Nikon and Canon have both introduced mirrorless bodies using new mounts, and the industry is at a crossroads. The new lenses that were introduced lack any promise or justification for their existence, and are more expensive while offering less useful features than past generations.Most lenses introduced in the last few years have been a disappointment. While they are technically impressive, offering unprecedented focal lengths or apertures, they are getting drastically heavier and more expensive, while making serious compromises on usability and filter compatibility. At the same time, they are often missing basic features, like image stabilization or filter threads. This trend seems only to have worsened with the new mirrorless mounts.
Nikon’s Z line is a prime example, pun intended. For the launch of a new mount, they rolled out a few obligatory lenses including a 24-70 and a few primes. Instead of developing a more useful lens, like a telephoto lens native to the mount for launch, they focused development on a ridiculous 58mm f/0.95 vanity lens. It is rumored to cost $6,000, and is so unwieldy it comes with it’s own tripod foot. Besides trying to grab headlines, I can’t figure out who this lens is aimed at, particularly given the attributes of the existing Z bodies. High performance 50mm lenses, like the Zeiss Otus, already exist. Meanwhile, Nikon claims their existing 50mm Z mount lens “will redefine your notion” of what a 50mm lens can do. Do photographers really need two definitions of a standard lens on a mount that only has 4 or 5 lenses to begin with?
I don't think even NIkon knows which direction they want to go.
Canon’s RF mount isn’t any better, with the 28-70 f/2 lacking the wider angle capability of their EF lenses and any form of image stabilization, all for twice the price of their well regarded 24-70 f/2.8 II. The lens features an insane 95mm filter diameter, and weighs 1.3lbs more than it’s EF competition. This throws away any weight savings from the switch to mirrorless, and seems to be another example of a product made for a cool sounding headline, rather than a genuinely better user experience. What sort of performance could Canon have delivered if they stuck to F2.8? Could they have fit in an IS system? That omission seems particularly egregious given the EOS R lacks any built in stabilization. If they are worried about low light performance, a 24-70 f/2.8 II shooter can bring another 1.3lbs of f/1.8 prime lenses for the best of both worlds.
I would have loved to see some f/4 zooms that match professional standards, and some wicked sharp f1.8 primes. The classic 24-70 f/2.8 shouldn’t be regressing, and image stabilization should be included whenever possible. The new bodies are hopefully on the cutting edge of ISO performance, and emphasize the weight savings inherent in mirrorless, so what is this fetishization of unnecessarily wide apertures? The expanded electronic communication abilities of the new mounts also seem to be going to waste, as Nikon’s halo lens is manual focus only, despite the razor thin depth of field. Canon and Nikon instead seem to have aimed for the most expensive options at every turn, without a meaningful improvement in product capability.
These lenses seem to be trying to justify the new mounts’ existence. Instead of genuinely addressing a photographer’s needs, Nikon and Canon built lenses in search of a problem. Viewing the new lenses in combination with their bodies only further highlights the disjointed nature of the lineups. The Z6 and Z7 offer photographers a practical, collapsible 24-70 f/4 and a monstrous, multi-thousand dollar prime lens, with nothing in between. If, however, you're looking for a 50mm lens, the Nikon Z lineup is perfect, featuring 3 variations of a 50mm lens out of 12 total lenses announced.
1 of 3 50mm lenses for the Z mount
I'm not saying the only direction to go is smaller, lighter, and slower. I'd love to see some alternatives to the bigger, faster, but wildly expensive lenses that are in vogue; I understand that new ground has to be broken for marketing wins. I think my problem instead lies with the unclear direction that Nikon and Canon are taking with their new mirrorless efforts. While the road maps they've provided offer more information than they have provided in the past, I don't see their overarching purpose. Is the Z lineup supposed to push the limits of what cameras can do, as the 58mm Noct would indicate? Then why does it's autofocus performance lag competitors and even the D850 it supposedly equals? It lacks the same level of customization in controls already present on less expensive, older bodies like the D500.
While some would say, if you don't like it, don't buy it, the very existence of these new lines also threaten the viability of existing models. Looking at the number of lenses that Nikon or Canon are capable of designing and launching, when combined with their road maps for the new mounts means new lenses for existing mounts are unlikely. The situation is even worse for users of the duo's first mirrorless efforts, as Nikon CX is discontinued and Canon's EF-M has an unclear future.
Nikon and Canon should ground their new mounts in reality. Once they’ve rolled out a competent set of practical tools, go ahead and build some $3,000 vanity lenses, but not while you’re still missing anything with a focal length above 105mm. As both mounts heavily rely on legacy compatible adapters to create any sort of complete kit, did the Z and RF mounts really need to exist? Nikon fans already complain of missing lenses for the DX mount, and I feel there are still holes in the F mount line, like a high performance, lighter mid-range zoom. Canon is having to juggle development for EF-S, EF, RF, and EF-M, which leaves the future of each mount in question.
Given the lenses introduced and revealed on the roadmap so far, I don’t believe Nikon and Canon are headed in the right direction. With tightening camera sales figures, manufacturers need to make rational, deliberate choices more than ever before, and manage their resources wisely.
Lead image by Szabo Viktor
Canon, at least, has known that the flapping mirror needed to go away ever since they played with pellicle mirror cameras back in the 70s.
Is Eric Salas' post a circumstance of Poe's Law?
meh who cares. in a few years we'll have all the native lenses we need for these new mirrorless systems. I currently use a Nikon D750 for stills and a Panasonic GX85 for video (IBIS, 4k). The Nikon Z7 looks like it could be a replacement and step up for both these cameras and I'm looking forward to the day when I can afford to replace multiple cameras with one do it all. That said I probably will have to hang on to my DSLR as not having a camera with an optical finder is a little TOO futuristic for me :0
This article should be prefaced by the word OPINION and clearly state that it is one person's opinion only, and not that of fstoppers.com. Many people will take issue with his opinions, myself included.
Hey Steve, the article is categorized as an opinion. Thanks!
It did not clearly state that it was 'opinion' in the article. It was presented being Fstoppers official take on mirrorless. And frankly, I disagree with most of what you said. Not sure I will pay much attention to Fstoppers going forward.
Goodness, so much complaining about just one lens (on the Nikon side), as if it's the only lens they're going to make. Actually, so much complaining, period. I don't understand:
"I would have loved to see some f/4 zooms that match professional standards, and some wicked sharp f1.8 primes."
This is what you're pleading Canon for, but it's exactly what Nikon did, and you still did nothing but criticize, saying they should have rolled out a telephoto instead.
It sounds like you'd have written this article no matter what was released. Nikon launches with a telephoto lens; "Where are the wide angle lenses? What a useless system, so far in the wrong direction, this 70-200mm is the same size as the F-mount one, Nikon should have focused on wider lenses where mirrorless actually has a potential size benefit."
"The Future is Bleak." Right...
The central thesis is that Nikon and Canon have failed to introduce fundamental, native lenses for their mirrorless bodies, and instead prioritized lenses with less functionality.
One of the major benefits of mirrorless is the size/weight reduction- the Z's 24-70 and 14-30 are a great compliment to that, but you have no good option for beyond 70mm, as AF performance when converted is weak. So yes, I'd like to see a Z telephoto.
Canon introduced a very niche mid-zoom that costs $3k, to go along with a body that sits around a 6Dmk2 or 5D4 level, which again is a misalignment.
"The Future is Bleak" because you didn't get your personal priority/preference lenses at launch? I think you meant "The Present is Bleak For Me, Personally." There are tele lenses already on the roadmap and there will be more.
"I'm not saying the only direction to go is smaller, lighter, and slower. I'd love to see some alternatives to the bigger, faster, but wildly expensive lenses that are in vogue"
There's already plenty of this in the MILC market from full frame all the way down to M4/3. What's actually missing from the MILC market are bulky bodies and lenses comparable to DSLR's.
Building out a catalog of lenses takes time. I suspect that Canon will do it faster than Nikon since they have greater resources, but either way, we're looking at YEARS before either of these systems becomes viable for every type of photography out there. No matter what they released, someone was bound to be upset and feel ignored whether it's the sports shooters, street shooters, bird shooters, astro shooters, etc. :/
If they don't cater to your needs right now, find another company who does and then take another look back in a few years to see if it's worth the switch.
So, to sum up, the author is upset that the Z lineup includes the 58/0.95 instead of a slower telephoto option.
I would also point out the following:
1. The 58/0.95 hasn't been released yet, so it really hasn't replaced anything yet.
2. The f/4 zooms ARE built to professional standards, as requested.
3. The f/1.8 primes ARE wicked sharp, as requested.
4. The Z cameras have IBIS, so the lenses released so far don't need VR.
5. There are still blank spaces for 2020 on the roadmap, so it's quite likely a telephoto option will be put in there. In the meantime, the 70-300 AF-P has been working well for users.
6. Nikon will continue to offer both a cheaper 'enthusiast' and an expensive 'pro' line of primes. Previously they were f/1.8 and f/1.4. In the Z mount they're f/1.8 and f/1.2. This is why there's a 50 f/1.2 and a 50 f/1.8. the 58 f/0.95 is an exotic specialty lens and not part of the 'regular' lineup.
7. By the time the 50/1.2 is released there will already be a nice collection of 1.8 primes - 20, 24, 35, 50, 85, so it makes sense to start working on the 1.2 primes.
I don't follow Canon much, so I'll let others comment on that side of things.
useful would be something fuji does, fast 1.4 primes which aren't expensive and a f 2.0 line, with waterproof seals and super light and small. even on ff f2 primes makes sense, they can be still small and light.
in most cases we need a 24 /35 /50 /85 primes and a bread and butter zoom 24-70 70-200
Canon and Nikon know that the most serious users of these cameras will already have great lenses to use with the available adapters, so they have bought themselves time to flesh out the new lens lineup in a way that is most profitable and practical.
Heard the Story? The Blinds Feeling the Elephant? Each Blinds feels a different parts of an Elephant. Each one has a different feels and different opinion of what an Elephant is like or Looks Like. Same story goes here.
Getting popcorn ready for the butthurt canikon fanboys avalanche
Yeah, I don't get it. After complaining about Nikon's lenses, the you throw out that you would have "loved to see some f/4 zooms that match professional standards, and some wicked sharp f1.8 primes" ... which is exactly what Nikon has given us so far.
Ok, so you don't like the 58mm f/0.95. It's not for you...we get it. Yeah, it's a bit of a show-off lens, designed to demonstrate what the system is capable of, garner some bragging rights.
Everything else seems to pretty much 100% inline with what you claim you would have loved to have seen. Yeah, the new lenses don't have all the "bells and whistles" like VR...because VR is built into the camera.
I guess some people just like to complain.
Hey Paul- the article covers "Nikon and Canon". Different criticisms apply to different aspects of each companies lineup.
Nikon Z is missing a telephoto of any kind, particularly a f/4. Instead of a second 50mm, an 85 or 105 f/1.8 would be more useful. Nikon focused development on a headline grabbing, redundant 58mm, instead of delivering a wide to tele kit that would justify a "full switch" to Z.
Canon RF is missing a 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4, and instead has a 50 f/1.2 for over $2k. Their standard zoom is missing the wide end that has been standard on mid-zooms for 10+ years, as well as the almost-industry-standard IS options.
Hope that makes it clearer as to which criticisms apply to which system.
Headline-grabbing? To draw attention to their new system? How dare they?!?
Yeah, I read the article. First, you criticize Nikon for not releasing lenses that are "useful," then you criticize Canon for not releasing useful lenses - which you then define as THE EXACT LENSES THAT NIKON HAS RELEASED FOR ITS SYSTEM.
Nikon has released 3 lenses and announced another (along with a release date); 2 f/4 zooms and 2 super-sharp f/1.8 primes. All 4 fall directly into the category that you criticize Canon for not releasing. Just 3 months in, and Nikon is 4 for 4.
Maybe you should change the title of your article to "While Canon falters, Nikon's new mirrorless lenses are absolutely killing it."
Then you can go back to patiently awaiting the zoom that's clearly marked on the road-map. Or use the FtZ adapter; mine kind of kicks ass. Or, you know what, go buy a different camera with different lenses; given your contradictory complaints it's pretty clear neither Canon nor Nikon will ever make you happy.
Also, as to yet another complaint of "I can't figure out who this lens is aimed at" concerning the 58:
Zeiss has a very expensive line of MF prime lenses that offer best-in-class IQ at exorbitant prices and that are large and very heavy. They released the first, the 55mm OTUS in 2013, and since then have released two additional models offering different focal lengths...suggesting that, indeed, there is a market for expensive, exceptional optics, even if they're manual focus.
Now, just imagine that the as-yet-unannounced 58mm f.0.95 lens performs as well as an OTUS, is priced in the same neighborhood...and with a max aperture of 0.95 compared to the f/1.4 of the OTUS. You really think there won't be a market for such a lens? Please....that's the kind of lens certain photographers buy into whole systems to use.
The FUTURE IS BLEAK because they think that they way to go lighter is to go mirrorless.
Barring some of these lenses, mirrorless is pretty clearly the best way to trim weight without sacrificing quality.
Between a lighter body, owing to reduced size and complexity, and the possibility of lighter lenses, owing to a shorter flange distance that requires less complex in-lens correction, mirrorless cameras can deliver weight savings without a quality reduction. That is why it is so disappointing to see the direction they are instead taking with these lenses.
From what I understand about the current camera market is that amateur enthusiasts are the biggest market. And it seems that these new mirrorless cameras and lenses (even the vanity nonsense) are targeting this group. So far, as a full time professional I see no justification whatsoever to join the mirrorless bandwagon - Nikon and Canon’s new offerings simply do not meet the needs of most professionals. Lets see where this goes. But for the time being, I’d agree with just about everything you say in the article. Well done. Now we just need Nikon and Canon to take note (but that’s probably wishful thinking at the moment).
Great opinion article. Interesting point of view.
Im sorry that photos are becoming meaningless /smartphn/mass production of meaningless self images falling off / insainity hill/youtuber-bloopers/ HEY just bought panasnc GH1 w SLR MAJIC 8mm zero distortion ULTRA WIDE((( gh1 $79.00+8mm f4 slrmgc $139...…...FANTASTIC //wider than 11-16 tokina w canon camera( weighs a ton...)...LOOKS FANTASTIC w Polarisor XXXXX NOW $129 new /adorama////was designed for DRONES …………...mike/frm/can/tm
I have to say i agree with this opinion and have been puzzled by the marketing strategy of Nikon and Canon on the release of these new mirrorless cameras. I seemed to me that they r a knee jerk reaction to sonys mirrorless and a side step to their existing dlsr cameras. However here as i am no videographer maybe i am missing advantages h here. For myself i was expecting lighter bodies and camera lenses but it is now apparent that quality in lenses still require heavier lenses. As a backpacker i waited a long time to see what these cameras were going to look like. I would dearly love to know what significant changes these cameras have over the D810 and 5D mark iv because at this moment i am mystified.
Hi Loretta- The marketing seems a bit muddled. Nikon pushes a small and light ethos, and really does deliver with the f/4 zooms and f/1.8 primes. Where they fall flat is no telephoto options to compliment that kit. If you just have to adapt every lens anyway, why not keep that D850 or 5D4?
Nikon has been criticized for introducing rather modest f1.8 lenses for the Z. They perfectly complement the narrative of smaller lighter mirrorless alternatives.
As for the vanity lenses, let's be honest; These are exactly what the fanboys have been screaming for.
Both Nikon and Canon know that they will sell very few of these lenses but the fanboys will squeak and whistle over them and make endless YouTube videos showing the single trick they can do over and over again.
While you are outraged that new lenses are more expensive you need to understand that the legacy lenses have amortized their development costs and can still be profitable at the prices they currently sell.
So I guess you are upset by the fact that the manufacturers listened to the base and delivered what they ignorantly quacked about.
Hi Indy, I think the bipolar nature of Nikon's Z lenses is what really prompted me to write this. You're right that the modest f/1.8 lenses are a great compliment to the positive attributes of mirrorless. Same with the f/4 zooms- they are light, but very well performing. Unfortunately, someone buying into Z with that ethos in mind will be left without any options longer than 70mm that perform well. The Z 70-200 f/2.8 will be quite heavy and expensive, while the adapted F mount 70-200 f/4 has weak AF performance versus the same lens on a D850.
While the development costs can be amortized over a few very expensive lenses, I question whether the outlay made sense in the first place. There may be enough demand for the 58 at $6k to pay back the investment, but it is hardly the sort of lens to fuel the growth and expansion of the Z ecosystem. The Nikon D100, D300, D90, and others, all offered innovation and drove demand, but were within reach for most photographers. Each of those bodies sold brought the potential of new lens sales, future body upgrades, and more. A $6k lens with impaired functionality seems like a collector's edition Leica.
Hi Alex, I think the expensive lenses are halo products designed to get attention. For most all of us seriously looking for tools they will be ignored.
Nikon will intro the faster lenses and yes, they will be heavy and expensive but their current lenses are not cheap. Can't be helped as far as I can see.
About pricing, I think what people are overlooking is that the vast library of lenses were developed a long time ago. Unlike bodies, lenses have a long life. My Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS v1 is almost 20 years old yet still perform superbly on my R. But the new lenses like their 85 f1.4 seem pricey as they have been developed in the last couple of years with costs a lot higher than the late 90's when the 70-200 was designed. BTW that 70-200 still cost $1500 used in 2002. So good lenses have always been expensive.
Both Canon and Nikon should have done a better (more comprehensive) offering of lenses since their mounts changed. I don't have any skin in this game since I've adopted micro 4/3rds completely now and will probably jump on Fuji's medium format wagon soon.
But never the less, I thought Alex's opinion piece has merit for the players in this lane.
Hate much? This article was painful to finish. The author sounded more like a child that didn't get what he wanted than an informed presenter of opinion. His article felt like click bait, at best.
Nikon and Canon have indeed gone different directions, but both have much merit. Nikon has deployed three lenses initially. Two are razor sharp lightweight primes and one is a lightweight kit zoom that is demonstrably superior to the previous FF mirrorless 24-70 zoom from Sony. Canon has gone a direction aimed at heavier fast pro lenses first and that is a great way also.
Nikon and Canon have the luxury of introducing the lenses they feel will meet the needs of their customers, much more so than Sony did due to their extensive set of excellent lenses already on the market. Let them continue to build their line up and see where they are in a couple years, in the meantime their mirrorless users have hundreds of lenses to choose from.
Please take a moment to think before penning your next article, unless you are trying to generate click bait by authoring poorly worded and researched articles. If that is the case I am contributing to your cause! If you were serious then please, cross your arms and stomp your feet until you feel better. Either way these articles are lowering the bar of what I expect from Fstoppers.com.
Hi Steve- are there any factual inaccuracies? I'd be happy to correct them if so.
As for the opinion aspect, what's stated is my opinion, and the article is categorized as such.
Nikon has deployed the beginnings of a small/light/sharp f/4 kit, which is great. Where it falls down is on anything longer than 70mm. The Z 70-200 f/2.8 will certainly be larger and heavier than a corresponding f/4. If users want to adapt a F mount 70-200, they will have to put up with diminished AF performance, which is already weaker than a comparable D850.
Canon has introduced heavy pro lenses, without a pro body. Furthermore, their larger and heavier lenses are either just a duplicate of functionality already present in EF, or a step back in many ways, e.g. when you compare the EF 24-70 to RF 28-70.
Given that the bodies don't offer any increase in functionality over their mirror-based cousins, anyone considering just adapting their existing F or EF mount lenses would be well served to just stay with the D850 or 5D4 that was already available. That hardly makes for a compelling argument to upgrade to mirrorless, and could impact sales figures.
Alex when I read my response from last night I realized I was a little harsh, that was wrong.
I have not used a Z7, but on a Z6 I saw no diminished performance on a 70-200 VRII, 200-400 (version I), 300 F4 PF, 14-24 or 24-120. I shot these on the Z6, D850, D500 and D800 side by side. The AF on the Z6 was very comparable to the D800, but the lens focus speed was not impacted on the Z6 as it seems you found it to be on the Z7. I enjoyed using the Z6 and I am waiting to see what the next firmware release brings. In all likelihood there will be a Z6 in my bag shortly. It seems to make sense as a mid-level body for me.
As far as the Z7 VS D850 issue I will not be trading my D850 for the Z7 anytime soon. I agree there is no compelling reason at this time. Were I upgrading from a D750 or D800/810 I'd not hesitate. And it seems to me those users are squarely in Nikon's target market.
As for the lenses I think they should have waited for the Noct, but this lens is not intended for the masses (or me) but the rest of the road map looks decent. The PF lenses on an FTZ are blazing fast to focus and light enough to make sense on a smaller body. Perfect road map? No, but pretty good and certainly not bleak.
Hey Steve,
Appreciate the response. It's interesting to hear a different experience. I'm happy to see the Z6 is working for you.
AF is always a mixed experience, with everyone trying it under different conditions and having different results. I found that the f/4 70-200 I was shooting struggled compared to my D810. I didn't have enough time to deliver a full review, but I have found others with more experience on the bodies than I had making similar remarks.
Given the Z7 offers roughly parity with the D850, disregarding my experience in AF, I'd be very interested in moving on to the Z7. It seems clear that Nikon and Canon consider them the future systems, and as I intend to shoot for years to come, I might as well get on board. With that said, it just feels that the systems aren't really ready yet. Nikon seems to be in the best position, alongside Sony, for mirrorless, so I'm hoping they'll deliver strong Z lenses, and that I can join you on a Z body soon enough.
So, I have to sll it all and buy something else because Nikon are failing me.
Really?
Next..
Slow news days.
You could always switch back to a DSLR. Or, use an iPhone.
Why so many negative whiny articles? Engagement. 161(162 now) comments on this lol.
Whoa!! Let's take a step back here. Why do any of you critics suppose someone would buy a mirrorless camera? Many reasons, sure, but most because of the size, weight, and cost advantages. That was certainly my motivation. Log on to any general photography discussion (such as Ugly Hedgehog - uhh.com) and look up threads discussing why photographers bought MILC. You'll discover near unanimity for size, weight, and cost. Now rethink Alex's article. What's wrong with Canikon's new lenses? They're bigger, heavier, and costlier than their DSLR counterparts.
There are lots of companies that were really, really big and then made some stupid errors and became arrogant and ended up disappearing. I don't think Nikon is arrogant but Canon surely is. They may be still number one but that is mainly due to the endless amounts of very cheap entry-level bodies they sell. And certainly not because of the stellar products they introduced for the past 4 years.
If you think companies can't go bust because they are big look up these names: East India Company, Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie
I'd say that Canon is certainly are being logical with their new offerings. They're merely responding to market forces. In Canon's case (which I am more familiar with, since I shoot Canon), they are responding to the threat from Sony, Fujifilm, etc. by producing a mirrorless camera. That is fairly obvious. With the new RF 50mm f/1.2, they are responding to the 'failings' that the photography forums have been focused on since the Otis came out, and Sigma started producing the "Art" series: Canon is showing the world that they too can create an optically superior lens, if they pull out all the stops, and ignore petty inconveniences like size, weight and cost. It's what we've been asking for, right?
I say, cut Canon some slack. This is only the beginning of the journey. This is only the initial splash. You can mount any EF lens you want on the EOS R, so are they really missing the boat by not producing new RF lenses they already have in their EF line up? Just wait, the future will be filled with f/4 zooms and pancake primes. I'd be willing to bet that there are some already in the works.
Can we not appreciate what we have been given, rather than gripe about what we haven't. This article shows complete disregard or at least a lack of understanding on the colossal amount of effort and talent that goes into developing these tools for our art/job/fun.
I feel that this post is completely unnecessary.
Nikon has currently 4 lenses that they sell for the Z-mount and all of them have reasonable specs. 15-30/4, 24-70/4, 35/1.8 and 50/1.8. So, 100% of the released lenses are designed for everyday user. They are just saying that at some point there will be manual focus f/0.95 lens. What's the big deal here?
Canon has 4 lenses and two of them have reasonable specs like 24-105/4 and 35/1.8. They have previously had 50/1.2 so nothing new with the new one. The 28-70/2 is something that has not been built before and it could be considered "insane". But still, 75% of the lenses are reworked versions of the older models. In my opinion, there is nothing too drastic here.
I get where this article and overall viewpoint is coming from but seriously, does nobody see the irony?
"These lenses seem to be trying to justify the new mounts’ existence. Instead of genuinely addressing a photographer’s needs,"
How about apply this argument to the entire assertion of mirrorless cameras. They are inferior to DSLR's in virtually every way we all care about and yet we're told we can't live without them and basically all our new cameras will be mirrorless.
Sensor size, low light performance, burst mode, autofocus speed/accuracy, EVF issues, EVF blackouts, battery life, weather sealing, body/grip design, and that's just off the top of my head. All of these areas are better handled in DSLR's from 4 years ago. What is the benefit? They're smaller, really? That's it? Not by much. And hold on, by the time you add a grip (because you basically have to in order to handle these "tiny hands" cameras) and then pack a lot more batteries, and then (here's the kicker) acquire and have to lug around HEAVIER AND LARGER lenses, you're actually carrying as much or more than the same old DSLR's we had from what seems like a generation ago. A lot of people have noticed that the new Canon is basically a mirrorless 5D. Are supposed to be excited? We've had to wait an awful long time and go without a 5D update, for this?
I love my Fuji Xpro2 and I do use it a lot. But there is no way it measures up to a high end client job or out in the field tough conditions. The Leica SL is about the only camera that can go toe to toe in this regard but come on. It's a $6K body and then you're in for lenses. That's a hard sell and it's only one camera from one company.
I just don't understand why a "this is also cool" development has become "this will be all you get" industry standard at the cost of having access to the best we can possibly produce.
I wonder if they (Canon - Nikon) chose the lenses and camera specs not from the market's perspective as much as setting up the manufacturing IOWs the extremely advance robotics that go into manufacturing? I assume that corporations are looking at the longevity of their company from a different perspective than someone wanting to buy a lens this year, but have no idea what their real thought process is - it seems clear they were swinging for a base hit not a home run.
Worst take ever. The future could not be more bright. The Canon RF 28-70 f/2 produces far sharper detail and better overall image quality than the EF 24-70 (which I've used and love). Lenses for mirrorless cameras are amazing and are the future. Don't run from it - embrace it.
The market determines the viability and survivability of a manufactures product. An 'opinion' is just that an opinion. Now I will go back to polishing my RF lenses thank you.
Alex,
I pretty much disagree with everything you've said. Well, I guess it's not that you have said anything incorrect. It is more that what you value in a lens - light weight and stabilization - is so very different than what I value in a lens.
The main point of the new mirrorless lenses is to be optically perfect enough to resolve the latest sensors, and the sensors that are in the works; incredibly high MP sensors that are going to become much more commonplace than they have ever been.
The real reason to come out with these new lenses is so that Canon and Nikon can offer lenses that are able to resolve all the detail that 50MP, 80MP, and 100+ MP sensors can capture. That is what it is all about, and like it or not, that is exactly where the entire still camera market is headed.
As for your criticism of the wider apertures and the greater weight that they require, I think you have missed the point. You do realize, don't you, that for the last 8 years or so, large apertures are not about low light capability - right? Obviously - and I mean painfully so - we no longer need wide apertures for low light, because higher ISOs have been producing such good results for the last several years.
Wide apertures - like f2 instead of f2.8 - are all about depth of field, and not about low light. Photographers used to want big apertures so they could get quality photos in low light. For the past 8 years or so, photographers' needs have shifted, due to greatly improved sensor tech. Now, we want wide apertures to allow us to shoot with a shallower depth of field. "Big aperture for low light" is a dinosaur - a thing we haven't needed or wanted for almost a decade now.
Times are changing my friend. We don't want the same things that we used to want from lenses. Now, we want lenses that can resolve the extreme MP sensors of tomorrow, and some of us want extreme shallow DOF. That is what it is all about with these new offerings.
I think Canon and Nikon have been doing a good job of changing with the times, and giving us the lenses that we want now, instead of giving us updates of the kinds of lenses that were useful 10 or 20 years ago. We don't want to take the same kinds of pictures we were taking 10 or 20 years ago, so we don't want the same lenses we were using back then. Makes all kinds of sense to me.