardless of ecosystem).
 
SDK^ said:
So the cost of this new 'entry' system is around £5k with the new f2.0 zoom lens - wow !!!!!

I've been following the development of capture enhancement software being implemented into mobile phones and they are seriously catching DSLR/mirrorless up. My view is that in the very near future all of these thousand pound cameras and lenses will be made obsolete, by something that costs significantly less and fits into your pocket. Certainly for users just wanting to take high quality portrait and landscape photos.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the cost of FF seems to be creeping up again..... mainly due to new features / higher specifications etc :(
From a performance vs price perspective, I think the Fuji X range represents a good middle ground. Decent bodies and lenses if you can live with a non-FF system. :)
 
jonneymendoza said:
Have you been reading dpreview again hehehe someone made a thread about it!
Click to expand...
No lol, it's rare I go on that site, the layout bugs me ;)

simonbarker said:
This is one area where the A73 is horrible, I usually have to clean it every other day and this is something I didn't have to do with my old camera. It's not the end of the world as it's a very small thing but I'd certainly be happy for it to no longer be a regular ritual.
Click to expand...
I remember @rookies having an issue like this with one of his A7's, he took it back in the end as the sensor just got filthy with very little use. I'm not sure if it's a fault, or whether some cameras just happen to be worse than others. I don't think he's had the same issues with his A7iii though.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Unfortunately the cost of FF seems to be creeping up again..... mainly due to new features / higher specifications etc :(
From a performance vs price perspective, I think the Fuji X range represents a good middle ground. Decent bodies and lenses if you can live with a non-FF system. :)
Click to expand...
Canon and Nikon seem to be not giving much value in their camera mirrorless bodies, features v cost wise imho, but they are definitely offering lenses at the higher end of the market. Maybe they feel their adapter's work so well with their DSLR lenses that there are cost effective options available. :rolleyes:

I dread to think how much they would charge for models they may release to match the current a7's,(a7III and a7RIII) or god forbid, the a9. :eek: :LOL:
 
woof woof said:
I've read of other peoples problems and I do have trouble understanding how an anal geek like me who is obsessed with dust bunnies can have few issues despite changing lenses willy nilly whilst other have many. Maybe the fact that I mostly use primes is a factor as zooms can I assume be dust pumps.

Sorry if you're already using a dust bunny preventing technique. I think that all we can do is try and cut down on the issue but I don't think it's ever going away completely.
Click to expand...

I am, this is just one of the trade off's for using the Sony, I'm hoping ideas like Canon's will make this less of a problem in the future but as I've said repeatedly it's not that big of a deal as we're talking less than a minute of my time to fix, it just bugs me a little because it was something I almost never had to worry about with my old camera.

To clarify, I turn off the camera when switching lenses, try to keep how long it's open to a minimum etc, worked well with my old camera but hasn't seemed to prevent dust on the sensor for the A73.
 
Last edited:
simonbarker said:
I am, this is just one of the trade off's for using the Sony, I'm hoping ideas like Canon's will make this less of a problem in the future but as I've said repeatedly it's not that big of a deal as we're talking less than a minute of my time to fix, it just bugs me a little because it was something I almost never had to worry about with my old camera.
Click to expand...
But the fact that others seem to have issues whilst I (a serial and multiple lens changer in any and all conditions) don't seems at least interesting. Zooms may be a part of the issue but I use zooms on my MFT kit with similarly low issues.
 
woof woof said:
But the fact that others seem to have issues whilst I (a serial and multiple lens changer in any and all conditions) don't seems at least interesting. Zooms may be a part of the issue but I use zooms on my MFT kit with similarly low issues.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, I don't change lenses that often. Most of the time I'm using a 50mm or 90mm, most shots are done at small apertures so perhaps that's why I notice it more than you? Not sure but like I said I'm hoping these new systems from Canon and Nikon handle it better than Sony.
 
I use any and all apertures and definitely use the smallest when doing an out of focus white door test.
 
Yes that site UI is soo outdated I swear it's written purely in HTML 1
snerkler said:
No lol, it's rare I go on that site, the layout bugs me ;)

I remember @rookies having an issue like this with one of his A7's, he took it back in the end as the sensor just got filthy with very little use. I'm not sure if it's a fault, or whether some cameras just happen to be worse than others. I don't think he's had the same issues with his A7iii though.
Click to expand...
 
woof woof said:
I suppose a lot hangs on your definition of "very near future" but in my definition I'd say there's no chance, zero.

At the mo smartphone or anything like a smartphone or tablet or anything else similar we may envisage pictures can look lovely on the phone or tablet but on my pc they show issues both in image quality and due to the settings, for example shots which look sharp on the small smartphone screen are often revealed to be suffering motion blur due to too slow a shutter speed or mushiness due to the restraints of the small sensor.

I would say that for people who look closely at pictures smartphones / portable device things are at the moment waaaaaay behind 1" and MFT never mind FF and will be for a while.

And then you've got the 28mm FoV which is fine if that's what you want but not so good if you like 50 or 85 or any other FoV. Yes I know that dual lens smartphones exist (I think...) but there are a lot of focal lengths you can easily use on dedicated cameras.

YMMV and if all you want is a picture to look at as a whole picture on a smartphone they're probably lovely.
Click to expand...
All valid points.

I think the photo output is they key point.
Do people still print large scale hard copies which the high-end equipment allows, or, are most images published to social media and printed into hand held photobooks? If it's the later then I suggest the (near future) down-scaled mobile cameras are enough to meet this requirement.
 
They do in art galleries and pro work like advertisement boards etc
SDK^ said:
All valid points.

I think the photo output is they key point.
Do people still print large scale hard copies which the high-end equipment allows, or, are most images published to social media and printed into hand held photobooks? If it's the later then I suggest the (near future) down-scaled mobile cameras are enough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think Canon ever remotely tried to match the Sony A73. The first incarnation of anything in engineering is always the hardest to pull off. It’s a lot easier to advance with the next and subsequent tries.

As with a lot of their releases they built what they thought they needed to build to appeal to their existing customer base. To allow them to switch to a mid range ML and continue to use their existing lenses. In the real world outside forums such as these that’s all they need to do. They won’t expect to attract anyone who’s using a Sony ML and probably couldn’t care less.

It will give its users excellent image quality and all the b*****ks about an extra .75 EV at ISO 64 won’t matter a damn because in the real world very few people ever need it but make out that it’s the b all and end all of what makes a camera the “best”

These non entities who post videos telling you what’s wrong with it and the numties that lap it up as being gospel just reinforce the absurdity of social media today where people make a living out of talking b*****ks.
 
jonneymendoza said:
They do in art galleries and pro work like advertisement boards etc
Click to expand...
These are pro requirements though. I can't imagine many people buying into main stream mirrorless / DSLR formats are displaying their work in art galleries and onto ad boards.

What are the masses doing with their digital images?
 
Last edited:
Gaz J said:
I don’t think Canon ever remotely tried to match the Sony A73. The first incarnation of anything in engineering is always the hardest to pull off. It’s a lot easier to advance with the next and subsequent tries.

As with a lot of their releases they built what they thought they needed to build to appeal to their existing customer base. To allow them to switch to a mid range ML and continue to use their existing lenses. In the real world outside forums such as these that’s all they need to do. They won’t expect to attract anyone who’s using a Sony ML and probably couldn’t care less.

It will give its users excellent image quality and all the b*****ks about an extra .75 EV at ISO 64 won’t matter a damn because in the real world very few people ever need it but make out that it’s the b all and end all of what makes a camera the “best”

These non entities who post videos telling you what’s wrong with it and the numties that lap it up as being gospel just reinforce the absurdity of social media today where people make a living out of talking b*****ks.
Click to expand...
Correcto mundo :D
I am sticking to my Sony but the Fuji XT-3 looks kind of nice :eek: :D lol
 
Gaz J said:
It will give its users excellent image quality and all the b*****ks about an extra .75 EV at ISO 64 won’t matter a damn because in the real world very few people ever need it but make out that it’s the b all and end all of what makes a camera the “best”

These non entities who post videos telling you what’s wrong with it and the numties that lap it up as being gospel just reinforce the absurdity of social media today where people make a living out of talking b*****ks.
Click to expand...

You've got a point but surely if the aim is modest requirements then the pricing doesn't really make much sense? It occurs to me there's a disconnect between how it's been designed, how it's marketed and how it's priced.
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
All valid points.

I think the photo output is they key point.
Do people still print large scale hard copies which the high-end equipment allows, or, are most images published to social media and printed into hand held photobooks? If it's the later then I suggest the (near future) down-scaled mobile cameras are enough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...
Most images are posted on social media, but that’s like asking whether most prose is posted on social media and using that for justification to not learn grammar or sell pens or word processors.

MOST professional image making requires qualities impossible to create with a phone camera. That’s not a throwaway theory, it’s a fact.

But whilst I’m here; I’m challenging your ridiculous assumption that ‘cheap’ phone cameras are more suitable for photography than ‘expensive high end DSLR’s’.

The only person I know well who owns an IphoneX (£1000) also owns a 300d with a 50mm prime (worth less than £150)

Are you really going to assert that the ‘fake’ processing in the IPhone actually gives results that rival that 15 year old camera and sub £100 lens?

Back to the point - phone cams are great for ‘most people’, that doesn’t mean they’re great for ‘photographers’.
 
Cagey75 said:
He seemed even more giddy and excited about the Z. That's 5K+ in his hand right there, he doesn't care about price. Even working pros will struggle to justify purchasing that combination knowing all the quirks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he is a bit reckless. Hardly ever uses straps on his (or the review) cameras. It makes me squirm sometimes seeing those large camera/lens combos being swung around with no straps.

I think its more the rich amateur that buys this sort of thing. I know a few working pro's that never upgrade unless something stops working, and i know loads of non pros that buy the latest as soon as it comes out. I must admit im almost in the second camp. Not a pro in anyway, but i do like shiny new things.
 
dave_bass5 said:
Yeah, he is a bit reckless. Hardly ever uses straps on his (or the review) cameras. It makes me squirm sometimes seeing those large camera/lens combos being swung around with no straps.

I think its more the rich amateur that buys this sort of thing. I know a few working pro's that never upgrade unless something stops working, and i know loads of non pros that buy the latest as soon as it comes out. I must admit im almost in the second camp. Not a pro in anyway, but i do like shiny new things.
Click to expand...

It amuses me how some of these preview/reviewers talk about this new gear as if it's very affordable and great value. A lot of people who buy combinations like that in the thumbnail will probably just turn it around to film their head most of the time :D There's early adapters for everything though, let them at it. We get to look on as they slowly reveal more issues before we begin to see them pop up on used sites in 'like new' condition/ I've seen youtube comments crying about the crop 4K, because they 'need' it for their channel, click though to their channel and they have like 15 subs and one unboxing video of some bit of gear ...
 
Riz_Guru said:
Correcto mundo :D
I am sticking to my Sony but the Fuji XT-3 looks kind of nice :eek: :D lol
Click to expand...
It does look good, but I'll have to wait and see if the artefacts are gone with this new sensor. Also, still no IBIS????
 
snerkler said:
It does look good, but I'll have to wait and see if the artefacts are gone with this new sensor. Also, still no IBIS????
Click to expand...

The price is very nice on it, I'm awaiting the same, I want to see some images, at various ISO levels too. How much better is it in low light over the T2? No IBIS sucks a bit, and they should have added the articulating LCD screen, also from the brief snippets I've watched the touch screen does not look too great, but it's there.
 
simonbarker said:
You've got a point but surely if the aim is modest requirements then the pricing doesn't really make much sense? It occurs to me there's a disconnect between how it's been designed, how it's marketed and how it's priced.
Click to expand...

It’s £500 too dear but when you look at the prices of the latest tech, £1000 for an iPhone X ffs for example, it’s perhaps not that surprising. I wouldn’t pay that price for it but then I’ve already got a camera body that’s probably better overall for my needs.
 
Cagey75 said:
It amuses me how some of these preview/reviewers talk about this new gear as if it's very affordable and great value. A lot of people who buy combinations like that in the thumbnail will probably just turn it around to film their head most of the time :D There's early adapters for everything though, let them at it. We get to look on as they slowly reveal more issues before we begin to see them pop up on used sites in 'like new' condition/ I've seen youtube comments crying about the crop 4K, because they 'need' it for their channel, click though to their channel and they have like 15 subs and one unboxing video of some bit of gear ...
Click to expand...

Haha, you old cynic you :)

I tend to watch those videos and pick up on the bits im interested and not bother with their options so much. As we saw with the M50, Canon had lost the plot and were on the brink of disaster.
 
Phil V said:
Most images are posted on social media, but that’s like asking whether most prose is posted on social media and using that for justification to not learn grammar or sell pens or word processors.

MOST professional image making requires qualities impossible to create with a phone camera. That’s not a throwaway theory, it’s a fact.

But whilst I’m here; I’m challenging your ridiculous assumption that ‘cheap’ phone cameras are more suitable for photography than ‘expensive high end DSLR’s’.

The only person I know well who owns an IphoneX (£1000) also owns a 300d with a 50mm prime (worth less than £150)

Are you really going to assert that the ‘fake’ processing in the IPhone actually gives results that rival that 15 year old camera and sub £100 lens?

Back to the point - phone cams are great for ‘most people’, that doesn’t mean they’re great for ‘photographers’.
Click to expand...
Finally a sensible post I fully agree with. Shock horror
 
SDK^ said:
All valid points.

I think the photo output is they key point.
Do people still print large scale hard copies which the high-end equipment allows, or, are most images published to social media and printed into hand held photobooks? If it's the later then I suggest the (near future) down-scaled mobile cameras are enough to meet this requirement.
Click to expand...

I save my picture at max quality jpeg (12) but many are then resized to 1,000 pixels along the longest edge and saved as quality 8 for sending off around the world electronically. Some are printed and some to A3 but not many.

I've been saying for years that it's the final output that matters and we should always keep that in mind but if we could do that the number of people using FF cameras and lenses costing £ hundreds would be... much reduced.

I think the fact is that many people like having nice kit that produces lovely files. It's the same in everything really, pens, watches, bicycles, cars... relatively cheap stuff is very often good enough but there's usually a market for better.
 
What a lot of people tend to forget that for a lot of us its a hobby, and we all enjoy our hobbies in different ways. We dont have to justify the outlay, if we get enjoyment from new gear what's the problem?
So what if someone wants to buy a £4000 camera just to post on Facebook, its the enjoyment part thats....well, enjoyable.

Thats my take anyway.
 
Finste said:
Nope, will be keeping my 5Dsr and adding a 5DIV or 1Dx2 to it soon I think.
Click to expand...

....Momentarily off-thread-topic but just trying to be helpful : I really liked my 5D-4 but traded it in for a 1DX-2 and it's a bit like chalk vs cheese < The 1DX-2 is superior (and should be as it costs so much more). However it is considerably bulkier and heavier. As always, it depends what subjects you like to shoot and so Horses-for-Courses.
 
dave_bass5 said:
What a lot of people tend to forget that for a lot of us its a hobby, and we all enjoy our hobbies in different ways. We dont have to justify the outlay, if we get enjoyment from new gear what's the problem?
So what if someone wants to buy a £4000 camera just to post on Facebook, its the enjoyment part thats....well, enjoyable.

Thats my take anyway.
Click to expand...

....Phew! I am so glad you said that because it applies to me - Just add Flickr to Facebook.

Life is too short (literally when you are in your 70s like me) and getting out there to photograph wildlife is good for my soul and also challenging. 'Tis a bit addictive too and perhaps I am also a GearSlut (who uses all his gear).

I'm wondering how the new Canon EOS-R mirrorless body compares with the EOS-M5 both in physical size and spec.
 
dave_bass5 said:
What a lot of people tend to forget that for a lot of us its a hobby, and we all enjoy our hobbies in different ways. We dont have to justify the outlay, if we get enjoyment from new gear what's the problem?
So what if someone wants to buy a £4000 camera just to post on Facebook, its the enjoyment part thats....well, enjoyable.

Thats my take anyway.
Click to expand...


I have no problem spending it if I have it! Had 10K worth of gear at one point and didn't care. I enjoyed it at the time, but i think the overload of it actually put me off photography for over a year. Ended up selling the lot during a house move, houses need furnishing! Sometimes you just have to be sensible. But what many also forget is that many people cannot afford this gear, no matter how much they save or how many of their children they sell, but it doesn't mean they can't dream or want ... there's a bit of snobbery around new gear, we see it constant on here, people who have high end gear and barely seem to use it telling others they should stick to that they have, they don't need full frame, it would be a waste etc ...
 
RedRobin said:
....Phew! I am so glad you said that because it applies to me - Just add Flickr to Facebook.

Life is too short (literally when you are in your 70s like me) and getting out there to photograph wildlife is good for my soul and also challenging. 'Tis a bit addictive too and perhaps I am also a GearSlut (who uses all his gear).

I'm wondering how the new Canon EOS-R mirrorless body compares with the EOS-M5 both in physical size and spec.
Click to expand...

I have had a few mad moments in the past and just brought stuff i didnt really need. These days i too use everything i have (except the 5d4 lol), but while i dont need all that to post on the web (yes, mainly Flickr and FB), i get so much enjoyment from it i dont feel im wasting money by not learning on a camera that is valve driven.

After yesterdays frenzy ive settled down and thought about what i want next. If im honest a M5mkii is more appealing than the R. It would seem silly to get rid of my 5D4 at this stage and i am quite liking the M lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top