Sell all your slr's

toohuge said:
I think my opposition to mirrorless is in the design of the current bodies. EVF aside - that's a separate issue, if Canon / Nikon released mirrorless cameras in the pro-body style I don't think any here would object. I love the ergonomics of my 1D, especially holding longer, heavier lenses and the integrated vertical release button.

I'd argue that all of us can agree that fewer moving parts leads to improved reliability and reduced weight - something mirrorless will offer and would be welcomed in these parts, but the current mirrorless bodies have been marketed as reducing the size of the body.

Imagine how excited we'd all be with a new Canon mirrorless body, in the housing on a 1D, with 30fps and compatible with all our EOS lenses? - It'd be magic.
Click to expand...
your name gives the game away :LOL:
 
Tom Green said:
Spot on, photography should be about planning, predicting, proper composition and consideration of lighting etc, not just about spray and pray etc. One of my gripes with new bodies is that they are going to eventually take some of the hard work out of being a photographer.

I would like to try and old film camera, I strongly believe that will help improve me as a photographer.
Click to expand...
not going to but do (re the hard work)
 
I
Eloise said:
I may be accused here of being argumentative ... but surely you've proved the point is that (native) lenses aren't yet here, which is why Sony shooters use Canon glass.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise you were being argumentative.
I assumed we were both saying what we thought.
 
woof woof said:
Do people just machine gun digital cameras, hope for the best and end up keeping a few out of the hundreds they've machine gunned?
Click to expand...
Some people do but it depends on the situation...... sports / action shooters will machine gun because they can then pick the best photos for publication.
The more keepers you can pick from is a good thing, more choice at the end of the day.
Personally I am not the machine gunning type but certain times I will fire at 20 fps if I know there is a high chance of missing something..... :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
I personally think both Nikon and Canon will make new lens mounts and bring out new lenses.... why you ask.... simple answer.... profit / money!
They will build gimped lens adapters which allow existing users to use their current lenses but won't be as good as native.

This would be the way forward for future revenue etc.
Click to expand...
You may be right ... but that relies on Brand loyalty to a badge to sell the Nikon (or Canon) mirrorless over a Sony (or Canon or Nikon) whereas utilising existing lens mounts leverages the existing equipment people have vs selling everything. I'm sure Canon hasn't forgotten the ill feelings FD/FL users had when the EOS came out; and while their gamble ultimately may have paid off, for a long time there was bitterness from long term Canon users. They will still (over time) sell new lenses - especially if (for example) Nikon's non-E lenses worked but had limitations vs E(lectromagnetic diaphragm) lenses... but it will be an evolutionary purchase rather than a revolutionary purchase which might see more people jumping ship.
 
woof woof said:
Do people just machine gun digital cameras, hope for the best and end up keeping a few out of the hundreds they've machine gunned?

I've never ever used a digital camera like that. I can imagine someone machine gunning to get the perfect shot such as the bride throwing the bouquet or Shergar jumping down from the UFO etc but these are fast action shots that could maybe only be captured with luck using a one shot is all you get film set up. I see the thought that digital leads to a shotgun mentality and many useless discarded pictures but who actually does that?

Personally I only raise the camera to my eye if I think there's something there that I want to take a picture of. I remember going on holiday with a roll of film and keeping the last exposure just in case something cropped up only to end up taking a picture of just about anything to use it up when we got home and I can compare that experience to taking my Sony A7 to Thailand and coming back with hundreds of pictures the vast majority of which I kept and there were as far as I can remember no obvious scrappers. Comparing that capture a memory hit rate to film I think digital is a clear step forward as despite trying to make every film shot count I was limited by the number of shots I could take and despite how careful I was there were sometimes scrappers including on occasions whole rolls. I've never had a whole days or weeks shots lost with digital.
Click to expand...

I wish my keeper rate was as good as a few out of a hundred!
 
Tom Green said:
Spot on, photography should be about planning, predicting, proper composition and consideration of lighting etc, not just about spray and pray etc. One of my gripes with new bodies is that they are going to eventually take some of the hard work out of being a photographer.

I would like to try and old film camera, I strongly believe that will help improve me as a photographer.
Click to expand...

I disagree, photography can be about planning and predicting but it can also be about capturing the spontaneous or fleeting moment and although you may be able to plan for some of those you're still probably going to have to rely on the new technologies and abilities that the new kit brings.

Yes in ye olden days photography needed a specific skills set but todays photography also does, just a different and arguably extended skillset. One arbiter could be the final image... and I think there's little argument other than what can be captured and the quality at which it can be captured is moving forward. That has to be a good thing.
 
soupdragon said:
I wish my keeper rate was as good as a few out of a hundred!
Click to expand...
I'm sure it depends what you photograph and in what circumstance. I mainly take pictures of the scene and the people I'm with and neither are likely to particularly demanding.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure it depends what you photograph and in what circumstance. I mainly take pictures of the scene and the people I'm with and neither are likely to particularly demanding.
Click to expand...

True words.

My favourite subjects are birds in flight, flying insects and military aircraft.
As you can guess from my comments, I rarely nail it first time.
 
Tom Green said:
Spot on, photography should be about planning, predicting, proper composition and consideration of lighting etc, not just about spray and pray etc. One of my gripes with new bodies is that they are going to eventually take some of the hard work out of being a photographer.

I would like to try and old film camera, I strongly believe that will help improve me as a photographer.
Click to expand...

I could throw sand at your face while you're shooting if you think it'll help? ;)
 
Tom Green said:
Spot on, photography should be about planning, predicting, proper composition and consideration of lighting etc, not just about spray and pray etc. One of my gripes with new bodies is that they are going to eventually take some of the hard work out of being a photographer.

I would like to try and old film camera, I strongly believe that will help improve me as a photographer.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not a photographer any more. Doing it for a living takes the fun out of it.
I am now a happy snapping hobbyist and fanboy.:canon::canon::canon::canon::canon:
 
woof woof said:
I disagree, photography can be about planning and predicting but it can also be about capturing the spontaneous or fleeting moment and although you may be able to plan for some of those you're still probably going to have to rely on the new technologies and abilities that the new kit brings.

Yes in ye olden days photography needed a specific skills set but todays photography also does, just a different and arguably extended skillset. One arbiter could be the final image... and I think there's little argument other than what can be captured and the quality at which it can be captured is moving forward. That has to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Although a spontaneous or fleeting moment can be captured with a mirrorless or a DSLR? They both focus as fast as each other? I'm not sure apart from Eye AF what the mirrorless does better to capture the image?

I have put the Sony GAS behind me now as the DSLR will still do what I want it to do better. Of course when Nikon show their hand, I will get that gassy feeling back again!
 
stevelmx5 said:
So carry another one? I’ve always had 4 batteries and throw a few spares in my pocket when I shoot an event/wedding (they’re tiny). I think the suggestion that one battery not lasting as long as an equivalent DSLR battery isn’t enough of a reason to rule out Mirrorless.
Click to expand...

Seriously, on my X-T2 I can change a battery in around 10 secs. You get plenty of warning through the EVF so there will be a point where I can drop one battery out without missing anything. The batteries are smaller than the ones I had for my Canon DSLR's too, so carrying a few in a pouch/pocket isn't an issue. I always carried spares when I was using a DSLR anyway....
 
Batteries are only a issue if you make it one.... like @Jelster mentioned above.. just carry more. :)
 
I ended up with 6 batteries for my D750 lol. I only ever needed to change 1 when I was doing a wedding from getting ready to last dance. I sold 2 but still have 4 haha!
 
Riz_Guru said:
Batteries are only a issue if you make it one.... like @Jelster mentioned above.. just carry more. :)
Click to expand...
I think the "battery issue" has always been part of the "a mirrorless is so much lighter" ... but if you're having to carry extra batteries then the weight goes up.

(Not arguing that myself, just saying that has typically been the comments I've read)
 
Eloise said:
I think the "battery issue" has always been part of the "a mirrorless is so much lighter" ... but if you're having to carry extra batteries then the weight goes up.

(Not arguing that myself, just saying that has typically been the comments I've read)
Click to expand...
As many people here seem to insist on having back up everythings I wonder how many DSLR owners pointing at mirrorless cameras which need spare batteries and insisting that this negates any weight saving would venture out with their DSLR without a spare?

When I had DSLR's I had a spare battery and now that I have mirrorless cameras I have a spare battery. Nothing has changed :D
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
I think the "battery issue" has always been part of the "a mirrorless is so much lighter" ... but if you're having to carry extra batteries then the weight goes up.

(Not arguing that myself, just saying that has typically been the comments I've read)
Click to expand...

But they weigh next to nothing.... I carry a pack of 4 with me most times I go out and it makes no difference. The BIG change for me was having an X-T2+grip, 100-400 & 1.4TC that I could carry around all day without it setting my back off. I couldn't do that with my 7D2, grip & 150-600, it was just too heavy. I would guess my Fuji set up is about 2/3 of the weight. That's really important to me.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I personally think both Nikon and Canon will make new lens mounts and bring out new lenses.... why you ask.... simple answer.... profit / money!
They will build gimped lens adapters which allow existing users to use their current lenses but won't be as good as native.

This would be the way forward for future revenue etc.
Click to expand...
I don't believe a new mount will have anything to do with profit, it's pure physics of the flange distance. They will of course want to (and will) make a profit, but I doubt that this will be any more than existing lenses. I think Canon will have an easier time getting adapters to work due to it all being electrical, whereas I can see Nikon struggling due to the mechanical lever controlling the aperture. I would hope that both could create and adapter that it fully compatible with existing lenses (or at least 99% as good as native) but as I say my fear is that Nikon will struggle. That being said, clearly electronic components clearly control the mechanical lever on Nikon, so on the face of it I son't see why this would be any different with an adapter. I'm no engineer though ;)
 
woof woof said:
I disagree, photography can be about planning and predicting but it can also be about capturing the spontaneous or fleeting moment and although you may be able to plan for some of those you're still probably going to have to rely on the new technologies and abilities that the new kit brings.

Yes in ye olden days photography needed a specific skills set but todays photography also does, just a different and arguably extended skillset. One arbiter could be the final image... and I think there's little argument other than what can be captured and the quality at which it can be captured is moving forward. That has to be a good thing.
Click to expand...

There isn't much an A9 can do that a D750 can't in terms of capturing an image. It can capture more of them in less time though if thats what you're after + all of the other mirrorless benefits. I disagree that you need to newest technology to capture specific images.
 
woof woof said:
As many people here seem to insist on having back up everythings I wonder how many DSLR owners pointing at mirrorless cameras which need spare batteries and insisting that this negates any weight saving would venture out with their DSLR without a spare?

When I had DSLR's I had a spare battery and now that I have mirrorless cameras I have a spare battery. Nothing has changed :D
Click to expand...
I do because I cant afford a spare :LOL:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top