Dropping Canon

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't think that Sony is champ in low light, not that they are bad, but there is nothing particularly special, although the A7s is very good but only 12 MP. Their strength is high dynamic range at low ISOs, so I don't think Mark needs to wring his hands about the 5D IV in comparison. I frequently shoot my 6D at 6400 and find it completely usable, and the Mark IV is probably better still. Even at 12800 with noise reduction the 6D is surprisingly good. People are entranced by the smaller body and the EVF features. We have seen similar before, the Olympus OM and Pentax K systems were smaller than their contemporaries in the 70s and they sold very well against the Canon and Nikon behemoths. Sony have no commitment to small size though, as can be seen by their various sets of lenses (Zeiss, G, Sony-Zeiss, Sony), unlike Leica (although manual focusing), so the size benefit is dubious in the long run. </p>

<p>The advantage for many people too is the easy adaptability of older lenses including EF lenses to the Sony body, with only some disadvantages. This makes changing quite easy and fairly low risk. However, I am not really interested in making and matching lenses and adapters, in fact I am trying to constantly streamline my kit to avoid the necessity of having to decide, say, which of my 85-135mm lenses to use, so this aspect of the mirrorless scene is of little interest to me; but if you like to shuffle lenses a lot then mirrorless is a good option. I just want my camera system to be "transparent" and let me take the shots I want.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I recently bought an EOS M, Canon's first mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera, for 150 GBP with the 18-55 zoom lens. I bought the 22mm fixed lens too for 80 GBP. As long as you have the latest firmware it works well as a pocket camera and you can use your existing lenses with a cheap third party adaptor or the slightly pricier Canon one (either is just an empty tube with contacts).</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think Mark needs to wring his hands about the 5D IV in comparison.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robin, I love my Canon 5D Mark IV. I am extremely pleased with the photos it gives me. I have no regrets sticking with Canon. <em>For me, it is the best camera</em>, but to be fair, the Sony sensor may be a hair better so I was not going to come off like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think the camera is up there as one of the better cameras on the market. It has a lot of other things going for it too. I love the focusing system. I also have the 6D, which I like a lot, if it had the focal points and features of the 5D Mark IV, I would not have upgraded. When I get some time I will have to do some side by side ISO comparison shots between the 5D Mark IV and the 6D and post them in the Canon forum.</p>

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Dropping Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I drop Canon, I would pick up Pentax. The post is really about moving from DSLR to MILC which is a trend that Sony has been creating and encouraging. At least, that is the way I see. I strongly prefer the the SLR design WITH the mirror and shutter. Even for light and small setup, I choose an all-in-one package like the Canon G1X, not the MILC. And even for MILC, I choose the Panasonic and Olympus, not the Sony, nor the Fuji.</p>

[arthur_young1]

<p>Thanks to all that provided input. I think at this point I am just going to drag my heels for a bit before making any new purchases. If anything I may just pick up a new Canon wide angle zoom. Probably the 16-35L. I have a real estate deal that needs to happen before I buy too much. Happy New Year to all!</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I think it also fair to point out that mirrorless cameras are probably better for videographers as the first thing you need to do when taking video is flip the mirror up on a DSLR. I think this helps account for their popularity with pros who are now taking more and more video. For stills, at present, I prefer a DSLR as I much prefer the OVF and the great battery life and find there is no downside to them, but I suspect that one day this will change for me. Actually if Canon were to make a Leica SL-type mirrorless body for EF lenses I would be interested, although not now.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Robin, wouldn't EF lenses, by definition not work on a mirrorless, at least, not without an adapter? I suppose that the sensor could be moved in the body to be the right distance, but, if so, why didn't Canon do this with the M5? Using relatively large EF L-series lenses on crop-sensor DSLRs doesn't even make a lot of sense. Ideally, assuming IQ were the same, you'd want all EF-S lenses for crop-sensor bodies. I'd love for Canon to make an L-quality EF-S 600mm f/4L for me to use on a 7D MkII. The weight and bulk savings would be major. I think that Canon has decided that the market demand vs. the cost to develop doesn't make economic sense.</p>

<p>Kind of, in the vein of this thread, is the mirrorless market here to stay? I think so. I am now recommending to my friends that are serious about photography, but do no significant sports and wildlife shooting, to consider mirrorless. I even think that full-frame mirrorless will develop for the landscape specialists and then be picked up by the broader market. (After handling the Leica SL, if all full-frame mirrorless need to be that big, then I retract my musing. It's a monster, perfect for a bar fight).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>They didn't do it probably because to most people mirrorless implies "smaller than DSLR" and the only way to ensure that is to be APS-C and smaller was with a new set of small lenses. Most of the EF-M lenses are slow zooms - also assuring small size. APS-C does ensure smaller lenses, a full frame mirrorless lens is not necessarily smaller.</p>

<p>Yes, indeed, Canon could make a real APS-C sized mirrorless system. Perhaps they will do this in the future, although they never showed much interest in the past. Panasonic and Olympus are doing (done) it for m4/3 and Fuji for APS. Canon's APS-C DSLR lenses are hampered because they are designed to take EF lenses too, so it might happen. </p>

<p>But, if and when they come to do a full frame mirrorless system there is no reason why they need to design a whole new set of EF (FF) lenses, they can simply make a mirrorless 6D-sized camera or similar. The Leica SL is bigger than it needs to be and I think the 5D IV is already lighter than it is. The overall size of the entire EF system will not benefit much from reducing the distance from the flange to the sensor (a gain in wide angles and loss in teles). Sony kind of already did this with the A99 (a nice small camera, effectively a mirrorless (translucent mirror) camera), except they gave up as they could not compete with Canon and Nikon. They seem to have rekindled some of their fire for this, although I think it's too late for the A line.</p>

<p>It seems obvious that the mirrorless market is here to stay, as you cannot uninvent something.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>Errors in the above on rereading</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Canon's APS-C DSLR lenses are hampered because they are designed for <em>cameras that</em> take EF lenses too, so it might happen.</p>

</blockquote>