# 5Ds Mark II and hate for mirrorless



## Mike27713 (Sep 24, 2019)

OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 24, 2019)

My G-series cameras are mirrorless. The G5X II even has a popup EVF. But I don't plan to replace my DSLRs with IL mirrorless cameras. I don't want to give up an OVF unless I'm using something that fits in my pocket.

Is there some reason you feel that the 5DS or SR don't meet your needs?


----------



## dcm (Sep 24, 2019)

Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started. Even at several megapixels, digital was still considered to have less than half the resolution of film and lack the “feel” of film. Many said they would never switch. For me it was just a matter of when. We are now looking towards 80 megapixels, and I hear less about the “feel” these days. I still have my old film equipment but haven’t used it in the last 10 years.

The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made. I have the M/M3/M5 with an M6lI on the way. OVFs are usable and continue to improve. 

I’ve worked in hi tech for the last 40 years, at a university as researcher/lecturer now. I tend to be an early adopter. I was waiting for the 5DSr II myself. The draw for me is high megapixel to complement my 1DX2. I believe Canon will provide an OVF worthy of the high megapixel sensor in the RS.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 24, 2019)

Mike27713 said:


> OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.


I've only been taking photos heavily for maybe 3-4 years, and it still took me MONTHS to adjust to an EVF. There was a long time where I just felt disconnected from what was going on in front of me when using the EOS R. Definitely just felt like watching TV vs actually seeing what was happening in front of me.

From my experience adjusting to an EVF is absolutely not something you can do just trying a camera out in a store or even renting it, even for a few weeks. You just have to take the plunge, and then stick with it until it feels right, even when you just want your flappy mirror back.

I can't really explain it, but I think my brain just got re-wired. The EVF doesn't feel weird anymore. It feels just as natural and connected as a DSLR now. And I also really appreciate having my exposure settings immediately affecting what I see in the viewfiinder in real time. I miss that when going back to a DSLR now.

_However_ one thing I will admit is that seeing the scene in the EVF can be a little misleading at times, especially in low light situations. The EVF by its nature is a backlit display. So very dark areas might tend to look brighter than they will really come through in the photo itself. This is especially true if you have your EVF brightness set too high. You need to keep an eye on the histogram, which is conveniently also available in the EVF.


----------



## JPAZ (Sep 24, 2019)

So, I am not getting rid of my 5Div any time soon but, like anything else, there are pros and cons. There are some things that my RP (like BIF or action) can not do as well as a mirrorslapper (please, let's not fall into the abyss of why some think other mirrorless cameras are better than Canon's because that is being argued in so many other threads). But, once I got used to the EVF, I cannot see giving it up. I used to shoot an M and than an M5. Never was happy with those viewfinders but that was then and this is now. 

My RP has become my go-to camera and the 5Div only comes out when I need it. 

If there is ever a high FPS and rapid refresh mirrorless (Again, avoid the abyss  ), I'll be in line to get it.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 25, 2019)

Hi Mike27713!

I can understand your argumentation and I partly feel the same, but ...


Mike27713 said:


> ...I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way?????


Never say "Never!".


dcm said:


> Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started
> ...
> The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made.
> ...


THIS 100% is it.

And this is the reason why we haven't seen an 1DX equvalent MILC camera yet. Because Canon knows that people like you are not pleased yet.
I've tried several EVFs (Canon, Oly, Pana, Sony; but haven't tried the a9 or Nikon Z yet) and found that they are okay, but not more.
Right now I'd take an OVF for sports, action, wildlife, kids a thousand times over the EVF.
And right now I would gladly welcome a "5Dmk5" over an "EOS R5".

But with time that'll change. And you should choose that tool today that fits your needs today best.
But know that within a few years EVFs will become much better than they are yet.
So never say "Never!" but stay with OVF as long as it is the better solution for you - as it is for me today.

I hope you feel better now after your little rant.
And maybe you can see, that "_hate_" is a too strong emotion for this little problem and you can accept that others here also have some kind of "_aversion_".


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 25, 2019)

Canon is clearly still struggling to get their full frame mirrorless technology and processing power up to the point where there is zero lag or blackout/lag when taking photos in the EVF. However, not going to name names, but based on other manufacturers, we have already seen it's possible to do this.

I have no doubt Canon will get there, probably in the next year or two. And at that point, I really don't see any reason to continue to clutch onto an OVF as theoretically superior to an EVF. In fact then at that point the OVF becomes the inferior technology since you still have blackout in the viewfinder for that instant when the mirror flips up. And yes, I understand that at high fps bursts on the 1DX MkII, the DSLR viewfinder blackout is more of just a viewfinder dimming because the mirror is flipping up and down so fast.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 25, 2019)

Somehow it never occurred to me that having the viewfinder black out for a moment after I've pushed the shutter button could be a problem. That just seems normal. And it's not like my mirrorless G cameras and live view in my DSLRs keep a continuous display after the picture is taken. Instead they pop up a view of the shot just taken. I don't know what the MILCs do. Is there some action I can take right after the shutter fires that will alter the picture in some positive manner if only I could see?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2019)

Mike27713 said:


> OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.


Camera manufacturers respond to sales. The fact is that mirrorless sales income has increased while DSLR sales income has dropped to 55% of last year. If you want to be in business, you make what sells. Right now, we are in a period where the customer can influence which products will be made and sold, but the answer is pretty clear and unless it turns around, DSLR's will be gone sooner than I thought. 

Each type of camera has its pros and cons, A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark. Phase Detect AF is fast, but accuracy is a problem that costs a lot of $$ to keep tuned up. DPAF is accurate at all focal lengths and apertures. Manual focus is still the most accurate, but slow.

In the final analysis, photographers will vote with their pocketbooks, and the technical specs don't matter at all.

I think they may already have voted.

When compared to this time last year, sales quantities of DSLR's are only 64% while mirrorless are at 86%.

But when looking at sales values, DSLR's are at 55% while Mirrorless sales values are up at 104%.

As a businessman, I'd definitely go with products where my sales income is up to 104% rather than down to 55%, but for now, its possible to make and sell both at a profit. It may not be possible to make DSLR's at a profit when sales drops to 10% of 2017. At very best, just profitible models would be made.

You can follow sales of cameras at CIPA.






CIPA - Camera & Imaging Products Association: Digital Cameras







www.cipa.jp


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 26, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Camera manufacturers respond to sales. The fact is that mirrorless sales income has increased while DSLR sales income has dropped to 55% of last year. If you want to be in business, you make what sells. Right now, we are in a period where the customer can influence which products will be made and sold, but the answer is pretty clear and unless it turns around, DSLR's will be gone sooner than I thought.
> 
> Each type of camera has its pros and cons, A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark. Phase Detect AF is fast, but accuracy is a problem that costs a lot of $$ to keep tuned up. DPAF is accurate at all focal lengths and apertures. Manual focus is still the most accurate, but slow.
> 
> ...



One reason for last year's numbers were the introduction of Canon and Nikon's FF mirrorless cameras with pretty much no new DLSR bodies of any note. New products sell at a faster clip than old ones do. It will be interesting to see how the second half of 2019 goes at Canon with regard to mirrorless vs. DSLR sales with the 90D now on the market. The rollout of the 1DX Mark III and D6 next spring will also have an effect of the sales value balance, if not the sales unit numbers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 26, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark.



For me it is just the opposite. I can see stars in an optical VF, but nothing but noise in an EVF when pointed at the night sky unless the moon is in the frame.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Sep 27, 2019)

dcm said:


> Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started. Even at several megapixels, digital was still considered to have less than half the resolution of film and lack the “feel” of film. Many said they would never switch. For me it was just a matter of when. We are now looking towards 80 megapixels, and I hear less about the “feel” these days. I still have my old film equipment but haven’t used it in the last 10 years.
> 
> The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made. I have the M/M3/M5 with an M6lI on the way. OVFs are usable and continue to improve.
> 
> I’ve worked in hi tech for the last 40 years, at a university as researcher/lecturer now. I tend to be an early adopter. I was waiting for the 5DSr II myself. The draw for me is high megapixel to complement my 1DX2. I believe Canon will provide an OVF worthy of the high megapixel sensor in the RS.


That is probably very true, but there needs to be a decisive factor that makes us go to the trouble and expense of replacing our existing DSLRs and lenses with the mirrorless equivalents. At the moment I am happy with my 5D mk4 and underwhelmed with Canon's mirrorless offerings. The choice facing many of us is either switch to Sony or wait patiently for Canon to produce a mirrorless camera that is significantly better than their existing full frame DSLRs.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2019)

Something isn't scanning, here.



Ian_of_glos said:


> That is probably very true, but there needs to be a decisive factor that makes us go to the trouble and expense of replacing our existing DSLRs and lenses with the mirrorless equivalents. At the moment I am happy with my 5D mk4 and underwhelmed with Canon's mirrorless offerings.



So at this point there's no compelling reason to change?



Ian_of_glos said:


> The choice facing many of us is either switch to Sony or wait patiently for Canon to produce a mirrorless camera that is significantly better than their existing full frame DSLRs.



If you're happy with your 5D mk4...there's no reason to do either. Just keep using it.

You're coming across (to me at least) as someone who's feeling pressure of some kind to switch over just for the sake of being mirrorless, but underwhelmed with Canon's offerings and not wanting to switch to Sony (and I don't blame you on either score). Whence the pressure? And if there's no pressure...then don't sweat it.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 27, 2019)

SteveC said:


> If you're happy with your 5D mk4...there's no reason to do either. Just keep using it.



That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2019)

JohnC said:


> That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.



By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).


----------



## JohnC (Sep 27, 2019)

SteveC said:


> By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).




My M6MkII will be here Monday, although probably not before I have to head to the airport lol. Looking forward to playing around with it some when I get the chance. 

I don't NEED 80mp either. I would love to be in the 60mp range. If the performance is there for landscape shooting though I won't let the 80mp stop me. AF and things like that don't affect me that much. I shoot manual focus Zeiss lenses anyway. It would be nice to have it of course just in case, but not a deal breaker.


----------



## OneSnark (Sep 28, 2019)

The jump to mirrorless is NOTHING like the jump from film to digital. Film to digital FUNDAMENTALLY changed ones approach to photography. 
With digital, I went from shooting one or two images of a scene to 20 images. Changing ISO from shot to shot! That was all revolutionary.

Going to mirrorless. . . .meh. . . switching from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? Total gamechanger. NOT.

When I went from film to digital. . . .I didn't change lenses. I just bought a new body.
Now. . . going to mirrorless- - -one is looking at buying new (and frankly slow) EF-M lenses. . . .or premium dollar RF glass. It's not just forking out for a new body. 

So. . . .more money. . . .less improvement. . . .I can wait on this change.


----------



## Joules (Sep 28, 2019)

OneSnark said:


> When I went from film to digital. . . .I didn't change lenses. I just bought a new body.
> Now. . . going to mirrorless- - -one is looking at buying new (and frankly slow) EF-M lenses. . . .or premium dollar RF glass. It's not just forking out for a new body.


Well, EF lenses work on EF-M and RF bodies so you actually can just buy a new body and be just fine. I know, mind = blown, right? 

I see mirrorless as a way for manufacturers to gain more flexibility and that can lead to benefits for the consumer as well. A lens like the RF 24-240mm would never have come to market on EF mount. Same goes for a camera with the M6 line body type. It also seems like the EF-M lenses are all highly efficient designs regarding size and price. I like getting good value for my money.

Obviously not revolutionary. There's just not all that much room for improvement left for technology to tap into. We're at a point we're many things simply improve in incremental steps as we get closer to the limits set by the laws of physics and making big steps therefore becomes more challenging and expensive. In a shrinking market, who would pay for such big steps?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2019)

JohnC said:


> That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.


My 5D Mark III didn't have too many clicks. Maybe 60,000 tops. Front and back focus on subjects drove me nuts, especially missing focus on eyes, along with AFMA. So the choice was 5D mark IV (Great camera) or the R with the same sensor and no AFMA and about $900 less money. I hesitantly chose the R (Also a great camera and value) and hoped for the best. Glad I did, but fully understand making the other choice too. Sold all my EF gear to afford the switch and got the camera + 2 lenses (sold a couple of other things also.). Happy as I can be for my use. The lenses also persuaded me in a big way. This won't be my last camera, but the RF lenses I have now + one more will be my last unless something breaks.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My 5D Mark III didn't have too many clicks. Maybe 60,000 tops. Front and back focus on subjects drove me nuts, especially missing focus on eyes, along with AFMA. So the choice was 5D mark IV (Great camera) or the R with the same sensor and no AFMA and about $900 less money. I hesitantly chose the R (Also a great camera and value) and hoped for the best. Glad I did, but fully understand making the other choice too. Sold all my EF gear to afford the switch and got the camera + 2 lenses (sold a couple of other things also.). Happy as I can be for my use. The lenses also persuaded me in a big way. This won't be my last camera, but the RF lenses I have now + one more will be my last unless something breaks.




I skipped the MkIII, but I sold a Mkii in late '16 or early '17 that had maybe 20k clicks on it. I shoot almost entirely landscape so it just doesn't get hundreds of clicks when I get out. It is very common for me to head out for a morning and come back with <40 shots. I hear you on the front/back focusing thing. I'm fortunate enough to have not dealt with that kind of thing a whole lot using manual focus lenses. I do have the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 v1. I remember calibrating AFMA on the mk II but I"m not sure I've ever had the lens on the Mk IV. I use the 70-200 for telephoto range landscapes.

I think the R is a great body and would work great for what I do with them. I'm not sure it gives me a lot/anything over the 5d4 for the way I use the camera however. If I were still sitting with the MkII or the MkIII I would probably make the change now.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2019)

JohnC said:


> I skipped the MkIII, but I sold a Mkii in late '16 or early '17 that had maybe 20k clicks on it. I shoot almost entirely landscape so it just doesn't get hundreds of clicks when I get out. It is very common for me to head out for a morning and come back with <40 shots. I hear you on the front/back focusing thing. I'm fortunate enough to have not dealt with that kind of thing a whole lot using manual focus lenses. I do have the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 v1. I remember calibrating AFMA on the mk II but I"m not sure I've ever had the lens on the Mk IV. I use the 70-200 for telephoto range landscapes.
> 
> I think the R is a great body and would work great for what I do with them. I'm not sure it gives me a lot/anything over the 5d4 for the way I use the camera however. If I were still sitting with the MkII or the MkIII I would probably make the change now.


Really nice Flickr page, John. Beautiful landscape photos!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> For me it is just the opposite. I can see stars in an optical VF, but nothing but noise in an EVF when pointed at the night sky unless the moon is in the frame.


I haven't tried my R on the stars, but for stage work in low light, and I mean really low, I can see faces and eyes clearly, but nothing buy outlines with my EVF. I take both my R and my 5D MK IV to events, one with 24-70, one with 70-200. I've been switching lenses half way thru. My R likes the 70-200 better, images just look better, but it can be due to other things, so tat observation is likely not worth much.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 28, 2019)

JohnC said:


> I skipped the MkIII, but I sold a Mkii in late '16 or early '17 that had maybe 20k clicks on it. I shoot almost entirely landscape so it just doesn't get hundreds of clicks when I get out. It is very common for me to head out for a morning and come back with <40 shots. I hear you on the front/back focusing thing. I'm fortunate enough to have not dealt with that kind of thing a whole lot using manual focus lenses. I do have the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 v1. I remember calibrating AFMA on the mk II but I"m not sure I've ever had the lens on the Mk IV. I use the 70-200 for telephoto range landscapes.
> 
> I think the R is a great body and would work great for what I do with them. I'm not sure it gives me a lot/anything over the 5d4 for the way I use the camera however. If I were still sitting with the MkII or the MkIII I would probably make the change now.


I think you would use manual focus for either camera, in live view on a tripod, both work with touch focus, so you can focus on what you want, but the ability to manually focus until the image looks just as you want it is most important, and you have a exceptional talent for that.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Really nice Flickr page, John. Beautiful landscape photos!


Thank you very much sir!


----------



## JohnC (Sep 28, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think you would use manual focus for either camera, in live view on a tripod, both work with touch focus, so you can focus on what you want, but the ability to manually focus until the image looks just as you want it is most important, and you have a exceptional talent for that.



Thank you much appreciate,although I can assure I have plenty of examples where I missed it for one reason or another. I’ve caught myself at times even forgetting to refocus when I change composition lol


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2019)

JohnC said:


> Thank you much appreciate,although I can assure I have plenty of examples where I missed it for one reason or another. I’ve caught myself at times even forgetting to refocus when I change composition lol


My trash can is full of things I forgot to do or couldn't figure out.  My "portfolio" is full of the mediocre. You are a master.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 28, 2019)

dcm said:


> Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started. Even at several megapixels, digital was still considered to have less than half the resolution of film and lack the “feel” of film. Many said they would never switch.



Film is still here. Plenty of film still manufactured, as well as some cameras, e.g. by Nikon.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My trash can is full of things I forgot to do or couldn't figure out.  My "portfolio" is full of the mediocre. You are a master.


I actually just took a look at your portfolio, and I would say you are far more master than mediocre. What little shooting I have done of the type you do, I couldn't hold a candle. Great work.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2019)

JohnC said:


> I actually just took a look at your portfolio, and I would say you are far more master than mediocre. What little shooting I have done of the type you do, I couldn't hold a candle. Great work.


You are very kind. I use flickr to keep track of the ups and downs. Thank you.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 28, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Film is still here. Plenty of film still manufactured, as well as some cameras, e.g. by Nikon.


Wow! I had no idea Nikon was still in film. Two models too. Checking out the lower model.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 28, 2019)

I am not anti EVF, but I wasn't impressed by their quality for many years. What I really like about OVFs is that they fire imagination, in particular if you use a vintage film camera and have to wait until you see the result.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 28, 2019)

Once in my twenties when I could finally afford a single-lens reflex, it was so cool. I could look through the actual lens. Almost 50 years later, I am not ready to give that up. And, yes, I have small cameras that give me a TV picture on the screen on the back. My DSLRs can do that, too, when I wish. Sometimes you want to see things in person, and sometimes you want to watch TV. My newest camera even has a popup EVF for when the light is too bright to see the screen on the back. The diopter setting is too fussy to get the view very sharp. I doubt I'll find it usable for manual focusing. Luckily on that small a lens, focus is not that critical. If one eye of the subject is in focus, the other eye will almost surely be in focus.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 28, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Film is still here. Plenty of film still manufactured, as well as some cameras, e.g. by Nikon.



I have several rolls of velvia, provia, and a few black and white films in 120 and 35mm I need to use up right now in fact.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wow! I had no idea Nikon was still in film. Two models too. Checking out the lower model.




I may be wrong but I believe that Nikon stopped production of the F6 years ago, so any new sales are from stock. Also the FM10 isn’t made by Nikon but contracted out. Any urge I had to shoot film again died with the introduction of the 5DS, but I’d be the first to admit that there is something rather magical about a well exposed transparency.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 29, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> I may be wrong but I believe that Nikon stopped production of the F6 years ago, so any new sales are from stock...


I thought I had read that Nikon quit sometime before 2010, so it is amazing to me that there are still brand new F6 cameras available (Adorama). I could not, nor would I, buy one. I have film cameras (Canon A-1 with the motor winder and tiny grip, Mamiya/Sekor 500TL and 1000 DTL, and Yashica, Voigtlander.). All of them work, but need light seals. Found that out the hard way. The SLR's were attached to old lenses I wanted so were pretty much free. The Voigtlander was a gift from a near 90 year old lady who bought it new.

I keep hearing there is a film camera revival out there, but I think that is probably due to the Instax and Lomo crazes. Otherwise, those F6 cameras wouldn't still be on the shelf.

I keep getting nostalgic about maybe doing film again, then I consider the expense. Substantial expense. So I won't. Still, there is a beauty in old black and whites to me. Again, maybe because I am getting old and nostalgic. It would be fun when my grandson gets old enough, to shoot some film and take him through the process. Out of all those cameras I think I would only choose the Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL to restore as I have a lot of lenses to screw onto it. It is a beautiful camera.


----------



## JohnC (Sep 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I thought I had read that Nikon quit sometime before 2010, so it is amazing to me that there are still brand new F6 cameras available (Adorama). I could not, nor would I, buy one. I have film cameras (Canon A-1 with the motor winder and tiny grip, Mamiya/Sekor 500TL and 1000 DTL, and Yashica, Voigtlander.). All of them work, but need light seals. Found that out the hard way. The SLR's were attached to old lenses I wanted so were pretty much free. The Voigtlander was a gift from a near 90 year old lady who bought it new.
> 
> I keep hearing there is a film camera revival out there, but I think that is probably due to the Instax and Lomo crazes. Otherwise, those F6 cameras wouldn't still be on the shelf.
> 
> I keep getting nostalgic about maybe doing film again, then I consider the expense. Substantial expense. So I won't. Still, there is a beauty in old black and whites to me. Again, maybe because I am getting old and nostalgic. It would be fun when my grandson gets old enough, to shoot some film and take him through the process. Out of all those cameras I think I would only choose the Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL to restore as I have a lot of lenses to screw onto it. It is a beautiful camera.


Not too long ago there were still some EOS 1vs on the market as well. Not sure if that is still true. When I saw them they were still priced quite high!

I already had an EOS 3 which is a really neat body. I picked up a mamiya rz67 pro and canon a1 a few years ago. Enjoy shooting them but frankly the process is far more work intensive. Transparencies are great. Getting good scans are a pita in my opinion. 

Nothing like looking at a good transparency on a light box with a loupe though


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> I may be wrong but I believe that Nikon stopped production of the F6 years ago, so any new sales are from stock. Also the FM10 isn’t made by Nikon but contracted out. Any urge I had to shoot film again died with the introduction of the 5DS, but I’d be the first to admit that there is something rather magical about a well exposed transparency.



Beyond basic color correction and noise reduction/sharpening, most of what I do in post processing is an attempt to make my digital images look like they were shot on Kodachrome or other (including monochrome) slide films. I'm almost to the point of earning the "padawan" title in this regard.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I thought I had read that Nikon quit sometime before 2010, so it is amazing to me that there are still brand new F6 cameras available (Adorama). I could not, nor would I, buy one. I have film cameras (Canon A-1 with the motor winder and tiny grip, Mamiya/Sekor 500TL and 1000 DTL, and Yashica, Voigtlander.). All of them work, but need light seals. Found that out the hard way. The SLR's were attached to old lenses I wanted so were pretty much free. The Voigtlander was a gift from a near 90 year old lady who bought it new.
> 
> I keep hearing there is a film camera revival out there, but I think that is probably due to the Instax and Lomo crazes. Otherwise, those F6 cameras wouldn't still be on the shelf.
> 
> I keep getting nostalgic about maybe doing film again, then I consider the expense. Substantial expense. So I won't. Still, there is a beauty in old black and whites to me. Again, maybe because I am getting old and nostalgic. It would be fun when my grandson gets old enough, to shoot some film and take him through the process. Out of all those cameras I think I would only choose the Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL to restore as I have a lot of lenses to screw onto it. It is a beautiful camera.



I sometimes feel the urge to get an 8x10 and shoot monochrome LF. Then I remember the smell of the darkroom which gets into your pores and can't be easily scrubbed off, as well as the expense, and the urge passes for a season.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2019)

SteveC said:


> By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).



New 5Ds and 5Ds R bodies can be had for around $1500 in the U.S. right now. They are 50MP.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 29, 2019)

JohnC said:


> Not too long ago there were still some EOS 1vs on the market as well.


That is what is so remarkable. Canon quit manufacturing those cameras in 2010 and it wasn't until last year that they were able to clear out their inventory. The market changed so fast that film cameras languished on store shelves and in warehouses for years and years. On the bright side: Canon has so many spare parts that they announced that service support would extend until 2025. Wow!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> New 5Ds and 5Ds R bodies can be had for around $1500 in the U.S. right now. They are 50MP.



OR I can wait a year or two--I should anyway--and get a proper mirrorless.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 30, 2019)

SteveC said:


> OR I can wait a year or two--I should anyway--and get a proper mirrorless.



In the meantime you have no FF camera with the advantages that offers.

Doesn't the 5Ds/5Ds R have Live View as well as an optical viewfinder?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 30, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> In the meantime you have no FF camera with the advantages that offers.
> 
> Doesn't the 5Ds/5Ds R have Live View as well as an optical viewfinder?



Note that the 5Ds(R) sensor doesn't have DPAF, so autofocus in liveview won't be as good as other recent Canons.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 30, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> In the meantime you have no FF camera with the advantages that offers.
> 
> Doesn't the 5Ds/5Ds R have Live View as well as an optical viewfinder?



Go back, read what I wrote. I'm simply not ready for a full frame.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 1, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Go back, read what I wrote. I'm simply not ready for a full frame.



I took your original statement to be saying that the reason you hadn't pulled the trigger on a FF body was because you were waiting for one with at least 50MP.



SteveC said:


> By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).


----------



## SteveC (Oct 1, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I took your original statement to be saying that the reason you hadn't pulled the trigger on a FF body was because you were waiting for one with at least 50MP.



Same paragraph, earlier:

"I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do."


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 2, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Same paragraph, earlier:
> 
> "I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do."



Again, the latter half of that comment could lead one to think that 50 MP is what you consider "higher res."


----------



## SteveC (Oct 2, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Again, the latter half of that comment could lead one to think that 50 MP is what you consider "higher res."



Fair enough. But I do want it in a mirrorless body. And waiting for such to exist fits my purposes, to wit: I don't think my photographic skills justify a full frame at this point. I *have* at least stopped buying non full-frame lenses (other than M series), to prepare for the move when it happens.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 2, 2019)

JohnC said:


> I have several rolls of velvia, provia, and a few black and white films in 120 and 35mm I need to use up right now in fact.



My first foray into film (since I was a youngster)....has been my recent ONDU pinhole camera I bought off kickstarter not long back.

I was enticed by being able to shoot medium format.....and for a very reasonable price. So, I've shot some 120Film....B&W from Kodak first (Tri-X 400), at 6x12 sizing.

I've not yet taken them to a local place I found that will develop them to negative for $5/roll.....but so far, I've had fun shooting and trying to figure out exposures, etc.

If I continue on this road, if I were to shoot MORE film, I'm only going to be doing it in formats that my DSLR won't do.....so, only medium format, mostly panos or maybe even large format.

I've been looking and seeing very reasonable 4x5 cameras, bellows the whole shmear in the $350 or so range, that with about $800 you can get a 120 adapter to shoot 6x17 on them, and I like the thought of shooting wide panos, with no stitching....so far I've seen:

Intrepid 4x5
and
Standard Camera , and this one is interesting as that they have an option to buy the plans for 3D printing it....looking into getting the other non-printable parts right now to see how feasible it is.


But yeah, film is interesting....but I"d really only do it to get into larger formats that you can't really do on modern digital cameras...at least on a semi-reasonable budget.....

ON the other hand, I just got the RRS set up for mult-row panos I hope to play with this weekend....for some reason, panos and really WIDE stuff is appealing to me over just regular shots.

Oh....ramble mode off.

C


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 3, 2019)

Gentlemen,

New here so a bit of background: using a camera for 70 years, switched to Canon some three years ago, a 70D. Currently take night HS football as the school sports photographer where the light is abysmal using the 5D4. That will change tomorrow.

Jjust got a M6 mark2 and at home tests reveal, to my old eyes, the ISO 12800 (which I have to use for the night games) noise is not greater than the 5d. So far, I really like the M6, light weight, can use any of my Canon glass, fast (it does actually burst at 14fps), and the EVF is, for me, a no sweat affair. Will shoot first game tomorrow and what will really help is the focus point lighting up when in focus. I tested this last night and it worked fine. If anyone is interested I will post a few images Sat.

Best Regards,

Jack Sciutti


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 3, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> New here so a bit of background: using a camera for 70 years, switched to Canon some three years ago, a 70D. Currently take night HS football as the school sports photographer where the light is abysmal using the 5D4. That will change tomorrow.
> 
> ...


Jack - what was your primary reason for switching to the M6 mk2?
Like you I am using a 5D mk4 to take sports pictures, often in very poor light. The lens I am using is a 100-400 F4.6-5.6L mk2
I do not have any focussing problems with this combination even when the light is very bad.
Frequently I allow the camera to go to ISO 32000 in order to achieve a fast enough shutter speed. Although the pictures are rather messy at this ISO it is better than missing the key moment in the game or lowering the shutter speed and ending up with blurry photos. Are you saying that the M6 mk2 is no better than a 5D mk4 in this respect so the main advantage to you is the smaller body size or do you think the results are better than anything you can achieve with the 5D mk4?


----------



## cayenne (Oct 3, 2019)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Jack - what was your primary reason for switching to the M6 mk2?
> Like you I am using a 5D mk4 to take sports pictures, often in very poor light. The lens I am using is a 100-400 F4.6-5.6L mk2
> I do not have any focussing problems with this combination even when the light is very bad.
> Frequently I allow the camera to go to ISO 32000 in order to achieve a fast enough shutter speed. Although the pictures are rather messy at this ISO it is better than missing the key moment in the game or lowering the shutter speed and ending up with blurry photos. Are you saying that the M6 mk2 is no better than a 5D mk4 in this respect so the main advantage to you is the smaller body size or do you think the results are better than anything you can achieve with the 5D mk4?




Might you consider buying some faster glass for poor lighting situations?

Just a thought....

HTH,

C


----------



## SteveC (Oct 3, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> New here so a bit of background: using a camera for 70 years, switched to Canon some three years ago, a 70D. Currently take night HS football as the school sports photographer where the light is abysmal using the 5D4. That will change tomorrow.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this...I'm definitely getting an M6 II as soon as I give up hope of there being an M5 II. (I've got EF->EF-M adapters on the way. I found them cheap enough I can just pick my favorite EF lenses and park adapters on them.)


----------



## Act444 (Oct 3, 2019)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Jack - what was your primary reason for switching to the M6 mk2?
> Like you I am using a 5D mk4 to take sports pictures, often in very poor light. The lens I am using is a 100-400 F4.6-5.6L mk2
> I do not have any focussing problems with this combination even when the light is very bad.



Yeah, I’ve used my 5D4 on some ice shows in the past and the lighting was so bad that even at 2.8 I needed 10,000 ISO to stop the action. Fortunately the shots are surprisingly usable at that setting (although nowhere near optimal).

I used to use a 7D for the same purpose and on that, 3200 ISO was the absolute ceiling. The “extra reach” at 200mm was nice, but high ISO performance (not just in terms of noise) trumps all now...


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 3, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> New here so a bit of background: using a camera for 70 years, switched to Canon some three years ago, a 70D. Currently take night HS football as the school sports photographer where the light is abysmal using the 5D4. That will change tomorrow.
> 
> ...



What apertures and Tv are you using that requires 12800? I've shot at some pretty dinky fields and never needed to go past ISO 5000 to get 1/800 at f/2.8.




ISO 3200, 1/800, f/2.8; 7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II cropped from before resized for web viewing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 3, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> New here so a bit of background: using a camera for 70 years, switched to Canon some three years ago, a 70D. Currently take night HS football as the school sports photographer where the light is abysmal using the 5D4. That will change tomorrow.
> 
> ...



I couldn't imagine working HS football sidelines with a viewfinder that is an external accessory sitting in the hot shoe.


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 4, 2019)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Jack - what was your primary reason for switching to the M6 mk2?
> Like you I am using a 5D mk4 to take sports pictures, often in very poor light. The lens I am using is a 100-400 F4.6-5.6L mk2
> I do not have any focussing problems with this combination even when the light is very bad.
> Frequently I allow the camera to go to ISO 32000 in order to achieve a fast enough shutter speed. Although the pictures are rather messy at this ISO it is better than missing the key moment in the game or lowering the shutter speed and ending up with blurry photos. Are you saying that the M6 mk2 is no better than a 5D mk4 in this respect so the main advantage to you is the smaller body size or do you think the results are better than anything you can achieve with the 5D mk4?


I wanted to try the lighted focus spot as on the 5d4 my old eyes can track a player just fine but the focus points (5) are hard to see. Also, the lighter weight appealed to me which means with the 70-200 2.8 I will use tonight the combination GC (center of gravity - I am an old pilot) will be forward so I'll use a mono-pod. My experience with the 5d has been that 12800 ISO is about as high as I would like to go and I do use auto ISO. I tried a test on a moving car with little ambient light Thursday and, indeed, I could see the lighted focus point (spot) just fine.
Tonight will be an interesting test, both for noise and how well I track a running back or safety. Will let you know tomorrow how well the little camera performs. naturally, the 5d is my backup.

Thanks for your reply and input.

Jack

Oh, I forgot - the 1.6 crop gives me a 2.8 320 2.8 so I will have additional reach.


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 4, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I couldn't imagine working HS football sidelines with a viewfinder that is an external accessory sitting in the hot shoe.


Michael, I agree so I will see how it goes. Testing thus far has been fine with the EVF and I may even try just the screen tonight at the game.
Jack


----------



## Durf (Oct 4, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Once in my twenties when I could finally afford a single-lens reflex, it was so cool. I could look through the actual lens. Almost 50 years later, I am not ready to give that up. And, yes, I have small cameras that give me a TV picture on the screen on the back. My DSLRs can do that, too, when I wish. Sometimes you want to see things in person, and sometimes you want to watch TV. My newest camera even has a popup EVF for when the light is too bright to see the screen on the back. The diopter setting is too fussy to get the view very sharp. I doubt I'll find it usable for manual focusing. Luckily on that small a lens, focus is not that critical. If one eye of the subject is in focus, the other eye will almost surely be in focus.


I'm waiting for, um, probably Sony to introduce a mirrorless camera that you can watch NetFlix in the EVF and have a keypad on the back screen to text with....the youngun's will eat that model up!!!!!


----------



## Kit. (Oct 4, 2019)

Durf said:


> I'm waiting for, um, probably Sony to introduce a mirrorless camera that you can watch NetFlix in the EVF and have a keypad on the back screen to text with....the youngun's will eat that model up!!!!!


Zeiss ZX1?


----------



## CanonOregon (Oct 4, 2019)

I can understand the feeling, more about not wanting to 'side grade' my lenses into 'R' mounts. I did a presentation at PMA more than 20 years ago about where camera phones would wind up being a 'go to camera' for the masses. I don't think may of the members in that group got what it would do to 'printing and processing' business, even more that digital cameras would do for the masses...but it happened. Kodak stuck their head in the sand, even thinking an LCD 'preview' screen on the back of APS film cameras would hold off digital for a while- nope, and where's Kodak today? Yes, in less than two years I'll bet EVF with match OVF- and with the advantages of metering and focus with a mirrorless design, they will take over. Plus, smaller bodies and shorter, lighter lenses. At my age I'll probably stick with my dSLRs but the future for sure is mirrorless. And it will be amazing, give it time.


----------



## jprusa (Oct 5, 2019)

Durf said:


> I'm waiting for, um, probably Sony to introduce a mirrorless camera that you can watch NetFlix in the EVF and have a keypad on the back screen to text with....the youngun's will eat that model up!!!!!


I tried the Sony shooting birds a couple of times , as I was watching this bird in the EVF I couldn't help but to remember my mother telling me don't sit so close to that TV. LOL


----------



## Mike27713 (Oct 5, 2019)

stevelee said:


> My G-series cameras are mirrorless. The G5X II even has a popup EVF. But I don't plan to replace my DSLRs with IL mirrorless cameras. I don't want to give up an OVF unless I'm using something that fits in my pocket.
> 
> Is there some reason you feel that the 5DS or SR don't meet your needs?


Mainly that it is out dated.


----------



## Mike27713 (Oct 5, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I've only been taking photos heavily for maybe 3-4 years, and it still took me MONTHS to adjust to an EVF. There was a long time where I just felt disconnected from what was going on in front of me when using the EOS R. Definitely just felt like watching TV vs actually seeing what was happening in front of me.
> 
> From my experience adjusting to an EVF is absolutely not something you can do just trying a camera out in a store or even renting it, even for a few weeks. You just have to take the plunge, and then stick with it until it feels right, even when you just want your flappy mirror back.
> 
> ...


Thanks for mentioning one of the problems I have with EVF's.


----------



## Mike27713 (Oct 5, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Hi Mike27713!
> 
> I can understand your argumentation and I partly feel the same, but ...
> 
> ...


Hate, is definitely the word. I will say never for as long as I possibly can. I have never had a problem with any of my OVF's, but sure have had problems with my TV's. Thanks for the response though.


----------



## Mike27713 (Oct 5, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Camera manufacturers respond to sales. The fact is that mirrorless sales income has increased while DSLR sales income has dropped to 55% of last year. If you want to be in business, you make what sells. Right now, we are in a period where the customer can influence which products will be made and sold, but the answer is pretty clear and unless it turns around, DSLR's will be gone sooner than I thought.
> 
> Each type of camera has its pros and cons, A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark. Phase Detect AF is fast, but accuracy is a problem that costs a lot of $$ to keep tuned up. DPAF is accurate at all focal lengths and apertures. Manual focus is still the most accurate, but slow.
> 
> ...


Pretty obvious that Mirrorless is up in sales. DSLR's have been around longer. You are kinda making my point about why manufacturers are pushing mirrorless. And the public (smart or not) is buying it. The TV is just another thing to break in the camera.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Thank you for this...I'm definitely getting an M6 II as soon as I give up hope of there being an M5 II. (I've got EF->EF-M adapters on the way. I found them cheap enough I can just pick my favorite EF lenses and park adapters on them.)


it appears that the RP crossing into a M5 mark whatever price territory fast enough now and is small enough to qualify for a travel friendly camera with an added benefit of great low light ability (ISO 1800 and higher). I must have an EVF and a hot shoe. so i guess it is shaping up as a plan: buy RP + some unique RF glass, sell one of my 5D IV. sell my 24-70/2.8, buy 28-70/2.0, shoot events with RP + 28-70/2.0 and second camera 5D IV + 70-200/2.8. use RP as a travel camera, portraiture, studio work where timing isn't an issue. use 5D IV for a faster action( whatever) with a longer glass. any thoughts?


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 5, 2019)

Durf said:


> I'm waiting for, um, probably Sony to introduce a mirrorless camera that you can watch NetFlix in the EVF and have a keypad on the back screen to text with....the youngun's will eat that model up!!!!!


oh, did you miss the Google Card Box?






Google Cardboard - Official VR Headset - Google Store


Experience virtual reality with a Google Cardboard headset, your smartphone, and thousands of apps, games, and videos.




store.google.com


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 5, 2019)

I'm enjoying my R, but it sure ain't for action photography. It's great for portraits, wonderful for landscape and macro, and seems like it will have a place at events. But no matter the settings, the EVF distracts once the subject is moving.

Regarding "hate." It's a perfectly good word to describe a feeling for a person, place, thing, or ideology. I'd hate, hate, hate to see "hate" banned from the English language, or lead to the shaming of those who use the word "hate." Let me say it again: I'd hate to see the word "hate" banned. And I'd hate to see mandatory lobotomies or chemical equivalents for those who feel the normal emotion of hatred.

In fact, I hate haters of free speech!

And sometimes I get drunk and pick up a lens I'm not really attracted to. Then I hate myself in the morning.

Thank you.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2019)

CanonOregon said:


> Yes, in less than two years I'll bet EVF with match OVF- and with the advantages of metering and focus with a mirrorless design, they will take over. Plus, smaller bodies and shorter, lighter lenses. At my age I'll probably stick with my dSLRs but the future for sure is mirrorless. And it will be amazing, give it time.



EVF's have been around since at least the mid1980's when I bought a Videocamcorder with one. That's been about 45 years, probably more. While they have improved and have switched to liquid crystal and maybe oled in some cases, there has not been a lot of improvement over the last few years, its been incremental. What makes you believe that a sudden miracle will happen to improve a mature technology so drastically?


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 5, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> I wanted to try the lighted focus spot as on the 5d4 my old eyes can track a player just fine but the focus points (5) are hard to see. Also, the lighter weight appealed to me which means with the 70-200 2.8 I will use tonight the combination GC (center of gravity - I am an old pilot) will be forward so I'll use a mono-pod. My experience with the 5d has been that 12800 ISO is about as high as I would like to go and I do use auto ISO. I tried a test on a moving car with little ambient light Thursday and, indeed, I could see the lighted focus point (spot) just fine.
> Tonight will be an interesting test, both for noise and how well I track a running back or safety. Will let you know tomorrow how well the little camera performs. naturally, the 5d is my backup.
> 
> Thanks for your reply and input.
> ...


Well, it appears


wsciutti said:


> Michael, I agree so I will see how it goes. Testing thus far has been fine with the EVF and I may even try just the screen tonight at the game.
> Jack


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 5, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Well, it appears


My bad folks. It appears, based on last night and a test I just ran, that at ISO 25600 there is no comparison between the M62 and the 5D4 as far as noise is concerned. All shots taken with 70-200 f2.8 at 2.8 reveal that the full frame sensor on the 5d far outshines the M6, the M6 being unusable. So, all night football games I shoot will be with the 5d, allowing it to go to 25600 as necessary. I will also try the 70-300, which I have not done, just lower the shutter speed a bit. have also found that 7.5 frames/sec is more than adequate.
Thanks for listening and responding.

J


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 6, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> My bad folks. It appears, based on last night and a test I just ran, that at ISO 25600 there is no comparison between the M62 and the 5D4 as far as noise is concerned. All shots taken with 70-200 f2.8 at 2.8 reveal that the full frame sensor on the 5d far outshines the M6, the M6 being unusable. So, all night football games I shoot will be with the 5d, allowing it to go to 25600 as necessary. I will also try the 70-300, which I have not done, just lower the shutter speed a bit. have also found that 7.5 frames/sec is more than adequate.
> Thanks for listening and responding.
> 
> J



I'm still trying to understand why you need to push to ISO 25600? What Tv and Av are you using?


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 6, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm still trying to understand why you need to push to ISO 25600? What Tv and Av are you using?


I'm was using M, 1/1000 shutter, f2.8, AI Servo/ High FPS. However, I was knocked on my ass by a ref (my bad) and the lens is broken. With the lighting and the fact that I will be using the 70-300 4.5 - 5.6 I'm just guessing that it will take 25600. Any different ideas appreciated. Perhaps a lower shutter speed?

Thank you.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> I was knocked on my ass by a ref (my bad) and the lens is broken.



Taking action photography to an extreme!


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Taking action photography to an extreme!


Yeah! Especially at 8 decades of age, I really did not expect to get up!!!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Yeah! Especially at 8 decades of age, I really did not expect to get up!!!



I hope you recover (if you haven't already)...and I hope you can replace that lens.

Hypothetically, would the M6II be an option, with that lens?


----------



## wsciutti (Oct 6, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I hope you recover (if you haven't already)...and I hope you can replace that lens.
> 
> Hypothetically, would the M6II be an option, with that lens?


Actually, I was using the M6II with the adapter when the collision occurred. The lens is insured and a claim filed.
The combo is forward heavy, so I was using a mono-pod. The image I posted was taken with this combo prior to the "Let's give it all" for the high school, LOL. I do think that the M6II ISO should not be above 12800 and preferably not above 6400. I was able to reduce the noise with some post, I use Photoscape X Prof.
Thank you for the thoughts.

EXIF: M6Mark2, 1/1000,ISO 12800/ 0EV/ 14FPS/ Canon 70-200 f2.8 non-stabilized/ image before the ref and I occupied the same space!


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2019)

wsciutti said:


> Actually, I was using the M6II with the adapter when the collision occurred. The lens is insured and a claim filed.
> The combo is forward heavy, so I was using a mono-pod. The image I posted was taken with this combo prior to the "Let's give it all" for the high school, LOL. I do think that the M6II ISO should not be above 12800 and preferably not above 6400. I was able to reduce the noise with some post, I use Photoscape X Prof.
> Thank you for the thoughts.
> 
> EXIF: M6Mark2, 1/1000,ISO 12800/ 0EV/ 14FPS/ Canon 70-200 f2.8 non-stabilized/ image before the ref and I occupied the same space!



I guess I'm very lucky in the places where I shoot. I typically shoot at ISO 3200, f/2.8, and about 1/800 to 1/1250 depending on the stadium. I might kick it up to ISO 5000 or ISO 6400 near the end zones, which tend to be a bit darker (with a shift to f/3.2 or 1/3 stop shorter Tv if needed to avoid going too far - I never use the "+1/3 stop" ISO settings due to the way Canon cameras handle the non "full stop" ISO settings). At those settings the white jerseys are right on the verge of blowing the highlights.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 7, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Might you consider buying some faster glass for poor lighting situations?
> 
> Just a thought....
> 
> ...


Buying a faster lens is something I have considered many times, but what makes me hesitate is the size, weight and cost of fast telephoto primes. My preferred lens is the Canon 400mm F2.8. The problem is that it costs £11,000 and weighs almost 3Kg. Also I would lose the flexibility of my 100-400 zoom.
In good light the 100-400 works very well and it is only in December and January that the results are not quite what I was hoping for.
The clubs that publish my work don't seem to notice the noise in my high ISO shots and in fact one club chairman said he thought it added to the atmosphere of the occasion.


----------



## Sporgon (May 4, 2021)

Ian_of_glos said:


> The clubs that publish my work don't seem to notice the noise in my high ISO shots and in fact one club chairman said he thought it added to the atmosphere of the occasion.


So they do notice it then.


----------



## No Longer Active (May 4, 2021)

I started my photographic career almost exactly 40 years ago, so I am a living fossil from the land of film, Canon A-1's and Nikon F3'. I moved to digital early in the first decade and have been working almost exclusively in that ever since. Back in 2000, when the Canon D30 ( a ground-breaking unit with the first APS-C CMOS sensor) was released, there was a debate about whether is was up to the quality of film. 

Micheal Whitman, a respected Canadian photographer, who started the Luminous Landscape website, did a fairly exhaustive comparison of the printed results of the camera against what he regarded as the best in 35mm film, scanning and printing. His results were a surprise to him. Here are links to his reports:
The original overview of the D30: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml
Comparison with Film: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
D30 Field Report: https://web.archive.org/web/2003060...scape.com/reviews/cameras/d60/d60-field.shtml

This flew in the face of many entrenched perceptions and I think the same is going on here. 

For a start, I would not, under any circumstances, say that one does not have a right to stick with the legacy DSLR technology - I have a menagerie of them that I still keep, use and enjoy them. They give me great results and I like handling them. I even got a D30 (with a massive 3.3MP) and have shot images with it that show it is STILL a capable camera - depending upon what one wants to shoot, and more importantly, what one wants to produce - this image was taken with that, hand-held in available light.
Old Pump House, Museum of Transport and Tech, Auckland, NZ D30, EF 17-40L @ 17mm, f/5.6, 1/8sec, ISO-400
View attachment 197419


My last DSLRs were the EOS 5DsR and 5DIV, plus the EOS 90D. IMHO they are all capable cameras. However, I have also invested in the new tech of the R6 - with its IBIS and AET it is a game-changer for the kind of wildlife shots I take. The EVF is fine for my purposes - I don't find it any more distracting than the flip-up of the mirror.

I think, however, that much as I support your right to use the DSLR technology and that it is still capable, the market has moved into mirrorless and the development and release of new gear is going to be almost exclusively focused on that area. With shrinking camera markets, I don't think that manufacturers will spread their development and production costs across multiple platforms. Of course they want to sell cameras and lenses: that's their business, after all. The performance of EVFs and other technologies will continue to improve as they have done so already with the R5 and R6 compared with the tepid efforts of the R and RF bodies.

I would certainly welcome an R5sR to replace the 5DsR, and a R7 as a replacement for the 7DII.


----------



## snappy604 (May 4, 2021)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I've only been taking photos heavily for maybe 3-4 years, and it still took me MONTHS to adjust to an EVF. There was a long time where I just felt disconnected from what was going on in front of me when using the EOS R. Definitely just felt like watching TV vs actually seeing what was happening in front of me.
> 
> From my experience adjusting to an EVF is absolutely not something you can do just trying a camera out in a store or even renting it, even for a few weeks. You just have to take the plunge, and then stick with it until it feels right, even when you just want your flappy mirror back.
> 
> ...


I checked the EVF on the R and it was not up to par for me.. I bought the R5 and the EVF on it is MILES ahead.. esp with eco mode turned off.

esp if you turn the image review off, i often forget it's EVF vs OVF. I can only imagine it getting better. 

I'm firmly in the camp it's a matter of time. There will be edge cases, but overall there is a reason for these moves. Canon resisted longer than most and has done a really good job now.

I've been hearing these arguments from when I first used an epson digital camera with a FLOPPY and 640x480 pixel images..

however, some people like driving and collecting cars from the 20s... there are some things that are cool about it, but doesn't mean they are better... but there is no denying there is a certain something about them.


----------



## snappy604 (May 4, 2021)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Canon is clearly still struggling to get their full frame mirrorless technology and processing power up to the point where there is zero lag or blackout/lag when taking photos in the EVF. However, not going to name names, but based on other manufacturers, we have already seen it's possible to do this.
> 
> I have no doubt Canon will get there, probably in the next year or two. And at that point, I really don't see any reason to continue to clutch onto an OVF as theoretically superior to an EVF. In fact then at that point the OVF becomes the inferior technology since you still have blackout in the viewfinder for that instant when the mirror flips up. And yes, I understand that at high fps bursts on the 1DX MkII, the DSLR viewfinder blackout is more of just a viewfinder dimming because the mirror is flipping up and down



struggling with blackouts? not seeing that on R5 and expect even better on R3. I did it with mechanical shutter for a continuous 80 or so pics with panning etc and saw very slightly darkening as the shutter activated and de-actived.. not there with the electronic shutter. You have to tweak the settings to optimize (turn off eco for example and stop image review) ... again it's quite a jump on R5 vs R and imagine M series.


----------



## snappy604 (May 4, 2021)

OneSnark said:


> The jump to mirrorless is NOTHING like the jump from film to digital. Film to digital FUNDAMENTALLY changed ones approach to photography.
> With digital, I went from shooting one or two images of a scene to 20 images. Changing ISO from shot to shot! That was all revolutionary.
> 
> Going to mirrorless. . . .meh. . . switching from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? Total gamechanger. NOT.
> ...


lol

going to the R5 and Electronic Shutter at 20 FPS it's another jump too.. trying to adjust process to just select a couple of good ones per burst and dump rest.


----------



## No Longer Active (May 4, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> lol
> 
> going to the R5 and Electronic Shutter at 20 FPS it's another jump too.. trying to adjust process to just select a couple of good ones per burst and dump rest.


I agree about the change from film to digital being more revolutionary than from DSLR to MILCs. 

However I do debate your two sweeping statements about improvements in IBIS and AET, and that one has to buy RF glass.
A lot depends on what one is shooting. For myself as a wildlife photographer, using long lenses both the IBIS and particularly animal eye tracking are a major step forward , especially as I shoot a lot on dense bush where getting a lock in dim light and many leaves and branches is a challenge.
I have shot with quite a bit of EF glass as well as RF unit. I have used EF 70-200 (2.8 and 4 units) 70-300, 100-400 native lenses, plus Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 units, all without issues: using Canon's EF adapter.


----------



## JohnC (May 5, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I started my photographic career almost exactly 40 years ago, so I am a living fossil from the land of film, Canon A-1's and Nikon F3'. I moved to digital early in the first decade and have been working almost exclusively in that ever since. Back in 2000, when the Canon D30 ( a ground-breaking unit with the first APS-C CMOS sensor) was released, there was a debate about whether is was up to the quality of film.
> 
> Micheal Whitman, a respected Canadian photographer, who started the Luminous Landscape website, did a fairly exhaustive comparison of the printed results of the camera against what he regarded as the best in 35mm film, scanning and printing. His results were a surprise to him. Here are links to his reports:
> The original overview of the D30: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml
> ...


I think you mean Michael Reichmann don’t you?


----------



## snappy604 (May 5, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I agree about the change from film to digital being more revolutionary than from DSLR to MILCs.
> 
> However I do debate your two sweeping statements about improvements in IBIS and AET, and that one has to buy RF glass.
> A lot depends on what one is shooting. For myself as a wildlife photographer, using long lenses both the IBIS and particularly animal eye tracking are a major step forward , especially as I shoot a lot on dense bush where getting a lock in dim light and many leaves and branches is a challenge.
> I have shot with quite a bit of EF glass as well as RF unit. I have used EF 70-200 (2.8 and 4 units) 70-300, 100-400 native lenses, plus Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 units, all without issues: using Canon's EF adapter.




er I don't think I said anything about IBIS? not sure what AET stands for .. I have no issues with the EF to RF adapter either, b ut again not sure it was part of my comment here?


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> struggling with blackouts? not seeing that on R5 and expect even better on R3. I did it with mechanical shutter for a continuous 80 or so pics with panning etc and saw very slightly darkening as the shutter activated and de-actived.. not there with the electronic shutter. You have to tweak the settings to optimize (turn off eco for example and stop image review) ... again it's quite a jump on R5 vs R and imagine M series.



The comment you were replying to is from September of 2019. When he wrote it there was no R5 or R6.

His complaints made a lot more sense back then.


----------



## snappy604 (May 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The comment you were replying to is from September of 2019. When he wrote it there was no R5 or R6.
> 
> His complaints made a lot more sense back then.


lol whoops on me then.  guess I should read the dates. thought it was a new discussion.


----------



## No Longer Active (May 5, 2021)

Tronhard said:


> I agree about the change from film to digital being more revolutionary than from DSLR to MILCs.
> 
> However I do debate your two sweeping statements about improvements in IBIS and AET, and that one has to buy RF glass.
> A lot depends on what one is shooting. For myself as a wildlife photographer, using long lenses both the IBIS and particularly animal eye tracking are a major step forward , especially as I shoot a lot on dense bush where getting a lock in dim light and many leaves and branches is a challenge.
> I have shot with quite a bit of EF glass as well as RF unit. I have used EF 70-200 (2.8 and 4 units) 70-300, 100-400 native lenses, plus Sigma 150-600 and 60-600 units, all without issues: using Canon's EF adapter.


Ops! Slibrain fart yes!!!


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The comment you were replying to is from September of 2019. When he wrote it there was no R5 or R6.
> 
> His complaints made a lot more sense back then.



Yeah, got to watch the OP dates lately. Lot of necros (which is fine, if you keep in mind the time passed).


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Yeah, got to watch the OP dates lately. Lot of necros (which is fine, if you keep in mind the time passed).



A LOT changed when the R5/R6 came out, and that wasn't all that long ago. Now many have forgotten what it was like beforehand. No worries!!


----------



## Bdbtoys (May 5, 2021)

SteveC said:


> A LOT changed when the R5/R6 came out, and that wasn't all that long ago. Now many have forgotten what it was like beforehand. No worries!!


I was agreeing with you. I was trying to expand on what you were saying for the others.


----------



## SteveC (May 5, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> I was agreeing with you. I was trying to expand on what you were saying for the others.


Huh, what the heck. I thought I was replying to Snappy!

I guess between the time I saw his comment and the time I decided to go back and respond to it, more people had posted and I wasn't careful looking when I hit reply on the bottom post. (What an irony, since I'd pointed out something he failed to notice!)

Sorry about that!!


----------



## Ruined (May 11, 2021)

Mike27713 said:


> OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.


I feel the same way. No plans to buy mirrorless. Will stick with 5d4/5dsr/6d/7d2


----------



## Del Paso (May 11, 2021)

I'm still struggling.
Basically, I certainly prefer DSLRs, yet also own an EOS R.
But: I own lots of great (Leica R) vintage lenses, and focusing them with a DSLR is sometimes impossible, MFA simply won't work with them.
But: All new lenses will be for mirrorless.
Therefore, whenever I do not NEED the EOS R, I take the 5 DIV, but my next camera will be, Apo Macro Elmarit oblige, the EOS RsR...


----------



## Terry Danks (May 11, 2021)

Mike27713 said:


> OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.


" . . . people falling for it???"

Combative, and stupid! You're a genius and the rest of us are "falling for it?" 
See much the same thing with ANY advance in tech.
Some people just will not embrace and adapt change, quite regardless of how significant and advantageous it may be.
Feel "proud" of it all you want. Whatever makes you happy. Most of us see MILC as a great advance . . . and are moving on.


----------



## stevelee (May 11, 2021)

Use whatever works for you. You don’t need to spend thousands of dollars because what other people may think. If something new offers something you currently miss and you don’t mind parting with some money, go for it.


----------



## JohnC (May 11, 2021)

Interesting to me that this is even a discussion. Hate if you want? Thing is broadcasting it doesn’t further validate a belief or justify a position. I didn’t think I would, but I’m really enjoying mirrorless. It has breathed new (and different) life into my manual focus lenses. To each their own though.

I hate pine straw for mulch, so I don’t use it.


----------



## 10-8-244 (May 11, 2021)

JohnC said:


> Interesting to me that this is even a discussion. Hate if you want? Thing is broadcasting it doesn’t further validate a belief or justify a position. I didn’t think I would, but I’m really enjoying mirrorless. It has breathed new (and different) life into my manual focus lenses. To each their own though.
> 
> I hate pine straw for mulch, so I don’t use it.


I absolutely hate pine straw as well! My neighbor uses it around all his trees and all I want to do is trespass, rake it up and put it in my garbage can in the middle of the night. Unfortunately, I already told him I didn't like it so he would know it was me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 11, 2021)

I am all for people taking photos, what I am suspicious of is very complicated technology that removes the user from the process at great expense with modest improvements in end results.

Do you need an R5 and $2,000+ F2.8 zoom lenses for most of your images? Of course not! Does IBIS help in some shooting situations? Of course it does.

Personally, and I am a slow adopter traditionally, I see the pros and cons of both DSLR’s and MILC’s, I love the truly silent shutters with MILC’s and the actual view of what I am shooting with a DSLR. I hate the price and complexity, size and weight of most of the RF lenses but appreciate that my perfectly good EF lenses work seamlessly on R series bodies to this point.

It seems to me we are in a golden age of Canon cameras, we have a fully supported and extensively developed EF system and a new R system that brings new features that only each of us can decide for our personal use how valuable they are.

I don’t hate anything, but don’t see a need or requirement to fully transition to RF because, for my use, I haven’t seen noticeably ‘better’ images from the newer system.


----------



## JohnC (May 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I am all for people taking photos, what I am suspicious of is very complicated technology that removes the user from the process at great expense with modest improvements in end results.
> 
> Do you need an R5 and $2,000+ F2.8 zoom lenses for most of your images? Of course not! Does IBIS help in some shooting situations? Of course it does.
> 
> ...


I’m actually with you here. While I have two RF lenses and they perform well that are larger and heavier than I need, nor does most of my shooting require ibis.

For the most part I’m a landscape shooter. I don’t usually need lenses faster than f4 though many of mine are. My favorites are manual focus zeiss glass. 

My perfect camera would be 100mp (needed or not), normal size body with included gos and about 15stops of DR. The rest would be gravy (and is). 

That being said, I have a 5d4 that is more than capable of doing what I need. I now have an R5 that is a little more capable and that I actually enjoy using more. I dont NEED either one, but i like them both. I may end up like the R3 enough to get it although it is aimed at a style of shooting I don’t do. I most definitely will get a high no version when it comes out if anywhere near what is rumored. Technology is cool, and I enjoy using it and learning from it. 

You know where I stop though? Computational photography. I get it, but a part of doing this is the challenge of creating pleasing image. It isn’t the image but the journey of getting it.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 11, 2021)

JohnC said:


> My perfect camera would be 100mp (needed or not), normal size body with included gos and about 15stops of DR. The rest would be gravy (and is).


You should be using a FujiFilm GFX 100S


----------



## Jethro (May 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> It seems to me we are in a golden age of Canon cameras


That's true - the variety is remarkable (and with more to come - R7, R1, High MP R). The fact that the older FF (and APS-C) DSLRs (and M series) are still available during the full transition to mirrorless gives a choice of bodies and lens combinations that is probably once-in-a-lifetime.


----------



## JohnC (May 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> You should be using a FujiFilm GFX 100S


I tried Fuji...before the 100 but still. In fact the gfx100 tempted me greatly and still does in some respects. I liked it okay but never cared for the xtrans files. I know the 100 isn’t xtrans. I did download several raw files and play around with them. Very impressive. I may end up there yet but I will wait a bit. 

I’m beginning to look toward retirement


----------



## privatebydesign (May 12, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I tried Fuji...before the 100 but still. In fact the gfx100 tempted me greatly and still does in some respects. I liked it okay but never cared for the xtrans files. I know the 100 isn’t xtrans. I did download several raw files and play around with them. Very impressive. I may end up there yet but I will wait a bit.
> 
> I’m beginning to look toward retirement


The actual landscape images I have seen and played with out of the GFX100S are simply staggeringly good, the detail is one thing but the tonality and subtle color gradation is on a completely different level to 14 bit ff image files.

The fact that there are lens adapters to put EF lenses on the Fuji and my most used 'landscape' lenses are TS-E's that work particularly well on the adapter would certainly have me over the edge if I was predominantly landscapes. I liked the GFX 100, but that GFX 100S is an amazing tool. The one thing I don't like about it is the 4:3 native sensor ratio, I end up cropping most of my big print images to at least 3:2, and often more, so some of the benefit of the sensor size is lost, but that true 16 bit RAW capture is something to revel in....


----------



## cayenne (May 12, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I tried Fuji...before the 100 but still. In fact the gfx100 tempted me greatly and still does in some respects. I liked it okay but never cared for the xtrans files. I know the 100 isn’t xtrans. I did download several raw files and play around with them. Very impressive. I may end up there yet but I will wait a bit.
> 
> I’m beginning to look toward retirement



Trust me...get one, before you retire.
Get the GFX100S, the newer more compact model. It has pretty much everything the original GFX100 has except a bit less fidelity on the EVF and the EVF on the 100S isn't interchangeable.

But it is much more compact and easier to handle IMHO.


----------



## JohnC (May 12, 2021)

thank you gentlemen. I very well may do it, or rent one for a while. Fortunately when I retire I will actually have quite a bit more disposable income than I do now...so there are a lot of possibilities on the table.


----------



## bergstrom (May 12, 2021)

I don't hate mirrorless. I just hate the PRICE of mirrorless, hense why I haven't transferred over. Will wait for this affordable FF mirrorless canon is apparently working on.


----------



## stevelee (May 12, 2021)

I’m more of a mirrorless shooter than I tend to let on, not even counting my G5X II that I am currently not using since not traveling. When the 5D IV was selling under $2,000, I almost bought one as an impulse purchase. Then I thought about how much I use the flippy screen, and realized that I’d still wind up using my 6D2 a lot anyway. I got out of the upgrade mood, and the price went back up. I wouldn’t want to do without having the OVF, but I don’t have to use the mirror all the time.


----------



## cayenne (May 12, 2021)

As I'd mentioned in other threads, one of the really GREAT things I've found about mirrorless is.....being able to adapt pretty much ANY vintage lens that has been made in the past.

If you want clinical sharp, well, stick with modern lenses, but, if you want some very interesting character, interesting bokeh, etc...take a look at adapting vintage lenses.

It really is opening up new artistic vision for me. And even with my bad eyesight, the new focusing aids on the new mirrorless cameras helps me nail it quite well.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## Ozarker (May 12, 2021)

cayenne said:


> As I'd mentioned in other threads, one of the really GREAT things I've found about mirrorless is.....being able to adapt pretty much ANY vintage lens that has been made in the past.
> 
> If you want clinical sharp, well, stick with modern lenses, but, if you want some very interesting character, interesting bokeh, etc...take a look at adapting vintage lenses.
> 
> ...


On non-electronic vintage lenses, I still have trouble.  Focus peaking has helped me, but I still miss focus a lot. Still, I love my old M42 mount lenses.


----------



## SteveC (May 12, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> I don't hate mirrorless. I just hate the PRICE of mirrorless, hense why I haven't transferred over. Will wait for this affordable FF mirrorless canon is apparently working on.



The RP is cheap and already exists. I know it's not nearly as nice as an R5. What in particular is it missing that disqualifies it?


----------



## SteveC (May 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Personally, and I am a slow adopter traditionally, I see the pros and cons of both DSLR’s and MILC’s, I love the truly silent shutters with MILC’s and the actual view of what I am shooting with a DSLR. I hate the price and complexity, size and weight of most of the RF lenses but appreciate that my perfectly good EF lenses work seamlessly on R series bodies to this point.


I had the "luxury" of coming into photography recently enough that I had almost no sunk cost in DSLRs. So it didn't cost me anything to transition. I owned no full frame camera before I got the R5.

I still haven't learned to use it effectively on a technical level, but I am fine with that; it's room to grow without the gear limiting me. I was surprised, a few months ago, to discover the ways it aids manual focus in a situation where I _had_ to manual focus (I was taking pictures of the great conjunction). I do that infrequently enough that for all I know it's a feature on every camera, but it was a pleasant discovery nonetheless.


----------



## Sporgon (May 12, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The RP is cheap and already exists. I know it's not nearly as nice as an R5. What in particular is it missing that disqualifies it?


I know this question was aimed at the OP but I have considered the RP as a small, light travel camera, but.......
It doesn't stack up well to say the Nikon Z5 for instance which is only slightly more expensive but is pretty comprehensively spec'd; mag alloy body, modern sensor, though not BSI, (although it's debatable how much that really improved FF sensors), IBIS if you want it etc etc. 
Also for someone who wishes to manipulate the files you'd be diving back past 5DII vintage. At low ISO it is intrusively noisy without any NR applied, although at high ISO it responds really well to NR so can produce remarkably good results.
I have seen some beautiful images from the RP but it seems best not to bend the files much, if at all, then you'll be happy.


----------



## Sporgon (May 12, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don’t hate anything...


My EF 50/1.2 produces unique images with a distinctive 'look' .....


----------



## bergstrom (May 12, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The RP is cheap and already exists. I know it's not nearly as nice as an R5. What in particular is it missing that disqualifies it?



I've thought about it, but I'm going to hold out for thie new cheaper FF and see what brings.


----------



## cayenne (May 13, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> On non-electronic vintage lenses, I still have trouble.  Focus peaking has helped me, but I still miss focus a lot. Still, I love my old M42 mount lenses.


Just work with it a bit...you'll get there.
It took me awhile, and well, let's face it, we are trying to manual focus...you will miss some, especially if things are moving a bit.

But hey, they had to do it full manual not THAT many years ago, without focus aids and still they pulled it off, so...we can too with work and practice.

I find the pay off often is very much worth the effort, so, give it some practice and keep trying would be my best unsolicited advice.



C


----------



## JohnC (May 13, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Just work with it a bit...you'll get there.
> It took me awhile, and well, let's face it, we are trying to manual focus...you will miss some, especially if things are moving a bit.
> 
> But hey, they had to do it full manual not THAT many years ago, without focus aids and still they pulled it off, so...we can too with work and practice.
> ...


I agree completely, although to be fair to the current group of users, back then you had split prisms etc. that made focusing pretty equal to the electronic focus aides of today. It's frustrating that you can no longer change focusing screens on modern DSLRs


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree completely, although to be fair to the current group of users, back then you had split prisms etc. that made focusing pretty equal to the electronic focus aides of today. It's frustrating that you can no longer change focusing screens on modern DSLRs


I have a 6D with a Eg-S high precision screen . It is great when needing to manual focus fast lenses, but when using autofocus it doesn't offer too much advantage over a typical focusing screen. Yeah you can get a better idea of what wide open looks like on a fast lens, but experience will generally inform you what aperture to set anyway in a given situation. As I don't believe Canon has any manual EF lenses in production faster than f/2.8 they probably considered it a safe bet to eliminate the swapping feature. They don't want you to buy competitor manual only lenses anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I have a 6D with a Eg-S high precision screen . It is great when needing to manual focus, but when using autofocus it doesn't offer too much advantage over a typical focusing screen. Yeah you can get a better idea of what wide open looks like on a fast lens, but experience will generally inform you what aperture to set anyway in a given situation. As I don't believe Canon has any manual EF lenses faster than f/2.8 they probably considered it a safe bet to eliminate the swapping feature.


Would any focusing screen offer any advantage when in AF?


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Would any focusing screen offer any advantage when in AF?


Sure. The stock focusing screens minimum DOF displayed is in the ballpark of f/2.8. so if you use an f/1.2 lens and lock AF through the viewfinder you won't see the true DOF wide open on the stock screen, instead you will see more in focus than actually is. With high precision screen you will see closer to the real f/1.2 DOF, but the tradeoff is that it is significantly dimmer - which is why they use the brighter but less accurate screen in the first place.

So the advantage is the high precision screens are more WYSIWYG with fast lenses wide open once focus is attained (AF or otherwise). But that advantage is not a huge one with autofocus if you have experience knowing what to expect with the lens wide open in terms of DOF


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Would any focusing screen offer any advantage when in AF?


The AF module is independent and has no connection to the focusing screen.


----------



## Ozarker (May 24, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> The AF module is independent and has no connection to the focusing screen.


That's what I thought.


----------



## Ruined (May 24, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> The AF module is independent and has no connection to the focusing screen.


The AF module acquires focus.

The focus screen displays what is focused

The stock focusing screen is only accurate in the viewfinder to a minimum DOF of around f/2.8

The EG-S high precision screen on the other hand can display the thin DOF of lenses faster than f/2.8 in the viewfinder unlike the stock screen - at the expense of brightness.

Therefore, while the focus screen does not affect the AF acquiring targets, it does affect the accuracy of what you see in the viewfinder as being in focus - and it does not matter if that focus was attained via AF or manual. Thus, it is a big advantage for MF and a small advantage for AF with fast lenses. Because even if you acquired focus with AF, if using f/1.2 lens you will get a surprise when less is in focus than you thought with the actual picture vs what you saw in the viewfinder w/ stock screen.


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2021)

Ruined said:


> The AF module acquires focus.
> 
> The focus screen displays what is focused
> 
> ...


No. Being able to see the difference in the critical point of focus between say f/1.2 and f/1.8 is impossible with the naked eye when viewed on a small ground glass screen, let alone a cheap plastic one. To do this you’d have to magnify - just as we do now with EVF or live view to get critically accurate focus. Also adding translucent lcd and diopter adjustment that you are looking through all add to the loss of accuracy.


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> No. Being able to see the difference in the critical point of focus between say f/1.2 and f/1.8 is impossible with the naked eye when viewed on a small ground glass screen, let alone a cheap plastic one. To do this you’d have to magnify - just as we do now with EVF or live view to get critically accurate focus. Also adding translucent lcd and diopter adjustment that you are looking through all add to the loss of accuracy.


I didn't say "the critical point of focus." I said being able to see the difference of what is in focus in the slim DOF of a fast lens. In fact, that is why the Eg-S screen exists in the first place, and being able to more accurately determine the DOF of fast lenses is exactly how it makes manual focusing easier. But this advantage does not end at manual focus, because that aid also helps reveal what is in focus in the DOF from something you AF'd in a fast lens.


----------



## Sporgon (May 25, 2021)

Ruined said:


> I didn't say "the critical point of focus." I said being able to see the difference of what is in focus in the slim DOF of a fast lens. In fact, that is why the Eg-S screen exists in the first place, and being able to more accurately determine the DOF of fast lenses is exactly how it makes manual focusing easier. But this advantage does not end at manual focus, because that aid also helps reveal what is in focus in the DOF from something you AF'd in a fast lens.


Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but from my experience with the Eg-S screens I disagree. As I always used relatively fast lenses, or I suppose more correctly don't use slow lenses, in my days of using the original 5D and then 5DII and 6D I always had the Eg-S screens fitted as there wasn't the downside of having a darker than usual viewfinder with f/4 and slower lenses. As you say, seeing more of a true rendering of the actual dof was beneficial, but in terms of assessing whether the AF had hit the mark with a f/1.2 or f/2 lens it doesn't help one jot. The margin of error is just too small to see in this way. So for assistance in manual focusing fast lenses, and seeing a truer representation of the real dof, yes the Eg-S screens are great, but in terms of helping the photographer see if the AF has hit the mark 100% with a fast lens, not so much. 

I'm guessing that after Canon introduced the 5DIII with its much more sophisticated AF system, they thought there wasn't much call for manually focusing as an override. One of the decisions I find strange though is that while the 7D didn't have an interchangeable screen the 7DII did. I wouldn't have thought that this was a camera that people would be clamouring to change the screens.


----------



## Ruined (May 25, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Yes I appreciate what you are saying, but from my experience with the Eg-S screens I disagree. As I always used relatively fast lenses, or I suppose more correctly don't use slow lenses, in my days of using the original 5D and then 5DII and 6D I always had the Eg-S screens fitted as there wasn't the downside of having a darker than usual viewfinder with f/4 and slower lenses. As you say, seeing more of a true rendering of the actual dof was beneficial, but in terms of assessing whether the AF had hit the mark with a f/1.2 or f/2 lens it doesn't help one jot. The margin of error is just too small to see in this way. So for assistance in manual focusing fast lenses, and seeing a truer representation of the real dof, yes the Eg-S screens are great, but in terms of helping the photographer see if the AF has hit the mark 100% with a fast lens, not so much.
> 
> I'm guessing that after Canon introduced the 5DIII with its much more sophisticated AF system, they thought there wasn't much call for manually focusing as an override.


I basically agree with you, if you note way above I originally stated that the Eg-S screen isn't so useful for AF and that is likely why they stopped offering the interchangeable screens. But in select cases it does have *some* small advantage in that you get more of a WYSIWYG experience with DOF on fast lenses (both MF&AF), not so much if you definitely nailed focus but a better idea of how slim the DOF is. And that is what I was trying to communicate to the poster who asked if it had *any* advantages over a stock screen.

i believe the fastest MF-only lens in the Canon lineup is f/2.8 so they probably felt the disadvantages outweighed the advantages


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

SteveC said:


> The RP is cheap and already exists. I know it's not nearly as nice as an R5. What in particular is it missing that disqualifies it?



For me it is lenses in the same price bracket!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree completely, although to be fair to the current group of users, back then you had split prisms etc. that made focusing pretty equal to the electronic focus aides of today. It's frustrating that you can no longer change focusing screens on modern DSLRs



We also had much longer throws of the focus ring for the same amount of focus movement that made fine focusing movements easier. I probably had better fine motor skills back then, too. and I KNOW I had better closeup vision to see the rear LCD with than even half a decade ago. Now, if I even _breath_ while touching the focusing ring of modern AF lenses I'll totally lose precise focus for astro work.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 11, 2021)

JohnC said:


> I agree completely, although to be fair to the current group of users, back then you had split prisms etc. that made focusing pretty equal to the electronic focus aides of today. It's frustrating that you can no longer change focusing screens on modern DSLRs


Even though I agree on the subject of interchangeability of focusing screens, I never understood how one could achieve a precise focus with microprisms or split prisms. They were pretty useless (for me !) since darkening with tele or macro lenses, also with less luminous ones. But a full-matte screen was my choice.I even went so far as to replace myself the microprism screen on my Leicaflexes, which meant removing the top-cover, the prism etc... Much easier on the R4, 5, 6 and 7...
I also replaced the screen on the 5D III, but replaced it afterwards with the original one since wasn't convinced of any advantage.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 11, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> Even though I agree on the subject of interchangeability of focusing screens, I never understood how one could achieve a precise focus with microprisms or split prisms. They were pretty useless (for me !) since darkening with tele or macro lenses, also with less luminous ones. But a full-matte screen was my choice.I even went so far as to replace myself the microprism screen on my Leicaflexes, which meant removing the top-cover, the prism etc... Much easier on the R4, 5, 6 and 7...
> I also replaced the screen on the 5D III, but replaced it afterwards with the original one since wasn't convinced of any advantage.


It really depends on light levels and the brightness of the lens, As a wedding photographer using a pair of 5DmkII's (back in the day) with the fine focus screen was a blessing. I could actually see my 85mm f1.2 focus very precisely. I could also focus the lens and recompose while checking the point of focus was spot on. The default / stock "brighter" view finder is Depth of Field limited to f4 with the optical view finder. For a 70-200 f2.8 that's not too much of a stretch....however My typical pairing was a 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2 and the stock view finder was pretty hopeless. Thankfully on the 5DmkIII, the single point AF is very accurate. It was a bit of a skills transition to trust that the 5DmkIII's AF nailed the point of focus with out the visual check. Sometimes, I would use the live view focus...just to make sure. 

I think the transition to Mirrorless cameras is going to be a slow process. The technology is getting better and better with each generation and this path sort of started with the introduction of live view, way back. Mirrorless has to be able to offer clear and distinct advantages over the DSLR and it's optical view finder. Power usage is a serious concern. Mirrorless cameras use a lot more power and are more power reliant. Canon have also been holding back innovation and tech on their DSLR range for some time...waiting for their drop on the RF bodies. Focussing down to -8 ev is a massive boon for some photographers. Seeing what you get in the view finder is another. However the View finder flicker, delay and heavy viewfinder contrast can be off putting. Low light EVF noise is an issue too. I didn't like the Eos R's handling or user interface, it felt too much like a digi cam and I didn't feel like I was fully in control of the camera. I think the EF to EF converter that allows a filter to existing legacy unfilterable wide lenses is a massive benefit. There's the cost too, a pair of R5's are eye wateringly expensive and the R3 is just rich boys play thing. I can't image that it will be popular with the working class pro photographer who has to actually fund their own gear. The RF lenses look amazing, but their pricing is just nuts. The lens portfolio seems swollen with stunt / bragging head line lenses, I'm sure the 28-70mm f2 is an amazing optic, but it's huge, heavy and very expensive. It also doesn't deliver quite enough to fully replace a pair of fast primes. 

When I look at the benefits of a pair of 5D mk 4's offer and a bag of excellent lenses...the cost of ownership is a major consideration. Sure it's nice to play with the latest state of the art gear, but to provide a regular photography income in a post covid market...the gear I have is still king.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 11, 2021)

The ironic thing is...I'm finding with mirrorless, I'm actually shooting older fully manual lenses MORE and more.....

I'm spending less on new glass for the most part, and more on adapters and fun vintage lenses.


----------



## JohnC (Jun 11, 2021)

cayenne said:


> The ironic thing is...I'm finding with mirrorless, I'm actually shooting older fully manual lenses MORE and more.....
> 
> I'm spending less on new glass for the most part, and more on adapters and fun vintage lenses.


Exactly!


----------



## Ruined (Jun 12, 2021)

GMCPhotographics said:


> When I look at the benefits of a pair of 5D mk 4's offer and a bag of excellent lenses...the cost of ownership is a major consideration. Sure it's nice to play with the latest state of the art gear, but to provide a regular photography income in a post covid market...the gear I have is still king.


I still can't believe I just snagged a pair of brand new, fully canon USA warranty-covered 5DsR cameras for $3000. A couple of years ago it would be a clip more than that for one! IMO you can do a lot more with a 5DsR on each hip than a single R5


----------



## chik0240 (Jun 12, 2021)

cayenne said:


> The ironic thing is...I'm finding with mirrorless, I'm actually shooting older fully manual lenses MORE and more.....
> 
> I'm spending less on new glass for the most part, and more on adapters and fun vintage lenses.


Can be when you will be able to nail focus with zoomed in EVF, but somehow I still feels odd when using mirrorless, as the colour tonality changed too much from actual scene for once a while when I selected say landscape profile, and up till now with the Sony A9 and R5 I can still basically see a flashing screen with the barely discernable pixels which takes away that mechanical feel


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 12, 2021)

cayenne said:


> The ironic thing is...I'm finding with mirrorless, I'm actually shooting older fully manual lenses MORE and more.....
> 
> I'm spending less on new glass for the most part, and more on adapters and fun vintage lenses.


That's exactly what I bought my EOS R for, being able to consistently focus Leica R lenses, otherwise, I by far prefer using the 5D IV.
What I particularly dislike about the R is the EVF in high contrast situations, like forests in spring. The viewfinder picture you get is totally unnatural, too contrasty, even manual focusing becomes uneasy. I still am hoping for a radical improvement of the EVF, Sony's A1 and Leica SL 2 have become "quite" convincing. Maybe the R3's EVF will be the one?


----------



## cayenne (Jun 14, 2021)

chik0240 said:


> Can be when you will be able to nail focus with zoomed in EVF, but somehow I still feels odd when using mirrorless, as the colour tonality changed too much from actual scene for once a while when I selected say landscape profile, and up till now with the Sony A9 and R5 I can still basically see a flashing screen with the barely discernable pixels which takes away that mechanical feel


Interesting....

I guess I never really look at the colors or tonality, etc in the viewfinder...I look there purely for focus and composition.

I figure if a color is off, etc...I'll tweak that in post, but when looking through the viewfinder is it pretty much purely composition for me.

I've visualized the color (or monochrome) and tonalities before I raise the camera to my eye....

cayenne


----------



## stevelee (Jun 14, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Interesting....
> 
> I guess I never really look at the colors or tonality, etc in the viewfinder...I look there purely for focus and composition.
> 
> ...


I normally have visualized the tonality I want the final picture to have before I decide to take the picture in the first place. I always shoot Raw so that the color setting is mostly irrelevant. Sometimes at twilight I will set the white balance to daylight so that the software doesn't try to make the scene look like high noon when I first open it in ACR. And then I tweak things to approximate how I remember the scene looking. Of course I am seeing things in person and through the OVF.


----------



## chik0240 (Jun 15, 2021)

cayenne said:


> Interesting....
> 
> I guess I never really look at the colors or tonality, etc in the viewfinder...I look there purely for focus and composition.
> 
> ...


Maybe, it can just be my habit to look at the scene and try to capture before I compose. In some situations I did used a Sony A7RII, but the EVF always feels a bit flashy and reminds me I am looking at a screen or so and feels kind of disconnected from what I want to take a shot on, or maybe it's just me being old and loved that feel of seeing what is actually there and do all those processing in the brain as part of the enjoyment


----------

