Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[jayphotoworks]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.

The point you missed was the overall discussion, but that's ok since you are probably used to hearing that "whooshing" sound all the time as most of the people that moved on to mirrorless don't have to..

 

[Aglet]

It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless.

I am really keen to see what canon bring to the table though and have no doubt it will be a far superior camera to Sony(in the aspects that really matter that is)

Don't just listen, TRY one.
if you haven't shot with, or know someone who's making good use of, Olympus or Panasonic flagship ML bodies then you may not be aware these cameras are not only able to get the job done they also kick butt in ways slappers can't. There are few things slappers can do these new high end ML bodies cannot. Can you name some?..

 

[Aussie shooter]

It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless.

I am really keen to see what canon bring to the table though and have no doubt it will be a far superior camera to Sony(in the aspects that really matter that is)

Don't just listen, TRY one.
if you haven't shot with, or know someone who's making good use of, Olympus or Panasonic flagship ML bodies then you may not be aware these cameras are not only able to get the job done they also kick butt in ways slappers can't. There are few things slappers can do these new high end ML bodies cannot. Can you name some?..

I have tried them. Most of them any way. I love the Oly's. If I was a street photographer that is what I would get. The XT2 is pretty sweet as well. Sony suck so many kinds of a#@ it is hard to describe. Thing is though, I shoot wildlife. And not one of them can hold a candle to the 7d2 I shoot with, let alone a flagship model when it comes to wildlife photography. EVF's are close in that lag is almost negligible now but they still don't compare to and OVF. The EM1 mk2 is close on ruggedness and reliability now as well. None of them can compete in ergonomics when shooting for a full day(and yes I do sometimes do that when travelling to crazy places). When mirrorless are as good at those things then the balance will shift but not until.

 

[Talys]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.

The point you missed was the overall discussion, but that's ok since you are probably used to hearing that "whooshing" sound all the time as most of the people that moved on to mirrorless don't have to..

Without wading into the thick of it, purely electronic ones are not here yet for interchangeable lens stills cameras, which means we're pretty much stuck with sound, whether you're using a mirrorless or DSLR. Sure, there are plenty of ILCs where there is a silent mode, but they all come with caveats, like the Sony one which works great as long as you and your subjects stay still.

Anyways, I know this has been repeated to death here, but if you can make a mirrorless totally silent and do all the things you want, you (technologically) could achieve exactly the same thing on a DSLR, in live view mode. Asking "do you want silent mode or not" is not the real question; rather, it remains, "do you want an optical or electronic image through the viewfinder".

 

[jolyonralph]

I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.

Buy some clothes with pockets.

Then, you see, there's a remarkable trick you can use. It turns out, and it seems many of you are unaware of this, that you can buy ADDITIONAL batteries, and keep them in your pockets and swap them out when the battery is getting low (here's another professional tip, swap the battery when it's low at a time when it's convenient for you, don't wait until it's completely dead and then complain you miss a shot.)

So please, no more comparisons with electric car range. That makes no sense at all (you can't carry spare batteries for an electric car.)

 

[Talys]

I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.

Buy some clothes with pockets.

Then, you see, there's a remarkable trick you can use. It turns out, and it seems many of you are unaware of this, that you can buy ADDITIONAL batteries, and keep them in your pockets and swap them out when the battery is getting low (here's another professional tip, swap the battery when it's low at a time when it's convenient for you, don't wait until it's completely dead and then complain you miss a shot.)

So please, no more comparisons with electric car range. That makes no sense at all (you can't carry spare batteries for an electric car.)

I have a better solution for people who are perfectly satisfied or prefer an optical viewfinder and want to consume pretty much no battery when using the optical viewfinder: Use a DSLR.

It turns out that this may be a cheaper and more satisfying solution, and you don't even need pockets. Amazingly, this light refraction technology consumes no power, and you can stare through the barrel of your lens for as long as you fancy!

Snark aside, I've taken a few dozen photos yet stared through my viewfinder for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.

 

[jolyonralph]

der for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.

Being sensible again for a moment, this is a very good point and although there are solutions that allow you to run your EVF all day - eg external high-power battery pack connected via cable to the battery pack - for example I have the ExPro 16000mAh battery pack which I can use with the A7RII - equivalent of 14 standard batteries. I have it clipped to my belt and the cable can be fed under jacket, inside jacket arm to the camera. Or, if I'm not planning to be so hardcore, a simple battery grip with 2 extended batteries lasts me all day.

Birding is quite a specialist but clearly popular hobby. It's not something I would have the patience to do, so the reduced battery life on the mirrorless camera doesn't outweigh the many other benefits that mirrorless gives me.

I am sure though that for some applications in birding the use of a totally silent shutter would be a great advantage, no?

 

[Durf]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.

It'll be interesting to see how you decide for your next camera; I'd guess Canon would have a FF mirrorless by the next upgrade you do, so it'll be a true dslr vs mirrorless choice if you go canon again (rather the current comparisons which often seem more like sony vs canon vs everything else etc,the brand wars).

For me, Canon vs Sony (or other) is not a factor in mirrorless vs DSLR. The fact is, most of my photography is still done on an 80D; I am perfectly happy with APSC for almost everything, and I could just as easily own a M5 (or a6500), but my favorite camera remains the 80D.

When Canon puts out a mirrorless full frame, I'll certainly consider it, but it will be held to the same litmus test as the Sony -- does it make my life easier doing the kinds of photography I like, without forcing me to make another compromise that I might like less.

In the context of modern sensors, image-related issues are largely all an even playing field for me; I don't think anyone could tell if I took a photo with a Sony or a Canon or a DSLR or a mirrorless. It all just comes down to which one feels better in the hand, and gets less in the way when I want to do the things I want to do.

The things that the Sony didn't quite get right that I hope Canon does better are:

- Better and more consistent autofocus that just works more like a DSLR's dedicated AF sensor (ie always just works and I don't have to pick and choose between different compromises)

- Better low light autofocus, and also AF that is compatible with red-pattern AF flash illuminators

- Ergonomics (feel in the hand) that I enjoy, especially with telephoto lenses, without having to add a vertical grip. I'd really like to see a mirrorless about the size of an 80D at the smallest; a 6D2 would be even better.

- Good support for lenses that aren't focus-by-wire

The rest of the stuff, I think I can live with. If Canon can achieve the list above for me, I'd then ask, what more does a mirrorless offer me, over the DSLR? And is that advantage worth the loss of the optical viewfinder? I would probably trade battery life for manual focus magnification, but I don't know if I'd be willing to throw anything else into the mix, because that's a pretty big concession to me (but for a feature I really love).

I am loyal to Canon in the sense that I won't go and switch systems just because for 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever years, some other system comes out with new stuff. I am not loyal to Canon in the sense that if another system has exactly what I want, I'm more than happy to spend some money there to have it now (it doesn't mean I have to get rid of my Canon stuff, though). The problem is, that just hasn't happened for me yet.

I also shoot with both the 80D and 6D2 and these two cameras work perfect for me for what I do. Many can not appreciate how great these two cameras are together unless they actually owned them and used them.

I like you love the ergonomics of them and if I was to ever even buy a mirrorless camera it would mostly only be out of curiosity and it would likely have to be a FF Canon with a grip no smaller than the 80D, and yes, even more so like a 6D2. I would never completely replace my dslr's though and go completely mirrorless.

When I started shooting with the 80D in early 2016 I almost completely stopped using all my older smaller cameras because I enjoyed the ergonomics and feel of the 80D so much. The 6D2 fits just a bit better in my hand.

Yesterday I was down in Atlanta doing a cabinet job for a pro wedding photographer and she let me go through her kit and handle and inspect her cameras. She had a 5diii, 2 5dIV's, and also a 7Dii. (I was like a little kid in a candy store)!!!!

Her 5D4's didn't feel any better in my hand than my 6D2 but what I immediately noticed was the joystick and wider point spread. That's basically the only thing I liked better with the 5D4 compared to my 6D2. I'm sure the 5D4's internal guts so to speak are better than my 6D2 but my 6D2 works just fine for me for what I do and I'm happy with it. The only thing she told me was she wished her 5D4's had a flip screen like my camera did.

What I was honestly more interested in was her 7D2, yesterday was the first time I ever held one and it actually felt better in my hand than my 80D. I love my 80D and it feels great in my hand but the 7D2 is more 6D2 like. I may upgrade my 80D to the 7D3 when it comes out if I can afford too. The 7D3 must have a flip screen though or I will NOT upgrade to it.

In all reality though in 2 years from now I'll probably still be shooting with my 6D2 and my 80D. Also, Canon's new FF mirrorless they are working on most likely won't have a deep grip or be as comfortable to use as my 80D or 6D2 so I'll probably not ever consider buying it.

 

[fullstop]

I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.
Buy some clothes with pockets.
Then, you see, there's a remarkable trick you can use. It turns out, and it seems many of you are unaware of this, that you can buy ADDITIONAL batteries, and keep them in your pockets and swap them out when the battery is getting low (here's another professional tip, swap the battery when it's low at a time when it's convenient for you, don't wait until it's completely dead and then complain you miss a shot.)
So please, no more comparisons with electric car range. That makes no sense at all (you can't carry spare batteries for an electric car.)

Really interesting. This is the only forum i post in, where a half dozen forum members go into a 100+ posting frenzy, when somebody dares to mention that Canon unfortunately marketing nerfed a great little new camera [EOS M50] that is fully competitive in all important dimensions [sensor, IQ, AF system, user interface, touchscreen, body size, weight, price] except one: battery charge! - by using an old, weak battery pack [LP-E12] rather than a newer, better, readily available power pack [LP-E17] that would yield at least 18% more shots per charge.

There is no argument spared in attempts trying to prove, that a better "shot yield per battery charge" is either
* pointless, because "it is so low anyways, so why even care" and "one can carry any number of spare batteries in their pockets" and
* or irrelevant, because DSLRs have a much superior shot yield per battery charge. Yes, they better, given the size and charge of the much bigger batteries in them and given the size of DSLRs bodies vs. an EOS M50
* or "even when 18%+ more shots per charge would have be nice", it is definitely not "marketing nerfing" on Canon's part, but "in the best interest of customers", since some fraction of purchasers may already have some of the old, weak batteries lying around at home as spares
* and - when all of these arguments obviously fail, then come the personal attacks and some forum bullying and at the peak of discussion inevitably the oh so pseudo-logic line is pulled out: "while it may be important to you, that does not mean it is important to anybody else" and "it really is just you complaining", "you little whiny kid", "go home and stfu" - and don't ever dare again to criticize infallible Canon. Canon "always have their reasons to do whatever they do" ;D and it is not up to us mere mortals and much less so to you, little whiner, to question Canon's reasons and motives. ;D

That's when I cannot help but feel like being in a forum populated mostly by Canon marketing spin doctors and/or shills. I have been told, that none of the honorable forum members here are. Of course I shall believe that. But I cannot help to note, that a few people here certainly act like it.

PS: @Joly - just to make sure: I don't mean you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Typical AvTvM. When his arguments fail, he can't refute the counters with facts or data so he plays the victim card. This from someone who has previously made many discriminatory and racist comments, and in this very thread lambasted people who choose a 6DII by calling them ignorant n00bs and then joking about it. Pathetic.

 

[Talys]

der for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.

Being sensible again for a moment, this is a very good point and although there are solutions that allow you to run your EVF all day - eg external high-power battery pack connected via cable to the battery pack - for example I have the ExPro 16000mAh battery pack which I can use with the A7RII - equivalent of 14 standard batteries. I have it clipped to my belt and the cable can be fed under jacket, inside jacket arm to the camera. Or, if I'm not planning to be so hardcore, a simple battery grip with 2 extended batteries lasts me all day.

Birding is quite a specialist but clearly popular hobby. It's not something I would have the patience to do, so the reduced battery life on the mirrorless camera doesn't outweigh the many other benefits that mirrorless gives me.

I am sure though that for some applications in birding the use of a totally silent shutter would be a great advantage, no?

A pair of binoculars would be a better replacement for an OVF than lugging around a car battery. Essentially a lens with an OVF is a telescope with which you can take photographs. More electronic just isn't always better.

Silent shutter, at least as Sony does it, is useless because of distortion with movement. More generally, except your own patio, you're usually way too far away from a bird for them to care about the shutter sound; generally, they care much more about the movement of a lens being pointed at them than the sound of your shutter. If you're 3 meters away and whir away pointing another direction, they won't move, but if your lens swings towards them, they'll fly away.

There are subjects like hummingbirds that you can get very close to, if you let them acclimate to you. If they like you, you can tap dance near them. They'll land right on you and drink from your hand.

Sports obviously falls into the same category as wildlife.

In both cases (sports and wildlife), another good reason to NOT go mirrorless is that mirrorless cameras don't have dedicated AF sensors, and current on-sensor autofocus (including dual pixel) is just not as fast, especially with teleconverters. I believe one of the key reasons that pros use 1DXII is that the AF speed with a 1.4x or 2x is just much better than other cameras. If I could afford/justify it, my rig of choice would definitely be 1DXII with 200-400.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

Or if your subject is moving sufficiently fast that a shutter speed of faster than ~1/150 s is needed to stop the motion. Personally, I typically use at least 1/250 s even when my kids aren't moving all that fast. But hey, even though my kids don't like jello, maybe you do.

 

[AlanF]

If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.

 

[Aussie shooter]

If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.

I wouldn't just say bird photographers. I would say any wildlife shooter would be better served by a serious dslr. Wildlife photography is by far the most demanding form of the art and as such has requirements that other forms do not. And in any endeavor in life it is the most demanding aspects that determine what does and doesn't work. Not the easy aspects. The requirements for wildlife photography will never lessen so mirrorless will have to be as good as dslrs in every aspect before they can replace them. At the moment dslrs can do everything but mirrorless cannot

 

[Orangutan]

If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.

I wouldn't just say bird photographers. I would say any wildlife shooter would be better served by a serious dslr. Wildlife photography is by far the most demanding form of the art and as such has requirements that other forms do not. And in any endeavor in life it is the most demanding aspects that determine what does and doesn't work. Not the easy aspects. The requirements for wildlife photography will never lessen so mirrorless will have to be as good as dslrs in every aspect before they can replace them. At the moment dslrs can do everything but mirrorless cannot

In general I agree with the sentiment that ML is not yet ready to fully displace SLRs. I will note, however, that wildlife videography has been using ML for a while now. Of course, that brings its own set of compromises.

 

[unfocused]

Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.

What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.

 

[Orangutan]

Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.

What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.

Near as I can figure, the correlation is strongest with those who want the smallest/lightest body possible.

 

[fullstop]

simple. Digital cameras don#t need mirrors in them. For film SLRs it was the only way to "see and meter thru the lens". Outdated early 20th century reflex technology has only managed to drag itself into the 21st century because the market dominating CaNikon duopoly found they can really easy money by selling iteration after iteration of marginally improved, same old stuff and cream off people with that, until they eventually might move to a more "digitally adequate" future-proof, mirrorless design concept.

But then, along comes Sony and starts turning the tables on them. That was "totally uncalled for". LOL.

I want a good, compact FF mirrorless system. Soon now. That's all I care about. It does not matter to me whether millions of others want to cling onto their DSLRs for dear life or some people prefer to shoot film. There is more than enough choice for all of those guys. DSLRs and big lenses GALORE!

But Canon and Nikon have been refusing to take my money and that of many others [no, I am NOT alone!] who have been waiting for years for a decent FF mirrorless system to replace or complement (!) their big, chunky, mirrorslappers that today only offer advantages for a small minority of use cases that for some reason or other seem to be over-represented on this forum. Only a very small portion of all images are captured by sports photographers and even less by wildlife and BIF photographers. Nothing wrong with those fields of photograohy, quite to the opposite, and nothing wrong with people wanting to use DSLRs if they prefer them. But, the large group of people whho want to go without a mirror should also have a choice. And we are being DENIED just that.

Yes, I am a tad bit angry. OMG! But me [and many other "average amateur/enthusiast" people] are just totally fed up how Canon and Nikon have been BLOCKING the development of mirrorless cameras and refused to offer us decent mirrorless cameras for so long. Almost all Sony and Fujifilm mirrorless camera could have been a sale for Canon or Nikon. Sony did not have a large user group. Fuji had none for digital cameras. Vast majority of Sony/Fujifilm digital cameras are bought by (former) Canon or Nikon customers. Often as a supplementary system, but growing numbers have started to go fully mirrorless and turn their backs on CaNikon.

Demand is there. Lots of it. Supply side on Canon and Nikon side is what sucks!

I truly hope, Sony will take market leadership from Canon because of this and Nikon will hopefully go under as a whole. Conservative money milkers have not deserved any better.

END RANT.

 

[Durf]

Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.

What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.

This bizarre "my way or the highway" behavior is not just limited to several obsessed mirrorless camera junkies only, just watch CNN, MSNBC, etc etc for a little while.....

 

[unfocused]

Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.

What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.

This bizarre "my way or the highway" behavior is not just limited to several obsessed mirrorless camera junkies only, just watch CNN, MSNBC, etc etc for a little while.....

Yes, but one could argue that in the realm of public policy there is some justification because the arguments (in at least some cases) have significant real world implications for sizable percentages of the population. Sometimes people need to step back and acknowledge that camera technology is at its core, insignificant in the grand scheme of things. (I enjoy a spirited debate over camera esoteria as much as anyone, but really, some folks get so carried away it's unhealthy.)