david_smith110

<p>Louis, I don't believe these lenses will have any electronic contacts. Just a dummy mount for attaching to the camera and they will be used just like a vintage lens. As you say, there are so many old lenses available (as we both well know) that these will have to be good performers to compete.</p> <p>The upside is that with no adapter necessary you shouldn't get any of the play that can come with using old lenses. You know, when the adapter/lens/body connections get that little bit of wiggle in them. Infuriating. Hopefully these lenses will solidly mount up nice and tight. There is also the benefit of a brand new lens with no gummed up parts or sludge for oil.</p> <p>Last year Handevision released an Ibelux 40/0.85 manual lens for apsc mirrorless. I have looked at some images from this lens on flickr and I must say I rather like it. As with any super fast lens it has some interesting traits and I'm hoping some of the qualities transfer over to these slower lenses (well, not the CA I have sometimes seen from it).</p> <p>That Ibelux can currently be had for a very good deal right now to. Originally selling for around 1800, it can now be had for around 800. I wish it was for full frame as I would buy one for that price.</p>

<p>If the optical and build quality is up to the looks these will be some fine little lenses. Quite handsome with a classic design. As far as I can tell they are designed (or maybe just conceived) in Germany while actual production takes place in Asia. That's starting to happen more and more it seems. A melding of 'old world classic' and value pricing or simply cheap knockoffs of questionable quality? Time and reviews will tell.</p> <p>http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/handevision-announces-five-new-full-frame-e-mount-prime-lenses/</p> <p>These will be released for other systems as well. Interesting (and suggesting some type of modular design?) that they all have a 2.4 aperture. The 50 mil will be to slow for me but the wide angle lenses, if decent performers, might find their way into my bag.</p>

<p>I think this is a pretty interesting idea, and its one I will follow. Its great to see smaller entities be able to bring things to production in a market usually reserved for much bigger players. If endeavors such as this can bring any type of unique craftsmanship to the world of lenses then I'm all for it.</p> <blockquote> <p>Why bother with a manual focus only lens?</p> </blockquote> <p>Seriously? There are many people who enjoy shooting with manual focus lenses. And view cameras. And collodion wet plates. And any number of other types of archaic gear. Not everyone will share your needs or wants for their photography.</p>

<blockquote> <p>especially because there is no evidence whatsoever of a mass migration</p> <p>What i objected to was the inference that there's a mass migration to mirrorless by pros</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Eric,</strong> you do realize the first time the words 'mass migration' came up in this thread was by Peter Hamm in the second post right? Neither my original post nor my belief on the subject has ever supported an overwhelming majority of shooters, pros or otherwise, moving to mirrorless. It is simply there there are photographer changing to mirrorless in, as you often point out, non quantifiable numbers. But the change<em> is </em>happening and I believe it is picking up steam. Especially after hearing Chris and Jordan say what they said in the video.</p> <p><strong>Jordan</strong>, thank you again for taking the time to post up your direct experiences here. Personally I do not believe you store is an anomaly as it mirrors what I have heard directly from my local camera store along with other types of media on the web. It was months ago when I had an in depth discussion with one of the salesmen about the two large camera showcases on the wall behind the counter. On the left were the new mirrorless models in all shapes and forms, from retro to modern chic. In the right case were all the same old DSLR's that seem to have been out forever. We joked about how it must have been a similar scenario back in the 80's when one case held all the old manual focus systems and the other case held all the slick new autofocus designs. The salesman then told me with all seriousness that almost all of their sales came from the mirrorless case and DSLR's were moving slowly if at all.</p> <p>At the end of the day though we are all photographers and it doesn't matter what we shoot with as long as we enjoy what we do. But, as I have said multiple times in this post, I am very curious how all of this is going to effect Canon and Nikons serious mirrorless models when, and not if, they release them. I am curious if there has been any discussion among the patrons of your store, or any thoughts you may have, about Canon or Nikon and whatever serious or pro grade mirrorless they may bring to bear. Keep the existing mounts or forge ahead with new mounts and new lenses?</p> <p>Either way, thanks again.</p>

<p><strong>Dieter</strong>, thanks for giving me some actual insights into how you see things as they stand. And no, I have no illusions about anyone at Canon or Nikon being even remotely aware of this thread. That would be ridiculous. Apparently you and some others on here feel there is no need for idle speculation. I'm sorry you see it that way, because I don't. I enjoy talking about trends in gear and how they can effect the future. I find it fascinating actually. So where better to discuss such things then a forum dedicated to the very topic one wants to discuss? This is the Mirrorless camera forum and I enjoy discussing changing trends in mirrorless cameras and how this may impact both the users and the companies who manufacture them.</p> <p>And while we may disagree on the future of the DSLR's potential for development we at least agree that Canon has been moving very slowly recently when it comes to innovation. Could this possibly be tied to my view that there just isn't much left to innovate with their star product? Eh, maybe, maybe not. I'm curious tho....you say Nikon has been much more innovative lately. Why is this? I don't follow Nikon much and I would be curious to hear of some examples on how they have made any significant changes to DSLR dna that resulted in an innovative feature. I'm genuinely curious.</p> <p><strong>Mike</strong>, just to clarify, but my position has never been that 'most' pro photogs are changing, only some pro shooters. Albiet that ranks are most likely growing all the time as more and more people consider that a smaller sized camera is a good thing. And before anyone quips up with 'but do you have any proof' just realize that there isn't a metric in place to track which photgrahers have changed camera types. CIPA numbers don't have anything to do with that. But let me quote what I said here just so what you quoted me on wont be taken out of context. (emphasis added)</p> <blockquote> <p>You wont see every pro <strong>who is making the switch</strong> advertise the fact. As a matter of fact you will only see a small percentage advertise that they have switched. Most pro photogs will simply make a decision about what works for them, make the change, and get on with their business of taking photos for money. But they are most definitely making the change.</p> </blockquote> <p>The '<em>most</em> that begins with what you quoted referred back to only thos pros who have decided that mirrorless is good for them and actually change over. If the way I wrote that was unclear then my apologies for the confusion.</p> <p> </p>

<p>On the contrary Matt. The guys who do the podcasts I listen to are, in your words, long-time industry observers, working photographers, and experienced people. Same with the videos I watch and the articles I read. They are industry people and working photogs and I assign worth to what they say if I decide they are not full of crap. I don't agree with all of it, but I listen and learn where I can. And these are people from all over the world, including two smart and clever photographers from Calagary who work for The Camera Store. Chris and Jordan consistently put out quality videos and informative reviews that include witty and insightful insights into many aspects of our art.</p> <p>Should I listen to them any less because they are just two guys in a retail store? Everyone's opinions matter and its foolish of you to think I don't understand how people have a vested interest in promoting their own success and how to recognize when this is the case.</p> <p>As for the voices on here? I respect everyones opinion on this site, even the ones raised in dissension. If I didn't I wouldn't continue the dialogue. </p>

<p>Dieter at no point, in any of my posts, have I ever tried to get anyone to get rid of their DSLR's. I have been a proponent on this website an others about using the correct tool for the job. Every photographer must find the right gear to help achieve whatever vision they are trying to create.</p> <p>My interest is, as I have stated over and over and over, is how mirrorless will effect DSLR's and the current market giants that produce them. I hope you read what I posted in the other thread we were discussing this in but if not I will cover it briefly here.</p> <p>It appears that the success of mirrorless is going to prompt Canon and Nikon to produce a serious mirrorless camera. I hope this is the case because I am very interested in what Canon can produce for this market. But if the big two do field serious and or professional mirrorless models there is what I see as three different ways to go about this.</p> <p>•Make the new mirrorless camera as a stand alone unit with an eye on it eventually replacing DSLR's as your top seller<br /> •Make the new mirrorless camera as a model that will sell along side DSLR's with no serious thought as to it replacing your current bread and butter machines<br /> •Make the new mirrorless camera completely subservient (or inferior) to DSLR's with absolutely no chance of it even coming to market parity with DSLR's (sort of what they have choosen to do up until now, but this could easily be transferred to the new model by giving the mirrorless camera the same old EOS or F mount in which case we would just have bigger, more expensive EOS M10's to choose from...yay)</p> <p>How Canon and Nikon choose to approach this new camera is probably one of the biggest decisions they will have to make in recent times. The three options above (which are just what is popping up in my mind, there are most likely others) will be determined around decisions made about the mount to be used.</p> <p>In a nutshell, these 'serious' models from Canikon will have their future decided depending on that very important mount decision. The big two are in a great place currently with a humongous DSLR lens selection which nobody else can really come close to in apsc and FF formats. But a new camera will almost certainly have to have a new mount, unless the third option above is chosen. And if they do go with a new mount then a whole new line of lenses will be called for. Now they are suddenly no longer the market powerhouses, but rather in last place, <em>in regards to mirrorless</em>, when it comes to lens selection. And the first two decisions above will lead to their mirrorless in some form of competition with their own DSLR's.</p> <p>I find all of this interesting and I am curious as to how each company will react to this scenario. Personally I am of the opinion that MC's will eventually replace DSLR's, for many reasons I have mentioned in many posts on this site. Its not going to happen in the next few years but there is a strong possibility it will eventually happen. And no, I don't have any hard data on this as it is my opinion. It might happen, it might not. But bigger companies than Canon and Nikon have fallen, failed, or been bought by once smaller competitiors. I don't think anyone would fail to disagree that the big two have gotten rather slow in reacting to the market of late. That is never, ever good for a company.</p> <p>But going deeper down that road, there is also a feeling I have that this whole debate might be superseded entirely because of the gestalt of photography changing in an even more radical way than even I believe will happen. Between the slumping market and the 'well its good enough' mentality of web photo consumption combined with the reduction in photojournalist positions around the world and the acceptance of cell phone imagery along with new techs like 4k image-in-video capture, drones and interesting new powerful cameras like the Light L16.....well, photography as we know it may change in ways that are to dramatic to even imagine right now.</p> <p>So there you go. I would love to hear any of your thoughts about how Canikons mirrorless decisions could effect their DSLR market share in the near future and which path, if any, you believe their mirrorless development will take.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'll make an exception in your case Jeff.</p> <blockquote> <p>Have you ever read the definition of "anecdotal?" It doesn't appear that you know what it means.</p> </blockquote> <p>an•ec•do•tal (adjective) - (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather the facts or research.</p> <p>The thing is I assign <em>worth</em> to peoples accounts and reckonings. I put <em>stock</em> in what people choose to recount. Sure there is worth in hard data as well, but that only tells part of the story. And what I have been picking up from stories all over the world is that many people are starting to use mirrorless cameras, many to the exclusion of anything else. Some of them are pros.</p>

<p>I want everyone to know I have read the wall of text. Every word of it. I appreciate the time invested by all responders. My first reaction is to continue the block quote wars to point out the holes I see in your arguments as you have so nicely done to mine. But if I am honest with myself this isn't going to do anything more but provoke more back and forth in an unproductive way. Having said that, no, I don't agree with much of what is said.</p> <p>I'm gonna try to break this down a little differently this time. This post, as I was expecting, went south with the very first response. If you guys read that response and think it was anything but ridiculous then we have a fundamental difference in viewpoint that will probably never be fixed. So you want to talk about combative? Ive had to defend this post against stupidity from the very first response.</p> <p>Dieter, I don't understand the anger with your back off comment. I did not put words in your mouth, witnessed by they question marks in the very sentence's you quoted. I was asking you if that is how you saw Chris and Jordan. It was an honest question because if you don't believe them then you must feel they don't know what they are talking about or that they are simply fabricating the information. And as for the $800 comment...seriously man? You didn't see that Chris was obviously joking, throwing out a lowball number for laughs? C'mon man, lighten up a little.</p> <p>As for the DSLR/end of life vs MC/years of potential argument it is indeed one I believe. DSLR's can be the recipient of the usual advancement in the normal digital imaging technologies that all these cameras share such as pixel count, dynamic range, FPS and such like. But the mirrorbox assembly is going to limit what can be done with the overall design of the camera. Canon and Niikon perfected those bodies to be the apex predator years ago. And don't forget, mirrorless cameras are in themselves an advancement of the DSLR. There is no difference in a 5D and an A7 other then Sony threw out the mirror box/prism and put in a little TV. Really, that's it.</p> <p>Eric, wall of text dude. Didn't you jibe me about that once before? Seriously though, I don't how to proceed in the obvious differences we have since you have plainly stated your guy is right and unassailable, my guys are fickle and wrong. You have truth and numbers on your side, I have fanciful stories. And yet when I make the same claim you do about possible lack of veracity well suddenly I'm being ridiculous. Yes actually, you are right. Sounds a little like religious fanaticism.</p> <p>But you don't mean to tell me you actually buy into all that global warming do you?</p> <p>Yes...that was a joke. As usual we will just have to agree to disagree. I wish we could actually sit down and talk about this one on one over a meal. We don't live that far apart. I think a lot of misunderstanding is interposed when people disagree on forums. Talking to each other, face to face, produces so much more beneficial results. See, there's that people experience again.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Eric, if Chris and Jordan are just two guys with a vlog then Thom Hogan is just a guy with a blog. Funny how Thoms interpretation of CIPA numbers is acceptable to you but what Chris and Jordan deal with daily in their store, with pro and enthusiast photographers is somehow not valid.</p> <p>Is your stance seriously that of no professional photographers using mirrorless cameras? Because that's what I seem to be getting from you.</p> <blockquote> <p>When you repeat one anecdotal story as "evidence" of a larger trend without any quantifiable proof of that trend, your argument lacks credibility.</p> </blockquote> <p>What you choose to label as anecdotal stories, almost in a derogatory manner, I choose to recognize as peoples personal experiences. I read these experiences in blogs and articles, I listen to people recount them with their own words on podcasts, and I watch people in videos describe these experiences that they themselves had had along with co workers, friends and acquaintances. These examples come from real, live people have led me to the conclusions I have come to.</p> <p>You seem to put hard data on a pedestal at the expense of listening to what other people have to say about their experiances and how this has impacted them. This behavoir is suspiciously close to some forumtograher who cant take a photo to save his life being more concerned about the specs of a lens rather then what beauty may be created by it. And as for this CIPA info, which you seem to cherish so, I'm sure that all of the companies reporting their data are 100% accurate and on the up and up. No company would ever fudge numbers or manipulate earnings, production or sales data to present a stronger, more vibrant image of themselves. And of course we can trust Thom (self proclaimed as a dude with a computer) to accurately interpret Gods Word...uh, I mean CIPA numbers to us unwashed, illiterate hoards.</p> <p>Some pros and enthusiasts have made the switch. Some more will, and others wont. Some will switch back. Some, many actually, incorporate both type of cameras (and others) in their work. But as I have said I am more interested in how this will effect Canon and Nikons view toward serious mirrorless cameras. It will be upon the release of these models where we will begin to see how those giants interpret this new technology and their vision of it for the future. This is what I am excited about and looking forward to.</p> <p>And as for data...well I don't have any hard numbers to glare coldly out at you from your computer screen Eric. But here are some cool links to people actually talking about things they have personally done and experienced.</p> <p> <p> <p> <p>So sorry, I had more links (a lot) but they didn't make it past the pnet robot. I'm sure a little searching will turn up all kinds of interesting stories.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>And your evidence is two guys in a video claiming "droves of people dumping Canon and Nikon</p> </blockquote> <p>When those two guys are Chris and Jordan from a very successful and popular Canadian photography store then yes, I'll consider it <em>a piece</em> of evidence Dieter. Not the smoking gun, not the definitive piece of evidence, but a piece of evidence in a growing body of evidence in a continually unfolding story.</p> <p>I hear it on podcasts (Petapixel, TWIP and their affiliates, etc), I see it in videos, I read it in articles...people are switching from DSLR's and moving to Mirrorless, some of them professional photographers. Why is that so hard to believe Dieter? How about you prove to me that people aren't switching. Good luck with that.</p> <p>I am simply flabbergasted by the amount of resistance this topic generates. I have gone to great lengths to generate productive and fun discussion about one aspect of the gear industry. Never have I encountered such a bull headed resistance to even discussing the possibilities about what these changes may mean in the future. Simply astounding.</p> <p>Every time I post up a link or an article about this topic several things, or a combination of them seems to happen.</p> <p>• the integrity of the website or organization is called into question (CSTV, various websites, Reuters!)<br> • the 'professionalism' of the pro photographer is called into question<br> • claims are made that ''well I'm a pro photographer and nobody I know shoots with mirrorless, so there...its not happening and youre wrong'. Oh, I wasn't aware I was discussing such things with somebody who knows <em>every other photographer in the entire world</em><br> • I'm asked to prove that the information in the website is correct, as if the burden of proof is on me. Witnessed by the ridiculous first response to this thread. <em>"Did you see them selling any cameras?"</em> Are you joking? I showed that response to some of my friends at work and we all had a great laugh about that one.</p> <p>So Dieter, you're saying Chris and Jordan are ignorant buffoons who are pontificating to no effect on matters outside their bailiwick? Or are you simply calling them outright liars?</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ditto! Yea, "pros", please go mirrorless, would ya, dSLR's stink....dump all your Nikon stuff, please!</p> </blockquote> <p>Lol, nice. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>And there's no bad info posted in this thread at all - it's not even info but speculation about and around a rumor.</p> </blockquote> <p>Really Dieter? Because in this thread I learned about limitations in the F mount, <em>from you Dieter</em>, that I otherwise didn't know.</p> <p>Guys, discussions often evolve <em>way</em> beyond the scope of the original post, don't pretend like you don't know that isn't the case. These type of posts about "Well this type of discussion shouldnt be allowed anyway cause nothing is being said" generally comes when you don't have much else to add.</p>

<p><strong>Mark</strong>, excellent response. And I agree wholeheartedly with you as well. There is to much interest today in gear centric photography. Well, let me back up a bit. There is nothing wrong with gear talk or speculation about gear. Photographers tend to be gear heads and in a way we have to. Our whole art is based around machines and how advancements to those machines can change the way we photograph.</p> <p>The problem arises when more emphasis is placed on gear specs then knowledge of photography. The countless arguments of this brand is better then that brand are futile and do nothing but stir up bad feelings in general. Meanwhile, the photographers are out shooting....</p> <p><strong>Peter</strong>, this dovetails a little into some of what you are saying. I agree with you as well....Brand X/Brand Y fights are silly and counterproductive. But sometimes people have a simple interest in changing technologies and how that will effect the industry, long term and short, as a whole. And people go to forums to discuss this and share ideas.</p> <p>I am excited about mirrorless cameras and I love what they have done for my photography. I am excited about Sony and what they have done for mirrorless cameras. I am disappointed that I do not have great options to choose from in this market from Canon and Nikon.</p> <p>In NO way does this mean I hate on DSLR's. But I am very interested in how the mirrorless shake up to the market will impact Canon and Nikons decisions to bring serious mirrorless cameras to the public. And this is followed up with the interest in how this will effect the long term camera gestalt if the two biggest players are forced to produce serious mirrorless offerings (and support them with quality lenses) which will vie with both their competitors camera <em>and their own DSLR models</em>.</p> <p>My personal opinion is that this quite possibly may spell an eventual end to the DSLR's current market dominance in lieu of increasingly capable and sophisticated mirrorless/EVF cameras. This still doesn't mean I hate on DSLR's. I'm just incredibly curious almost from a future historians view on how this effect photographic gear in the years to come. But to often this view can be misunderstood by those reading my posts, either thru my inability to convey my meaning or shortcoming on the readers part who may only see my words as an attack on 'his camera'.</p> <p>I love the history of photography gear, especially the lenses from the 60's and 70's that I shoot with. Actually, I love history in general and I tend to always view the present as simply future history. We are, in other words, living in the history of the future <em>right now</em>. And we could possibly be living through a pivotal point where one type of machine eventually supplants another and big players may not succeed as they have done in the past. Who knows?</p> <p>I don't. But I love talking about. Which is why I post to these fora.</p> <p>By the way, Holga bit the dust. For good. The Chinese company that owns the brand said they destroyed all the machines and molds used in the production of Holga cameras. So a sad day for toy camera aficionados and lovers of Holga.</p> <p>But an interesting day for photographic history buffs.</p>

<blockquote> <p>anecdotal information is not data, though. Do these guys SELL cameras in the video? Doesn't that always make their "anecdotal data" suspect?</p> </blockquote> <p>Oh my goodness....Peter, I think you're on to something. I thought back on my time watching the video and upon reflection I didn't <em>actually</em> remember seeing them sell any cameras. 'Well surely that cant be right' I thought to myself. So I went back and watched the video again so I could refute your post this morning.</p> <p>Viewing the video again as the seconds ticked by on the timer I started to go cold. They were talking, sharing ideas about their experiences working in the industry and new trends they had noticed, but it didn't seem like they actually <em>sold any cameras</em>. Scared now, I went back and watched the video yet again, carefully watching their hands this time.</p> <p>Omg....at no point, absolutely <strong><em>no point</em> </strong>in the video did either Chris or Jordan actually sell a camera to anyone and take money in return. <em>How did I miss this? </em>This was incredibly upsetting to me so I quickly unplugged my computer and sat in a corner for a while holding my FL 55/1.2. 'Its gonna be ok' I kept telling myself, stoking the lens. 'Its gonna be ok...'<em><br /></em></p> <p>On a side note, I'm not familiar with the Whizbang 2000. Is that Canons new mirrorless camera? Did you get that info from a rumor site or a trusted source?</p> <blockquote> <p>If you're happy with your thousands of dollars invested in the Whizbang 2000, you don't HAVE to assume that the people who bought the GeeWhiz 3000 are somehow worse...<br /><br> </p> </blockquote> <p>To this point, why are <strong>you</strong> assuming that I said people who don't have a certain type of camera are somehow worse? Where on earth did you get that from my post? My point in this post is to show more evidence of changing market currents and a possible long term change to the overall gestalt of photography, both professional and enthusiast, from people who deal with this market and gestalt on a daily basis.<br /><br> <br> Why do you feel the need to bring this down to a personal level of individuals with cameras? If droves of people get rid of Canon and Nikon that doesn't mean that those who keep Canon and Nikon are somehow worse off. It just means that a lot of people decided that this new type of camera is better for them.<br /><br> <br> The signifigance for me in this type of 'anecdotal data' is not about the people who keep Canon and Nikon, but rather Canon and Nikons response, as companies, to many people buying other cameras. Especially in regards to new products this may force them to develop. I'm looking at the industry here Peter...not who decides to shoot with what. Me no care about that.<br /></p>

<p>That's interesting about the 1.2 thing Dieter, I didn't know that.</p> <blockquote> <p>Canon and Nikon have a lot to lose if they don't get their "mainstream" mirrorless cameras right.</p> </blockquote> <p>Soooo right. I just started another topic concerning a video from The Camera Store TV where they guys comment that they are seeing people dump Canon and Nikon 'in droves' for mirrorless, the A7RII in particular. I think the sleeping giants of Canon and Nikon have woken up and we will see some good stuff from them soon. But you are right, they have got to get it right. I keep saying this, but they better not make these cameras in any way subservient to their DSLR's, especially where the mount is concerned. </p>

<p>A new video from The Camera Store TV is that covers a bit of preview for their Best Of 2015 video along with some news about Samsung has some interesting insights on the migration to mirrorless. This link will put you about 5:48 into the video where they begin discussing the A7RII and mirrorless in general. Turns out pro photogs are using mirrorless cameras, quite a bit actually.</p> <p> <p>Keep in mind these guys are big in the retail camera industry in their area, the boots on the ground so to speak. They deal one on one in the trenches will people buying or trading in gear. To quote the video..."This is the first time that I've seen people in droves dumping Canon and Nikon, like loyal people." in reference to the A7RII. Then mention is made that "But still, this is the first time that, yeah, we are seeing a lot of pros...dumping their gear."</p> <p>Mention is also made of those pros trading in upwards of $20,000 in gear to move to mirrorless (directly in reference to the A7RII I believe). I know there has been much discussion on this board (wailing and gnashing of teeth actually) concerning pros and their use of mirrorless. Keep in mind this is just one camera store in one city, albeit a big city. </p> <p>I remember linking an article just a while back about several pros (about 8) who use Sony and another article about 10 pros sports shooters who use mirrorless in general. There was a lot of poo pooing in the responses and cries of "Lol, only 8? Hahaha!" </p> <p>No, its not only 8. Or 10. Or 100. You wont see every pro who is making the switch advertise the fact. As a matter of fact you will only see a small percentage advertise that they have switched. Most pro photogs will simply make a decision about what works for them, make the change, and get on with their business of taking photos for money. But they are most definitely making the change.</p> <p>Watch the video in its entirety if you can. There is some good industry related stuff included as well as some information about Samsung. Not anything new about whats going on with them unfortunately, but some insight as to why they may be closing shop.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Paradigms operate. Maybe Nikon is too wed to the DSLR technology (which they have certainly mastered, like other top DSLR makers). Change can require a lot of time. Perhaps one is old enough to remember when the traditional Swiss watch companies did not take the quartz electronic watch innovation very seriously at first, and lost considerable market before finally adopting at the very least a technology mix.</p> </blockquote> <p>Arthur, you hit it squarely on the head with this. I have been saying for a long time now that Canon and Nikon both understand what is involved with the production of a fresh new mirrorless camera. They will need a new mount to do it properly and a new mount means a whole new line of lenses. I am sure neither one of them is wanting to in any way give up the market dominance that they have in regards to a fully fleshed out lens line. Then they are in the position where a completely new set of lenses is competing against their old set of lenses, and a new body is competing with the old bodies. Sure, adapters will be available to use the DSLR lenses on the mirrorless and while this is definitely a workable solution (as Sony has shown) it isn't<em> ideal</em>.</p> <p>Do they then look at mirrorless as the future, and a possible eventual replacement for their DSLRs? Will they work side by side instead as equals and need to be supported as multiple formats? Or should they view the mirrorless camera as subservient to the DSLR, a mere sideshow, and then run the risk that their competitors were right and new breakthroughs in mirrorless tech indeed make them the camera of the future?</p> <p>Again we come back to the fact that the DSLR, while a highly advanced and capable machine, is also a device pretty much at the end of its development cycle. Mirrorless on the other hand has decades of improvement ahead of it. It is not an enviable time for Canikon right now, but their recent announcements about developing better mirrorless cameras show they are hopefully on the ball. History is full of companies who thought they were in a position of strength and that their position in the market was unassailable while at the same time misreading market trends and not making fast changes when necessary. IBM, Blackberry, Oldsmobile, Circuit City, Compaq, Kodak, Polaroid...those last two are very pertinent. Heck, even Yahoo is looking at selling major chunks of its web business now. Flickr itself might be up on the auction block....</p> <p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/753/21042097184_dda0fd4b08_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>Can't help but wonder if someone's going m/less they've already chosen/invested in a side be it Fuji, Sony or Olympus/Panasonic.</p> </blockquote> <p><strong>Mark</strong>, I've never bought into the 'invested' argument. If people want to sit around on a forum and get defensive about gear they own because they are 'invested' in it and for some reason feel the need to defend it against newer/better/different gear well....that's just foolish and those people aren't really photographers.</p> <p>Ones photographs should speak for themselves. It doesn't matter what gear you have, just go out and shoot with it. If the gear is disappointing you or holding you back somehow then sell it and buy other gear. But a competent photographer should be able to pick up just about any camera and in some way be able to produce compelling imagery. And cameras today are so good anyway that there shouldn't be anyone out there stewing over a bad 'investment'. If you cant take great photos with the gear available today then maybe more time should be 'invested' in improving ones photography.</p> <p>The great thing about my style of photography is the fact that the body I own is nothing more then a digital back due to my exclusive use of old film lenses. The only thing I'm invested in are some cheap adapters. Got tired of my Sony a7? Sell it and get a Fuji XT-1 (which I almost have on several occasions). Then all I do is buy a couple of new adapters and all my old lenses are producing images again. I am looking forward to a serious mirrorless camera from Canon and I will be giving it a good look when it is finally announced. I currently shoot Sony because they have made the best camera for <em>my</em> style of photography. But if Canon can match or better them in the mirrorless market then my money will go back to them. Having said that tho, what Sony has been able to bring to market in such a short time has truly been staggering and shows they are serious and on the move.</p> <p><strong>Edward</strong>, I really hope there is some truth to these rumors. It would make so much sense for Nikon and Samsung to combine forces in the mirrorless arena, each corporation producing to their strengths and complimenting the other. A Nikon mirrorless body with their professional build quality and name recognition combined with a class leading Samsung sensor and EVF with each company then producing lenses for the new mount would be a force to be reckoned with.</p> <p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/758/21853315885_82dcb755cc_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Carl, I asked you serious questions about your photography in an effort to understand you better. Frankly your whole attitude toward this mirrorless thing is puzzling and I was seeking to clarify your meanings and intentions in a more productive way then just writing you off as a fanboy. I simply don't get your need to seemingly poop all over the idea that mirrorless cameras (Sonys especially) are a valid photographic tool and I was trying to discover some reasoning behind this.</p> <p>I don't understand your angry retort about not owing me anything, or me stomping my foot. I thought this was an adult conversation we were having here, an exchange of ideas. This is a public forum where people come to discuss different points of view, in this case on photography. If you aren't comfortable discussing deeper elements of photography, yours mine or anyone's, then one might question your motives for being here if only to talk down one type of gear and talk up another.</p> <p>But obviously you are extremely uncomfortable discussing <em>your</em> photography. My apologies for pushing you out of your comfort zone.</p> <p><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/607/21231360746_ffb213af4b_c.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>It was Edward who said that Hogan had no experience with recent Sony models, now wasn't it. We all know that Edward knew better.</p> </blockquote> <p>You can prevaricate all you want, but you still haven't answered my questions. I've been waiting.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Really, Edward, you know full well that Thom Hogan used the Sony A7Rll in his recent sports shoot. And you know that it did not fare well in that endeavor.</p> </blockquote> <p>Really, Carl...does it matter? Its been beat to death that the A7RII isn't the best at sports. Even though there <em>are</em> pro shooters using the camera for all kinds of photography, sports included. Yes, that's right, people are making money, memories and art with the A7RII and all the other Sonys. Myself included. And we are having a darn fun time doing it I can assure you. Whatever it is that Thom Hogan Rockwell Thien Kai Huff says about gear has no bearing on what <em>I can create with it. </em>I guaran-freaking-tee you that if you give me Thoms 'bad' lens I can go shoot some awesome shots with it.</p> <p>How about this Carl. What are YOU shooting? And with what gear? What gear makes YOU get up at the butt crack of dawn to go get some keepers? What is it that inspires YOUR photographic passion? And while we are at it, please post up some examples of how all these subpar Sony lenses have let you down. I would love to see how Sony's crappy quality control and lack of lenses have prevented your creativity from flowing.</p> <p><em><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3735/9088953589_8c986986d1_c.jpg" alt="" /></em></p>

<blockquote> <p>Indeed. David , where are those very fine photographs which you added to your posts. Feel a loss and I strongly suspect as do others.-</p> </blockquote> <p>You know Allen, I simply got away from adding them to each post. I fully intended to keep doing it since I have over 2000 photos up on flickr so there are plenty to choose from. I can easily add them again if you like. As long as I don't forget that is. :)</p> <p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5772/22929738266_c479042d81_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>One should worry less about what others say about lenses, and more about what is coming out of one's own lenses.</p> <p>In other words, reviewers are just people...like me an you. Plenty of them prefer one system to another and will downplay rivals if they can. I mean, they are just people right.</p> <p>What comes out of your OWN camera is much more important then what comes out of somebody else's mouth, or keyboard.</p>

<p>Dieter, of course Nikon would have adapters available for their old F lenses with full functionality. If they were smart they would make those available for both the AF lenses and the older manual focus lenses. Why not have your new camera have backwards compatibility with the entire catalog of your old lenses? It only makes sense.</p> <p>But only if you do it via adapters, and not by actually crippling your shiny new mirrorless camera with a permanently attached F mount. Now is the perfect time for Nikon (and Canon) to give serious thought to what type of system is going to take them thru the next half century of camera and lens design. The timing now could not be more perfect to update their product line with new technology which opens up new areas of technical possibilities.</p> <p>Because I'm sorry, the F mount and the EOS system are due for an update. Sure, they work perfectly well right now and have the strength of being the status quo solidly behind them. But in 10 years? 20? 50? Do we honestly think the photographers of 50 years from now are going to be lugging around the new Canon L 24-70/2.8 MK VIII in the same old tired EOS mount?</p> <p>This is going to be the single hardest thing for Canon and Nikon to overcome in their approach to serious mirrorless models. They have to understand that the mount that made their SLR's and DSLR's great will not be the same mount that makes their mirrorless cameras great. I mean, the plain fact is written right there in the name...SLR...Single Lens Reflex. Mirrorless cameras don't have that single lens reflex mirror, thus the name mirrorless. To design such a camera with more concern toward how it can serve your aging DSLR's instead of how it can better them and surpass them is simply folly.</p> <p>I am sooooo looking forward to what Canon and Nikon finally bring to the table. They have so much opportunity to succeed and bring out something new and fresh and exciting. But I have this horrible little feeling in my gut that I'm going to be disappointed. I hope I'm wrong.</p>