|
Combat Pretzel posted:Eh, don't give Canon too much credit. Their 5DS sensor is more or less just the APS-C one scaled up. And as far as Nikon and sensors go, they shop at Sony, so... v That's true, but, at least they are trying.  Also, look at the high ISO comparisons between a 5DS R particularly and the 5D3 when the 5DS R is scaled down to 5D3 size and the IQ is slightly better at all ISOs, but the high ISO performance of the 1D and even 6D is still better. I'd like a 5DS R but will never justify the cost. Just like I'd like one of the 50 Megapixel MF bodies and backs but I bought a Tesla Model S instead because that's how ridiculous the pricing on medium format is. :v
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Guys, Amazon Warehouse cyber monday 15% off. I see a lot of decent gear deals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
windex posted:Dear uninformed internet brosefs, So would you say a M3 is a good backup camera if you have EF/S glass (the main reason why I will probably get a 7Dmk2 as a 40D replacement is the better AF and my semi large investment into EF-S glass (oh god how did I spend 1000 on EF-S glass), or a good ultra portable setup, or should I wait for this hypothetical EOS-M(pro)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
Sell everything and go Fuji.  (It's what I did, and I would only recommend that if you can stomach the lens prices - Fuji glass and cameras are sublime but you pay for it if you want anything more exotic than a (superb!) kit lens and a (unbelievably good) 35mm) LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Guys, Amazon Warehouse cyber monday 15% off. I see a lot of decent gear deals. Speaking of that, and to stop harboring on about the a6000, they have it used for $480: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorle...48889552&sr=1-2 . $60 cheaper than new... which is nice I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:Speaking of that, and to stop harboring on about the a6000, they have it used for $480: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorle...48889552&sr=1-2 . $60 cheaper than new... which is nice I guess? Its a good deal. Buy it w Chase freedom card for 10% off. edit: Or get the black XA2+kit for 371 before tax http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-X-A2...ywords=fujifilm I can't bring myself to pimp the A6000. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:Sell everything and go Fuji. can't go back to APS-C for everything, full frame has spoiled me 16mm-35mm for lyfe (though I was looking at fuji, it isn't that expensive since only Canon/Nikon (Sony to a lesser extent) has some discounts by sheer volume (so you can viably cross shop between the OLD poo poo and new stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Eh, don't give Canon too much credit. Their 5DS sensor is more or less just the APS-C one scaled up. And as far as Nikon and sensors go, they shop at Sony, so... v The pixel pitch is slightly different - 4.14 vs 4.1 microns. The 5DS sensor actually scales down to 19mpix when applying a 1.6 Canon crop, as opposed to 20. But even if that was the case I don't think it's quite so simple as "take the existing design and scale it up" windex posted:Dear uninformed internet brosefs, The M & M2 had normal EOS software on them. The M3 got some half powershot software which I don't understand as a choice. Regardless, my point still stands - Releasing one new semi-collapsible kit lens this year is not showing commitment by Canon. It doesn't matter if you can adapt all the EF glass in the world - they need to show a commitment to this new mount they have created, or it's not worth buying into as a system from a new user point of view. If they release 3 new lenses next year, that's a good step, but that isn't what they are doing right now...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Ryand-Smith posted:So would you say a M3 is a good backup camera if you have EF/S glass (the main reason why I will probably get a 7Dmk2 as a 40D replacement is the better AF and my semi large investment into EF-S glass (oh god how did I spend 1000 on EF-S glass), or a good ultra portable setup, or should I wait for this hypothetical EOS-M(pro) I imagine the M pro is not coming till the end of 2016, the last rumor I saw said before photo plus, which is next October. Serious talk: The EF-M mount in its entirety is only intended for hobbyist and consumer users. If you buy an M3, the EF-M lenses just make it into a overspec'd point and shoot. Additionally: EF-M lenses have color tinting issues in the corners and the newer ones seem better. The AF on the 7D mkII is the dual pixel crosstype, the M3 is 49 point PDAF that falls back to CBAF and CBAF works pretty much anywhere your lens is clear, wide open on the fast Sigma Arts, that's only in the center or just off. The PDAF points are not all piled in the middle either. The manual focus peaking is as good as a C300 and similarly works while zoomed in. So, depends on how much and how you shoot. If you do street photography, buy an M3, you will get mileage in subjects not reacting to a camera. If you shoot sports or wildlife, the 7D mark II is a better choice as the DPAF is faster. With adapter and body only you're looking at like $800 max? Some of the kits have the EVF, which is nice but has a questionable future and takes over the hotshoe but tilts up 90 degrees. I still use the M3 over the 5D for less than full body portraits in controlled lighting. The tripod mount on the mount adapter is super handy for keeping a blackrapid attached to the body and a tripod on. It also weighs like 1/3rd of the 5D3. The only other gotcha I'm aware of is if you need a remote trigger, your only option on the M3 is smartphone. All my stuff is packed, getting ready to head to the US for most of December, shooting a work event and doing overdue family portraits especially of ever growing nieces this trip:  (The 5D3 has the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, the M3 has the 24mm 1.4 Art.) timrenzi574 posted:The M & M2 had normal EOS software on them. The M3 got some half powershot software which I don't understand as a choice. ... It doesn't matter if you can adapt all the EF glass in the world ... No, all releases have been Powershot firmware to some degree. The M and M2 were EOS software modified by the Powershot team to work with the touchscreen, the M3 software is Powershot like but runs on the M3 and (I think) M10, indicating they are collapsing branches. What actually matters though is that they're dumping DIGIC 5 / 6 format raws like EOS DSLRs. Most ML features that were done for EOS M are standard on the M3 and CHDK for Powershot is much more portable anyway, is the consensus between ML and CHDK developers. I believe they are trying to fine tune the video modes but almost all CHDK features (except the interval timer) are built in otherwise. As far as adapting glass, Canon's original commit was to daily use/consumer with EF-M and hobbyist/enthusiast markets via adapter to EF/EF-S, and since the 5D3 is also an "enthusiast" camera to Canon ... I really don't see a problem. Most Sony a7 fans wind up buying a metabones adapter to use the a7R II with EF glass anyway. If it's good enough for them, why complain about the EF lens lineup when other vendors are still striving to be Canon? Mirrorless bodies have their own merits without factoring in lens mounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
windex posted:
I don't see adapting glass as a good solution, even if some others do. It's a workaround measure to get past a really good body having a light lens library. But that's just an opinion. With an A7R2, it makes some sense - if you want dat resolution and dat DR in one body, and you have a lot of Canon glass, then it's your only ticket. But that's because it's a really good body with unique characteristics you can't get elsewhere. What is the compelling factor that makes an M3 a really good body to make the drawbacks of adapted glass (AF performance which while it can be good, is not nearly as good as it would be on a native body) worthwhile? It's not small enough to fit in a pants pocket, so it's not like it's uber portable. Sure it weighs a lb less than a FF DSLR, but is carrying a 3lb camera bag really that different from a 4lb camera bag? If as assumed, Canon goes and releases an SL2 with the same PDAF system they are putting in rebels now (the 70D one) , and the same sensor as the other rebels & the M3, what is the M3 offering that makes it a better choice than that? A few ounces weight savings? A form factor that is slightly thinner , but still won't fit in a pocket? That's the situation the M & M2 found themselves in against the SL1 - you could get the same liveview performance plus PDAF if you wanted it, if you were willing to sacrifice a couple ounces extra weight. If it had a lot more small high performance primes like the 22mm, it would be a much more compelling option IMO. Waiting to see what Canon does with the system. Right now, if you were going to go all in on Mirrorless, I think there are much better options and the M3 is a fun toy only for people already in the Canon ecosystem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
The problem with Canon M system goes much deep than "its worse than Sony/SFuji/Olympus". I just want to explain it to windex. My main problem is 1, its being developed by Canon third string engineers. Take a look at Canon products in the same price range, the SL1, the G1X/G3X/G5X line, the G series and S series point and shoots, they are obviously better engineered products and have spec to compete with best of the class. When Canon released the G7x, its street price was already lower than RX100 in its first 2 weeks. If Canon want a product to success, they will price it competitively. Secondly, Canon USA didn't/doesn't want the M camera, for seasons I won't get into. When Canon released the 11-22mm wide angle zoom, Canon USA didn't even sell it. You had to go out of your way to buy it from Canada, with no warranty. It had red-headed bastard child written all over its face. With the pitiful amount of AF lens Canon make for EOS M, IMO Canon still doesn't care about it. They *need* to have a mirrorless presence in Japan because mirror marketshare is much higher in Japan than the oversea markets. That's not alot of motivation to make the EOS M system good. Lastly the EOSM mount can not take a full frame sensor. If Canon want to make FF mirrorless system, they need to throw the current EOSM users under the bus. And with the amount the FF rumors I have heard so far I think it has a good chance of coming out. They probably just want to release it alone with the Nikon system because Japanese electronic companies are incetous like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Oly Reconditioned have another 20% off with CYBER20 EM1 or EM5mkII for 575.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
That's fair but the thing is, none of the sister cameras to date have EVFs, controls that work as well, and while the SL2 may, I don't believe any of the other rebel equivalents have tilting displays. Further, all of the alternatives have mirrors with under 100% coverages, mirror slap, and the like. It's possible to do absurd things with the M3, like handhold 1/10 exposures in the dark at f/1.4 with no shake. The most compelling factor? The M3 body, at least in Japan, costs about what the metabones adapter does. While the lens adapter hurts for a new buyer (it goes for as little as $40 in Japan but I think the Canon USA MSRP is $150), Canon can only improve the EOS M system and every new camera has been a great improvement over the prior. For a few hundred bucks a year you get an ever improving camera that fits in the same system as all your other gear, and if buying into it new, sticking to full frame lenses yeilds you an immediate upgrade path you can use whenever you need it. Maybe slap them on a 5DS R or a a7R ii. Stick to the Sigma Global Vision lenses and for very little money you can have all of them moved to Nikon and back for shits. But, for what you are describing, I don't use the EOS M3 like that. I have a Nikon 1 V3, it has twenty billion autofocus points and I have two lenses that span from 10 to 110mm (27mm to 297mm effective w/ crop). It will take crazy photos and it lives in a bag that attaches to my larger bag(s) strap usually set in monochrome mode with the digital red filter enabled for JPEGs. It has no AA filter and takes great B&W snaps, and the whole thing cost me under $800. It's not a camera. It's a toy. The M3 is a camera that behaves like a camera. I would rather my cameras be less gimmick and more camera, and the M3 is the best option for mirrorless that fits into the above for me. And that's because even if you aren't bought into the system, buying into it gives you the most options moving forward for the least cost in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
It's telling that you're the only person who advocates for the system, but fyi Olympus and Sony have IBIS that allows for 1/2 second handheld exposures (two years ago) with Panasonic near behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:It's telling that you're the only person who advocates for the system, but fyi Olympus and Sony have IBIS that allows for 1/2 second handheld exposures (two years ago) with Panasonic near behind. The primary problem is that if you're a fan of Canon's other gear (or Canon system gear in general) and buy an M3 you're doing it only because you have to, per other-than-Canon system users. In the long run though, when the micro 4/3rds users, Sony APS-C users, or Fuji users need an upgrade to do something beyond specific types of consumer or enthusiast work, they will have to ditch their entire system or buy into an entirely new system alongside it. The a7R ii enthusiasts and pros are already largely using Canon mount lenses or have a lot of money to blow on Zeiss. Cameras are literally the least important part of photography in terms of cost and required functionality, and that hasn't changed since film. Just like with film, the cheapest camera that gives you the most options still wins. This methodology is not bad in that the camera with you is the camera more likely to be used, but this interview with Fuji kind of hits the nail on the head, then misses it: http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/ "Mr. Ueno: Yes, if you attach the large and heavy high performance lens to the full frame DSLR, then you will certainly get high image quality. The combination will maximize the potential of the full frame, but if you have to carry the bulky lens everywhere to achieve the high image quality, then this is not what FUJIFILM is aiming for.* Now, carrying a bulky lens is annoying. But not offering an option to attain that image quality in your entire system is silly, and later in the interview specifically excluding it and comparing the ideal work of your camera to snapshots and documentary photography, .. is not inspiring. Also, I know about the IBIS stuff and I have some EF mount lenses that have image stabilization, but, most of the glass I want to use is the giant fast kind that doesn't need it. Besides, IBIS is an attempt to make the camera important, which is ridiculous with expendable digital bodies (and all of them are expendable unless you're talking about medium format backs you could sell to make your house payment for a year or two).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
windex posted:The primary problem is that if you're a fan of Canon's other gear (or Canon system gear in general) and buy an M3 you're doing it only because you have to, per other-than-Canon system users. In the long run though, when the micro 4/3rds users, Sony APS-C users, or Fuji users need an upgrade to do something beyond specific types of consumer or enthusiast work, they will have to ditch their entire system or buy into an entirely new system alongside it. The a7R ii enthusiasts and pros are already largely using Canon mount lenses or have a lot of money to blow on Zeiss. The Fuji guy is specifically talking about Full Frame mirrorless lenses. They don't want to produce a full frame mirroless camera because it's near impossible to design lightweight high image quality full frame lenses. It renders owning a mirrorless camera useless. Who cares how light a camera is when the associated lens is 2 or 3 times it? The difference between owning a Canon M3 and a 5d3 is negligable if you have a 70-200 f2.8 attached to both.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:The Fuji guy is specifically talking about Full Frame mirrorless lenses. They don't want to produce a full frame mirroless camera because it's near impossible to design lightweight high image quality full frame lenses. It renders owning a mirrorless camera useless. Who cares how light a camera is when the associated lens is 2 or 3 times it? The difference between owning a Canon M3 and a 5d3 is negligable if you have a 70-200 f2.8 attached to both. But this is where the disconnect is between my thoughts and threads thoughts: Your proposition assumes the camera is the more important part of the equation. Over the lenses. It's not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
windex posted:But this is where the disconnect is between my thoughts and threads thoughts: No, what I'm saying is that Fuji has realized that to make mirrorless comfortable while also providing the best image quality, full frame sensors aren't possible. Instead, they are providing similar levels of image quality in a smaller, more comfortable package with APS-C. Most of Canon's best lenses are full frame and they were designed to be comfortable with bigger cameras. It's not about the camera whatsoever, it's about comfortably taking pictures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
windex posted:But this is where the disconnect is between my thoughts and threads thoughts: G7 is one of the larger M43 camera available with an equivalent lens: http://j.mp/1NlGNCy Which would cost well less than the 70-200 in total.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
windex posted:Your proposition assumes the camera is the more important part of the equation. Over the lenses. Appreciate the smugness, but no one here who has held a camera for longer than a month believes that lenses are less important than bodies. BitesizedNike fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:No, what I'm saying is that Fuji has realized that to make mirrorless comfortable while also providing the best image quality, full frame sensors aren't possible. Instead, they are providing similar levels of image quality in a smaller, more comfortable package with APS-C. Most of Canon's best lenses are full frame and they were designed to be comfortable with bigger cameras. It's not about the camera whatsoever, it's about comfortably taking pictures. Sure but if comfortably taking pictures is all that matters why not just use your phone? In the IQ debate the majority of it in post 20 megapixel camera world revolves around pixel size and lens quality. Lens quality is way more important than pixel size, because pixel size primarily affects low light photography, but once you go past a certain point.... Fuji makes some great lenses, but the pixel size of their sensors is limited by the APS-C format and is no better than anyone else's for luminance. They also can't go the huge megapixel route with small pixels because the sensor size won't allow that either. So by default, on Fuji's system, you could take great well lit photos that might equal photos in equivalent conditions by other cameras, just like the M3 can hit great photos (sometimes better, depending on aperture) using the same lenses as the 5D3. But, just like the M3, the minute you are indoors or it's dark out, you are hosed for most types of photography, because even if you shoot every photo in infinite framed at hyperfocal distance, f/1.4, the more you wrench the ISO the worse your photos gets until they're garbage. And there's no upgrade path to fix that. Those Fuji lenses cannot be used on a full frame camera, and Fuji doesn't even make one to upgrade to. The majority of photography that pays (good) money occurs in those environments and it is poo poo difficult work. Mr. Wookums posted:He wasn't making the claim that the camera is most important, nor has anyone when talking about the EOS system. The native lens system is garbage and being able to adopt a 70-200 is applicable to literally any other mirrorless system (and you would want to buy Sony to also take advantage of native sony E and FE mounts) while not having the ability to have a small, compact system. The thing is that the EF-M lenses are perfectly usable here (EF-M 55-200mm) and would compete favorably for IQ against the G7, even with the slower lens, even at a longer shutter duration/higher ISO to compensate. That's not the point though, my point is all the little lenses that cannot be fit onto a full frame camera aren't worth paying any money for because their utility is compromised by one thing or another along the way. The novelty of the M3 is that it just works with EF glass and it works as well as EF-M glass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
windex posted:
But this is what I've been trying to say - if you want a little body to slap your EF glass on, great. If what you want is a small system camera, not great because the system is lacking as of right now. If canon starts churning out primes for it, I would be more enthusiastic about recommending it, because I do like Canon. I like their ergonomics, I like their color science, I like their UI, etc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:But this is what I've been trying to say - if you want a little body to slap your EF glass on, great. If what you want is a small system camera, not great because the system is lacking as of right now. If canon starts churning out primes for it, I would be more enthusiastic about recommending it, because I do like Canon. I like their ergonomics, I like their color science, I like their UI, etc, etc. My only point in persisting the futile internet argument is that - small system camera is not the only benefit of a mirrorless camera. The Leica SL and Sony a7 series are not small. EVFs with live histograms, the lack of mirror slap, etc, alone are all good things and cameras should go that way by all means in my opinion. When the emphasis is on the compact system camera, it's putting an unnecessary weight on the camera part of the equation and the CSC size benefits are not the only reason to like mirrorless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
windex posted:My only point in persisting the futile internet argument is that - small system camera is not the only benefit of a mirrorless camera. The Leica SL and Sony a7 series are not small. EVFs with live histograms, the lack of mirror slap, etc, alone are all good things and cameras should go that way by all means in my opinion. It's hard to compete against a well-supported existing ecosystem, even with significant technical advantages. Canon and Nikon have a lot of advantages in place that have made it hard for mirrorless to gain traction, even if they're technically superior in many ways. Canon and Nikon are basically pursuing mirrorless just like Intel and Microsoft have handled the processor and OS markets. They're hedging their bets in case the market trends actually shifts away from them. So, is the Sony FE-mount the iPhone, the DEC Alpha, or the Apple Newton of interchangable camera world? Is the EOS-M the Intel Atom or the Itanium?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
But, see, that's already answered. The underlying issue there is more like you have Intel/AMD (Canon/Nikon) and Via (Everyone Else). Intel can afford an itanium class misstep, recover, and even if its bad they'll stick by it for awhile. Via can't. The problem with this analogy is that photography is art. Here, Canon/Nikon provides an entire system of not only pencils but also brushes in different sizes for all canvas sizes and the competition refuses to entertain production of brushes because covering big canvases isn't applicable to people making anatomical drawings. This thread dismisses the Canon/Nikon mirrorless cameras quite often without regard to development of the photographer, and it's easy to do so given the expense of the big systems, but most people shooting the CSC only systems are in for a lot of extra expense converting gear later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
If it makes a difference either way, both B+H and Amazon have pretty deep discounts on the M3 today. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
There are better mirrorless bodies than Canon's. There are better mirrorless lenses than Canon's. There are mirrorless systems with way more native lenses than Canon's. There are mirrorless systems with native lenses that rival Canon's best. There does exist a mirrorless full frame system with adequate adaptable wide selection of first and third party full frame lenses. But if you want: To stay within the manufacturer. To be able to use full frame lenses to their full abilities on a full frame body. To have a wide ecosystem of new and used lens options at varying prices. To have a small backup camera. The only answer is Canon. The vast majority of people aren't looking for that, though, and most consider the M3 to have too many drawbacks to be a primary camera. That's why we don't recommend it. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
fuji rules, canon drools
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Ended up picking up the a6000 on Amazon Warehouse deals. Turns out there was an additional $70 discount once I put it into my basket, so I ended up getting it for about $430 shipped after taxes  . Thanks for the information guys, much appreciated
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Doh004 posted:Ended up picking up the a6000 on Amazon Warehouse deals. Turns out there was an additional $70 discount once I put it into my basket, so I ended up getting it for about $430 shipped after taxes That's the 15% off cyber monday deal whatever7 was referring to. Good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:29
|
|
|
LiquidRain posted:The vast majority of people aren't looking for that, though, and most consider the M3 to have too many drawbacks to be a primary camera. That's why we don't recommend it. But you could make the argument that no camera is suited to be a primary camera. They all do a range of things. And almost all of them take great stills in the environment they are built for. The thing is, for a still image camera to still image camera comparison, most of your first set of points is subjective and the second set is objective. How are the majority of people looking for subjective traits over objective ones? There must be objective reasons the CSC systems are better right? I mean, we have size, weight, size/weight of in system lenses, you can try to throw video in? What else is there that actually makes them more awesome? I spent about 4-5 hours reviewing micro 4/3rds options before giving up and going with the Nikon 1 V3 as my "point and shoot+" because beyond marketing materials trying to make me feel really good about buying Olympus cameras, I could not find a reason that trumped "I've never owned a Nikon camera lets try that high speed shutter and fancy AF out". As it turns out, " no manual focus rings" wound up being annoying but misses the point of the system. And the Nikon 1 system is awful. While I have been picking on Fuji in this thread that's because they're probably the most viable competitor to the M3. But beyond size/weight considerations, the objective drawbacks of the Fuji APS-C system seem to bog it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
I think you're projecting your personal preferences and needs onto the broader market, where plenty of pros have happily switched from FF DSLRs to mirrorless systems, nevermind the average DSLR buying prosumer for whom mirrorless systems are not only adequate, but better suited to their needs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
windex posted:While I have been picking on Fuji in this thread that's because they're probably the most viable competitor to the M3. But beyond size/weight considerations, the objective drawbacks of the Fuji APS-C system seem to bog it down. Beyond size, weight, excellent controls, and great lenses, you mean? Yeah, that's a terrible system. I really have hated every minute of learning photography with a used X-E1 and the 18-55 kit lens, and continually wished I had gotten a used 50D and canon kit lens for the same price instead, so I could have had a bigger camera with a worse lens to start. Because then I'd be able to move to full frame and shoot videos, two things I will probably never do? Borachon fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
windex posted:
there are no objective drawbacks to fuji, everything wrong with the system is subjective
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
The pentax Q and K are the best mirrorless cameras and you're all a bunch of idiots if you think anything different. Everything else is literal garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Borachon posted:Beyond size, weight, excellent controls, and great lenses, you mean? Yeah, that's a terrible system. I really have hated every minute of learning photography with a used X-E1 and the 18-55 kit lens, and continually wished I had gotten a used 50D and canon kit lens for the same price instead, so I could have had a bigger camera with worse lenses and worse controls. Cost is a good objective reason. But, when the 50D was new, it was a great camera. The cost argument is difficult though, because it assumes the systems with no upgrade path will always meet your needs. rawrr posted:I think you're projecting your personal preferences and needs onto the broader market, where plenty of pros have happily switched from FF DSLRs to mirrorless systems, nevermind the average DSLR buying prosumer for whom mirrorless systems are not only adequate, but better suited to their needs. But this still doesn't quantify any objective reasons for doing so. I mean, I have gotten some amazing shots on the Nikon 1, but I'd not attempt to use it to shoot a wedding or concert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
"When the 50D was new" doesn't matter. It's the same price now as that XE-1 he bought. As for no upgrade path, we've made it pretty clear most of us here have "downgraded" quite on purpose. While we're talking Fuji: don't forget ISO and dynamic range performance far beyond what any Canon is doing, the color processing, the unique EVFs, or the better AF. (compared to the EOS M line) Fuji drawbacks are price, fine detail sharpness for pixel peepers, video, IBIS, and tracking AF. (though the latter got a lot better with FW 4.0 for the XT-1, it's still behind Sony) And I guess in windex's world no option to upgrade to full frame is the no-go here? (so why does the Nikon 1 get a mention...?) In windex's world I guess he considers only the price to be objective? If we're going to be completely anal about this argument, even that's subjective - price is object, cost is relevant. God I'm so lost now. This is pointless. windex super loves his M3 and the rest of the world pretty much doesn't. LiquidRain fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The pentax Q and K are the best mirrorless cameras and you're all a bunch of idiots if you think anything different. There is no application in photography that the Pentax Q (or a perfectly aligned array of an infinite number of Pentax Q's) cannot solve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:There is no application in photography that the Pentax Q (or a perfectly aligned array of an infinite number of Pentax Q's) cannot solve. This is probably the only good post in the last 17 pages or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
windex posted:Cost is a good objective reason. But, when the 50D was new, it was a great camera. The cost argument is difficult though, because it assumes the systems with no upgrade path will always meet your needs. I have an X-E1, the 18-55 kit, and the 27mm pancake. I have *lots* of room to upgrade, including bodies with better autofocus, a lot of different high-quality lenses that make me drool, and better sensors as they come out. There's only "no upgrade path" if your only concept of upgrade path is "larger sensor". By that rationale, Canon, Nikon, and Sony full-frame users are in "systems with no upgrade path" since you can't easily move from them to true medium format, only different sensors of the same size (e.g. in the 5ds). Borachon fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:50
|
|