Last week, I asked Fstoppers readers what their plans were for the inevitable moment when Canon and Nikon release professional-level full frame mirrorless cameras. I was genuinely surprised not only by how many readers responded, but where their opinions fell. Here are the results.
My Story
I shot Canon film cameras growing up, but that had no real bearing on the brand I picked up when I decided to get serious about photography. I ended up in the Canon ecosystem simply because there was a good Black Friday sale on a Rebel kit back in 2010, and so, that was the camera I bought. Once I became a good enough photographer to start appreciating the difference between the brands, I was a bit frustrated, mostly by the dynamic range of Canon sensors at the time (to their credit, they've caught up a fair amount). What kept me with Canon was their glass, which includes some of my favorite lenses out there.
I dipped my toe in the Sony waters last year when I picked up a used a7R II and adapted my Canon glass to it, as a high megapixel body with stellar dynamic range was something that appealed to me as someone who shoots portraits and landscapes. Plus, I'm just a geeky guy, and Sony cameras are fun for people who likes lots of tech in their cameras. I liked the Sony’s features and image quality (with adapted lenses) quite a bit, but there were a few small things that kept me from making it my main camera. When the a7R III came out, all those issues were solved, plus Sony doubled the frame rate, making a sort of hybrid sports/high-resolution monster, and I was sold. The Canon 1DX II remains my primary sports and action camera, but the a7R III has become my everyday camera, replacing my 5D Mark IV for events, portraits, landscapes, and most other things that don’t demand the AF performance of native glass. I’ve hesitated to make the switch with my glass just because I have a lot of it, and for many lenses, there aren’t exact equivalents. Eventually though, I’ll probably end up switching everything over as soon as Sigma and Sony fill in the last remaining gaps, unless Canon pulls the surprise of the century with their upcoming mirrorless model(s).
The Results
For the survey, I gave five possible answers to the question: "Canon and Nikon Owners: Will you buy a mirrorless camera from your brand?" Over 3,100 people responded! Here were the results:
- Yes, without a doubt. (440 votes, 13.96 percent)
- Yes, but only if they keep the same lens mount. (884 votes, 28.05 percent)
- Maybe, depends on the feature set and price. (1,053 votes, 33.41 percent)
- No, I'm staying with DSLRs. (355 votes, 11.26 percent)
- No, I plan to switch brands. (420 votes, 13.32 percent)
What They Tell Us
First, it was a bit exciting to see that only 11 percent of those who voted plan on sticking with DSLRs. I think it shows that excitement about mirrorless cameras continues to build and increasing proportions of photographers are looking to move toward using them. That's not overly surprising: with mirrorless cameras closing a lot of the gaps where they traditionally lagged behind DSLRs (and even jumping ahead in some cases) and offering features and a shooting experience an optical viewfinder simply can't, it's no wonder that the photographic community is starting to really embrace them. That's of course not to say that DSLRs will go the way of the dinosaur (at least, I don't think they will for quite some time), but I do think the mirrorless adoption rate is going to continue to increase, particularly when Canon and Nikon truly jump into the market.
These aren't going to disappear just yet.
While I was not surprised to see that a decently sized proportion of photographers are basing their decision on the lens mount, I think those 28 percent will be disappointed. Physics precludes Nikon or Canon from simply shortening the flange distance, and I doubt they'll just build a mirrorless camera with the same physical space between the lens mount and the sensor. What's more likely (and what rumors seem to indicate) is that introduce a new mount and create adapters of some sort. In fairness, those who think the lens mount is a dealbreaker should probably give the adapters a chance. Whereas a third-party adapter like Sigma or Metabones is at a disadvantage because it has to reverse-engineer the camera manufacturer's autofocus algorithms, a first-party adapter may be much faster and more reliable, possibly on par with native mount performance or close. Possibly. Wait to see on that.
I was also surprised that while the vast majority of people plan to invest in mirrorless in some fashion, only 14 percent plan to definitively stick with their brand. That leaves a large proportion that either plan to switch or are open to the possibility if their current brand doesn’t meet their expectations for one reason or another. Switching brands is both a tedious and expensive thing to do, and if so many photographers are willing to seriously entertain the possibility, it indicates both the collective desire to embrace mirrorless as a serious professional tool and the expectations photographers have of Canon and Nikon to deliver a competitive, professional-level product.
While Sony (and Fuji) have certainly made major inroads in market share, Canon in particular is still dominating the industry, but they do lose a bit of a competitive edge without the EF mount on a camera, losing the ability to leverage that massive lens library and the inertia that might stop photographers from switching. While what I mentioned above about potential adapter performance may hold true, there's still an issue of perception that may cause some users to at least peer over the fence at what the other brands have to offer.
Conclusion
Continuing in that sense, I wasn't surprised to see the greatest proportion of photographers choosing to wait to see what Canon and Nikon can come up with. I think many have a sense that we're nearing a major shift in the photography industry, and Canon and Nikon's unwillingness to enter the game until Sony gave them no choice has delayed the shift in the paradigm and created higher stakes around the moment that's finally approaching. If they fail to deliver on a level that comes close to the products Sony has been putting out at a breakneck pace, I don't think we'll suddenly see Sony wake up as the market leader the next morning, but I do think that sometime around 2022 or 2023, we might see Sony with the number one spot and look back on this as the watershed moment.
If Nikon could introduce a smaller and lighter mirrorless body with the same form factor and controls layout as the D850, game over. Of course they could add some features that give mirrorless cameras technical advantages such as focus peaking, histograms, and exactly what the image will look like before taking the shot, in the viewfinder.
Just curious - what would "smaller and lighter" with the "same form factor" be? Those seem contradictory in my mind.
Mike I too would love exactly that. Nikon mirrorless in the same form factor as the D850. Use my wonderful Nikon glass the same way. I don't hold too much hope for it though. They are deep into making a different line of lenses for mirrorless that isn't F-mount. However they are coming out with two mirrorless bodies. Would it rock if one of them was the camera you described? You'd hear me yell for joy all the way from over here.
Highly doubtful that they would build both an F-mount mirrorless and a Z-mount mirrorless. It would cause branding confusion and undermine the new mount that they clearly want to transition to. Ever since Canon switched mounts back in the day, I think Nikon has really been wanting to do the same, but felt that they couldn't. This gives them the perfect excuse to introduce a new mount that will theoretically give them a leg up moving forward. I can only imagine how miffed they were every time over the past decades when Canon released an f/1.2 lens with AF...
If it had the same form factor as the D850, it wouldn't be smaller.
Honestly, I am not that excited about mirrorless photography. I mean, sure, it makes some things easier for us photographers, but I've almost always used a DLSR for serious work, and with a bit of effort and patience (as with pretty much every other thing in life) you can get results that, for all intents and purposes, and no worse or no better than those obtained with a full-frame mirrorless camera; your customers won't (always) care what kind of tool you employ as long as you get the job done. Then, I feel that the ergonomics of a DSLR suit me better that those of a mirrorless camera. And I don't mind having an optical viewfinder instead of an EVF (plus, there is the possible option of a hybrid viewfinder, what about them?): being able to see the level of exposure in real time can help a lot, and I don't really deny that, but as a photographer I feel that knowing your camera and how to correctly expose an image is just a basic skill or piece of knowledge you must have anyway, and the metering systems most modern DSLRs have already aid you in that; and you might still need to spend a lot of time in Lightroom. Ah, and did I mention battery life? Unless a mirrorless camera can match those 4000+ shots per charge some DSLRs are capable of, I am definitely not impressed. I find it ridiculous some mirrorless flagships are only rated for about 700 shots, or slightly more, even an entry level DSLR outperforms them in this regard; that is a dealbreaker for me, I am not lugging around a separate device that will die after just 700 frames taken, for that kind of price. And all those focus points across the entire frame? Sure, the 693 AF points the Sony A9 has ARE impressive, but you do not really place your subjects at the edge of the frame in photography, and most top of the line DSLR bodies already have more than enough for most work. I am not saying the advantages ML brings are just a gimmick, but to me, they are not that important, to be honest. So, for the time being, I will simply wait and see how the situation evolves, so I intend to stick with DSLRs in the near future. I do intend to switch to mirrorless at some point, and will probably stay within the Nikon ecosystem, I have invested too much in their gear to really consider just selling everything, and since I am not a "pro" making real money with photography, switching right now is totally out of the question. I will probably end up buying a professional ML body, but I will be using it alongside a DSLR, for different kinds of work(flow). Whether I will end up ditching DSLRs altogether (but I doubt it) is a combination of all of the above factors, and you should have really mentioned adaptors in your poll.
Thom Hogan summed up my views perfectly:
"You'll note that I haven't mentioned DSLR versus mirrorless.
Why? It doesn't matter.
Oh, it matters in the sense that the camera makers would really like to get to mirrorless with global electronic shutter as fast as possible, as it removes complications and cost. But in the photographer sense? No, not really...
...No, the real story isn't DSLR versus mirrorless. As I've written for years, we'll eventually lose the mirror and its complexity, and we'll lose the mechanical shutter and its complexity, too. That's evolutionary and driven by manufacturing issues, not user issues." ~ https://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whats-the-entry-point.html
The presence, or not, of a mirror is probably the least important aspect of any camera to a user.
Those who think mirrorless is high-tech are buying into the marketing machines. There is nothing about mirrorless that is more or less technologically advanced than having a mirror. Nothing at all. It is a minor iteration in the design of the camera. Some mirrorless cameras have some technology that is more advanced than available on some DSLRs. Some DSLRs have some technology that is more advanced than available on some mirrorless. At the end of the day, its the same old story of Brand A vs Brand B - not tech vs tech.
Give me a break. The advantages of the fast readout/silent electronic shutter on the A9 are undeniable. Try firing your loud DSLR in a church, funeral, courtroom, or television studio and see the reaction. For that alone I am glad the mirror is gone.
This literally does nothing to refute what I just said:
"Some mirrorless cameras have some technology that is more advanced than available on some DSLRs."
You selected a single, narrow-use feature, that is actually offered on some DSLRs (Pentax KP, Nikon D850). Yet again, the presence, or not, of a mirror doesn't matter.
Mirrorless cameras are essentially DSLR cameras set permanently to Live View. It's not a huge paradigm shift in photography or technology. Your images won't look any different one way or the other. This is not a paradigm shift like it was transitioning from film to digital. I would argue that it's not even as big of a paradigm shift as it was when 35mm photographer shifted largely from rangefinders to SLR's.
What?? I would say the presence of an EVF - a viewfinder that can show real-time exposure, histograms, focus peaking, focus magnification, DOF, etc etc - is indeed more "technologically advanced." Mirrors in cameras have been around since the Ihagee Exaktas in the 30s. Of course they have improved over time, and changed somewhat with the invention of digital, but the basic idea of an OVF hasn't changed much at all since the early days.
So, until someone makes a hybrid OVF/EVF (in an SLR, not like the X Pro), the "presence, or not, of a mirror" is probably pretty important to MOST photographers. It's a huge reason many people like DSLRs, or why many people are switching to mirrorless.
Yet again, we're talking about limited-use feature sets that are, in fact, available on DSLRs; just not in the viewfinder (except for DOF preview - no idea why you think that is new).
All Sony did was package existing Live View tech into a viewfinder. If that's your idea of innovative technology...well...I'll have to strongly disagree.
The mirror isn't important. It does not fundamentally change anything about photography or its process.
"All Sony did was package existing Live View tech into a viewfinder. If that's your idea of innovative technology..."
hahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Ok dude
Also, yes, DOF preview is available in DSLRs. But it is only that - depth of field preview. It just ends up darkening your view. In an EVF, the DOF preview is hand in hand with all other exposure previews, giving you a properly bright image. Totally different. Not to mention, modern DSLR screens are not useful for DOF preview of apertures wider than about f/2.8. So good luck trying to see the true DOF of an f/1.4 lens with one.
But yeah, I'm sure tons of people love walking around with their DSLRs and using the live view on the LCD and having no viewfinder or quality autofocus of any kind. Limited use feature set and all. Good luck shooting sports or really anything that moves in live view with AF on a Nikon.
Look, I still love using DSLRs, I love my D810. I also love mirrorless. Both offer advantages. But what you're saying is just total nonsense. Putting 20FPS silent, black out free shooting into a viewfinder is literally the definition of innovation. "Package existing Live View tech into a viewfinder" as you put it, is also innovation.
Innovation, definition: "a new method, idea, product, etc" - the dictionary
Hope you don't break your back bending it as much as you are.
I would also like you to name a single DSLR with the AF coverage of cameras like the a7III or a9. But, I guess that isn't innovation either?
Or a DSLR with Eye-AF.
Or why every mirrorless manufacturer can do IBIS, but only Pentax manages it in their DSLRs?
Should I continue? Or are these "limited use feature sets"?
"Both offer advantages"
Thanks for confirming what I said in the first place. The presence, or not, of a mirror doesn't matter - performance **as a camera** is what matters. If that means picking one without - so be it.
And yes, everything you've listed is most definitely a limited use feature set. Every last thing. There's a reason Canikon still dominate sports photography - because those "highly advanced features" you mention are pretty much useless for anything other than static subjects - which will wait for you to check live view. If your shooting falls into that regime, the minor convenience improvement may be worthwhile - but, yet again, that is not a fundamental shift in photography. That doesn't drastically change the way people shoot. Its literally the same thing as buying this year's model vs last year's model: an iterative improvement.
As for your dictionary definition of innovation - I have 10 peer reviewed publications in engineering journals for original research and a couple of patent applications. When I say these are minor innovations, I'm speaking from experience, not marking material.
Yes, you said both offer advantages. You also said "There is nothing about mirrorless that is more or less technologically advanced than having a mirror". That is blatantly untrue if mirrorless does offer certain technological advantages. Which is it?
I suppose if you think everything I listed is a minor, limited use feature, then we're done.
You also did not say they were minor innovations. You said "if that's your idea of innovative technology...."
Your patents and publications are irrelevant. Literally.
Furthermore, as one last point, non-retrofocus wide angle lenses cannot be made for DSLRs. The necessity for retrofocus design that they necessitate increases both size, weight, and engineering complexity.
Iterative improvements (though I reject the assertion that mirrorless is an "iterative improvement") are still innovations. And if you think features like those in the Sony a9 are "pretty much useless for anything other than static subjects" then, well, okay dude.
This is a silly argument because I'm not even saying one is better than the other. But there is very clearly a marked difference between a mirrorless camera and a DSLR, both in technology and how a person uses a camera.
I was about to write exactly what Michael did - nothing you've listed, except the EVF is inherent to mirrorless. Everything else could be incorporated if desired by those companies, which goes right back to my original post - we're talking about features from Company A vs features from Company B - not inherent advantages in the presence, or not, of a mirror. Yet again, the mirror doesn't matter.
My publications and patents most certainly do matter - they very clearly color my views on what innovation is compared to the layperson. No different than an acoustics engineer's experience coloring their views on automobiles. My degrees were supported by DARPA - so forgive me if putting a screen in a different location doesn't impress me much...
ok dude
"Furthermore, as one last point, non-retrofocus wide angle lenses cannot be made for DSLRs. The necessity for retrofocus design that they necessitate increases both size, weight, and engineering complexity."
Putting the rear element of the lens that close to a sensor that large comes with its own set of complexities. The rays going to the edges and corners strike the sensor at a much more oblique angle than rays from a retrofocus design further forward do. This reduces the field intensity of the light on the edges as well as turns circles of confusion into ovals of confusion.
Mirrorless cameras aren't an advance in technology. They are an advance in utilizing existing technology in a different way. I'm pretty sure that was the point attempting to be made.
There's nothing within a mirrorless camera that a DSLR set on Live View theoretically couldn't have. Obviously they don't have it because DSLR's are not designed primarily to be shot in Live View and it would be pretty stupid for the companies to invest all that much into that experience whereas companies producing mirrorless cameras are obviously going to be taking the greatest advantage of it possible since that's what their cameras are.
It's definitely an innovation in the sense that companies such as Sony are thinking differently about what to do with what we have, but I think when most people think of the word "innovation" in regard to cameras, they're generally thinking of advances in hardware. You could theoretically rip the mirror out of any DSLR, update the firmware to incorporate every single feature you listed and it would be exactly the same (except in size) as any mirrorless camera obviously minus the EVF. That's why every single mirrorless vs. DSLR argument comes down to software—because the important bits of hardware are essentially the same. It's also why plenty of people were clamoring for Canon and Nikon to do exactly that rather than create a whole new form factor and new lens mounts.
In regard to IBIS, I would say that it's important to note that Fuji only recently introduced that feature into their bodies despite them producing mirrorless cameras. It's not an intrinsic benefit to mirrorless cameras. If it was, Pentax would not be able to do it with their DSLR's. IBIS doesn't exist in most DSLR's because a long time ago, they made the choice to go down the route of putting these features in their lenses, which was probably financially driven if we're honest because it's a way for them to make us pay for the same technology over and over again.
Yes, Sony has Eye-AF. We all know it's wonderful and such, but that's again just software doing its thing. You can just as easily ask the other way around, how many mirrorless cameras have DPAF like Canon does?
The differences in AF coverage come from the differences in AF mechanisms between the two types of cameras. There's no technological reason that any DSLR couldn't have AF points all the way to the edge of the frame when used in Live View mode just like a mirrorless camera, but once again, they are not optimized for Live View photography so the manufacturers never really invested into these functions.
So it's not revolutionary so much as it's evolutionary. Mirrorless cameras are the next logical evolutionary step for DSLR's, but it's not nearly as much of a leap as many are making it out to be.
Just my worthless 2 cents on the matter.
My reply to him really centered around him claiming that these are not "innovations". Which literally, like quite literally, defies what the definition of innovation is.
DPAF on Canon is great - but it's really most useful for video. It is not any faster at acquiring focus than any mirrorless camera, but it is good for tracking subjects with video. But it also isn't as good as the phase detect if you use the OVF.
Companies (mainly Sony) are quickly catching up to the quality of DPAF for video.
Ripping out the mirror and essentially making a DSLR form factor mirrorless camera somewhat defeats the many of the benefits of mirrorless - mirrorless bodies are smaller, in part due to a much shallower flange distance. They can also adapt pretty much any lens out there. It is also easier to design certain lenses (and they can be smaller) for mirrorless. Wide angle lenses no longer need a retrofocus design - something that it is literally not possible with a DSLR.
It would be suicide for Canon/Nikon to keep their existing mounts. All they need is a simple adapter, which they will have, and you get the best of both worlds.
Bigest problem. If you shoot weddings with prime lenses and you will mix new mount with some old mount lenses. You will have to buy adapters on every old lens and leave it permanently. Otherwise it will be workflow and speed disaster :)
Not necessarily. I know a weekend part-time PJ freelancer that shoots with a small mirrorless (α6000) + WA zoom lens and a DSLR + 70-200/2.8. Other than one camera looking like a toy next to the other, it works for him.
Most wedding shooters I know who shoot mostly primes carry 2-3 bodies and don't change that often (other than the breaks between the various venues).
Yes, mirrorless bodies are smaller, but not everyone wants smaller cameras for ergonomic reasons. This actually happens to be one of the primary reasons that I own an D850 instead of the A7RIII. I gave it some serious thought and I'm waiting to see if Canon or Nikon, who obviously have decades on Sony in understanding this important area come out with a more comfortable camera to hold.
In regard to adapting pretty much any lens out there, this is more of an enthusiast thing since the vast majority of people are purchasing lenses within the camera system they buy into. I highly doubt that when Sony or Fuji created their cameras, they were also thinking about people wanting to adapt non-native lenses. It's just something that happened to work out because of the short flange distance that mirrorless offers. I have a small handful of vintage lenses that I use for fun, but I sure as hell wouldn't base any percentage of my choice in regard to which system to buy into on whether or not those vintage lenses will work on the camera. So I would consider this adaptability just a coincidental benefit rather than an intended feature.
I agree with you that mirrorless lenses in theory can be made smaller due to the shorter flange distance, but let's look at reality. Are you actually seeing the size of Sony's high end lenses? They're not all that much smaller and in some instances, they're actually larger. So if theory isn't being taken advantage of in practice, one has to wonder of what value such an un-used benefit actually is.
I agree that both Canon and Nikon should swap their mounts for something better and more future-proof—Nikon in particular. An OEM adapter should work just fine for the transition period.
To be fair, mirrorless is the way the market will go and I think everyone who is rational can accept that fact. Some people who love their OVF's might deny it and I do hope that at least come company continues to cater to them as Leica caters to the rangefinder enthusiasts, but the DSLR is destined to become a niche product over the next decade. I own a D850 now, but I purchased it knowing full well that it will likely be my last DSLR (it's a pretty wonderful camera) and when it comes time to move on, hopefully the field of options will be far more robust with Canon and Nikon now in the game.
I always say this, but it will be very interesting to see where we are in the next 5 years or so and how much things have progressed. Progress is a positive thing in the end.
The lens size advantage is only really true at the shorter focal lengths where retrofocus design can be swapped for more conventional ones. But the short registration coupled with the large sensors comes with its own set of problems.
What I find amusing is that the same folks who tout the "size/weight advantage" of mirrorless are the same ones singing the praises of the mayonnaise jar sized lenses such as the 85 ART and 135 ART and how superior they are to the more modestly sized offerings from Canikon in those focal lengths.
I'm with you on this topic.
Thank you for this - saved me the trouble writing it up myself and very much so spot-on.
Pretty much *any* current DSLR with Live View and a touch screen focus selector has just as many and just as widely distributed AF areas as any mirrorless. Ditto for facial recognition in LV. Yes, eye-AF may be a bit more advanced in that direction, but to suggest that a DSLR can't track a face, including while using PDAF, reveal more about your ignorance of the capabilities of many current mirror slappers than about their shortcomings. The difference is with the DSLR one can also choose dedicated PDAF when that better meets the needs of the photographer. I've yet to see any Sony mirrorless camera do what the 1D X Mark II in LV with dual-pixel AF can do while shooting video. It's every bit as revolutionary as your zebras and EVF features.
The thing is, some are comfortable enough with the gear they're using that they don't always want, much less need, to see a WYSIWYG preview before we take a shot. They know what camera they're using, they know what lens and aperture they're using, they know what metering mode they're using and how it "sees" a scene and they know how to read the meter and understand what it is telling them. Ditto with AF and DoF. Intuitively knowing how all of that stuff is going to turn out without being distracted by all of the overlays and stripes and blinkies and whatnot frees one up to concentrate on the subject in the viewfinder, rather than all of that other stuff between the photographer and the subject.
I wanted to vote you up but couldn't. I can't stand Thom Hogan! >:-(
I have no use for a mirrorless camera from any manufacturer but I think you'll find more than a few pros using Sony cameras. It's still a bit soon for professional sports photographers.
I love my DSLR bodies for a specific reason. My friends typically refer to my hands as "meathooks" or "bear paws". Smaller form factors are awkward for me to use and take the fun out of shooting. I do use a Nikon1J3 for underwater work, but it is in a larger housing making it easier for me to hold/use. I also use a Nikon1 J5 when the camera needs to be unobtrusive when trying to capture candid street shots.
I love my D750 ergonomics and how it feels with a larger lens like the 200-500 on it. In fact, I would like the 800 series better for those reasons. I will look at Nikon mirrorless to replace my now dead Nikon1 gear, I agree that mirrorless will be more present but will still buy it or not based on my own ergonomic needs, features and quality.
There are many excellent cameras out the in crop sensor, full frame, mirrorless, mirrired. It is only fun if you like and sre comfortable with the camera body you choose. Choose what works for you.
By the way, I am 66 years old and expect DSLRs to outlive me.
I think the lens mount is criticial. And yes, I know from time to time a lens mount has to change (Back then Canon changed from FD to EF Mount, I´m sure that must have pissed off many people. The thing is, i appreciate mirrorless systems for what they are: Lightweight, smaller, IBIS ect. and I own a mirroless system, too. But my main gear are Canon DLSRs and Lenses, and from time to time I shoot Film on an assignment. With Canon Gear I can do that. All i have to do is switch the body - No need to bring more lenses.Unfortunately mirrorless doesn´t integrate very well into a hybrid workflow.
I was working in the Pro end of camera supply, when Sony bought into the Minolta products, and made a statement about wanting to be the top selling brand... At the time, I thought......."Pfffffff - Thats a laugh"
How wrong I was !!
Despite the fact that some of the comments on this article suggest DSLR will not dissappear I firmly believe it will.
I've been looking at Fuji and Sony mirrorless cameras for a while now and shot several sessions with a X-T2 and X-H1. I must say I'm tempted to switch from Canon to either Fuji or Sony.........if it wasn't for the fine collection of Canon lenses I've build up over time. I own roughly 23.000 euro's worth of Canon gear (body's and lenses) and switching to, let's say, Sony might turn out to be quite a costly endeavor.
BUT: if Canon doesn't come up with a mirrorless camera that allows me to use my superb L-lens collection to the full extend (meaning: no AF issues or loss of AF speed, no degradation of image quality etc) then for me the time surely has come to sell all my gear and switch to another brand. Partly because Sony offers some very good alternatives that are far ahead of Canon and partly because I would really be very, very disappointed with Canon.
It would be a crying shame if Canon would just abandon their customers, who have invested in top quality (and top priced) gear, by not offering the possibility of switching to mirrorless without any degradation of (image) quality.
Surely Canon will not be that stupid, will they?
Why not? I grew up on a Kodak company town, so corporate stupidity is unsurprising to me.
True.
Well, guess what.....I've found the courage to possible switch to Sony and am awaiting a quote from the reseller I always buy my gear at. He's contacting his sales rep at Sony to see what offer can be made. If it is good enough it's bye bye Canon.....
I spent 15 years shooting Nikon exclusively. When the GH4 came out I switched over thinking this could replace a Camera and at the time a Sony VX1000. Nearly a year later the Sony A7rii came out. I decided to switch again. First thoughts with the Sony was who built this crapoy UI. It was so generic and felt like trying to print color with a Black and White printer. The other huge item for me was the electronic focus. This was an issue with both the Panasonic and the Sony. I came from film originally and shot action manually focusing. I will say however video on the Sony was amazing. Sorry just my two cents...
I think for action shots Nikon with a mirror for quicker access to focus. For video Sony has it dialed, although I've never shot the D850.
FYI- Ive never tried the Sony A7riii either...
Have you ever needed to shoot in the rain? Or near salt-water spray?
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/about-getting-your-camera-wet-t...
I really hope Can and Nik survive for competitive reasons. Be awesome if they could base a model on their elegant rangefinder designs from the 50's.
While I have G & GM zooms for my a7Sii & a7Rii, all of my primes are old 1970ish Nikkors. I love the character of these lenses.
I like cameras that work. These all will probably work. Yay I like them. My old ass camera works, yay.
I have to conclude, after sgitting on the fence with buying a mirrorless from the current list, that not one camera fits all. I would love a fullframe mirrorless for the weight as I hike and love to do milky way/night time photography. However, I am was about to ignore the start eater problem when I bumped into someone with the new A7III shooting the double arch at Arches National Monument. She had hundreds of white specks on her night time rock image. If anyone, can tell me know what was, I would appreciate. Also my other on the fence issue is the price of the Zeiss lenses. the XT2 is a fantastic buy but I want to get a full frame camera.
The only reason I am still in the Canon ecosystem is the fact that I have some pricey L lenses that I have acquired over the last 16 years- the cost of a full switch to, say, Fuji, that would preserve all my current shooting capabilities would be something like $7,000. For some of you that may be peanuts, but I make my living by teaching, not as a photographer, so it is a hit for me.
Size doesn't matter to me. Less weight would be nice, but smaller isn't a selling point- if the body is full frame (which I want because I like full frame DOF) then a 400mm lens ain't small regardless.
"Modern" bodies are getting much better all the time (except for Canon's)
I'm currently shooting a 5dmkII because, honestly, Canon hasn't shown me anything in the last 10 years that would give me 3,500 euros worth of better pictures. (I don't shoot video).
If the next version pf the 5d R doesn't blow my mind, then I'm going to sell my canon glass before it loses its value. And if Canon decides that the EF mount is not its future, then there is literally nothing making it any better for me than any other company.
I can't believe Canon doesn't understand the point of proprietary mounts.
Then again, I find no other explanation for their current mirrorless line up than rank stupidity, so I'm not expecting great things from them.
both canon and nikon are switching mounts so that means that more glass will come onto the market second hand.
I don't feel anything about any mirror-less system. When is all this DSLR vs Mirror-less crap going to stop.
Shoot the kit you want and ignore the rest, surely we have more important things to be worrying about as photographers and businesses.
Not a pro (making money out of photography), own Canon EOS 5D MIV and Fujifilm X-T2 and I like both the systems. They both gives me pleasing outcome. I don't really care about the mirror-less vs. mirrored, but the reduced size and weight makes my shoulders and back.
I usually pickup 5DMIV for landscape, portrait sessions and X-T2 for candid photography
I'm not even kind of pretending my work is the best that ever was... or even remotely close to world-class level. But I can't help but notice that the guys that usually scream the loudest about gear typically, at least in my opinion, have the worst portfolios. I have seen some of the most amazing work taken with some of the crappiest gear you could imagine. Gear does matter... but it doesn't make the photographer. There... I said it.
I'm delighted that Nikon and Canon are coming into the mirrorless age. It's about time! Will I invest in either? NO! I've long since sold off my last remaining Nikon gear and have moved resolutely to Panasonic's Lumix G9, with no regrets. As far as I'm concerned, both Nikon and Canon are late to the party. Panasonic, Fuji and Sony are eating Nikon and Canon's cake.