# Why You Should Stick with Your Canon DSLR and Forget Sony FF Mirrorless



## Sator (Mar 31, 2016)

A lot of Canon users are being tempted to shoot with a Sony FF mirrorless due to the ability to adapt Canon lenses, and lured by the thought that the grass might be greener on the Sony mirrorless side of the fence. It isn't. Before you accuse me of being a Sony hater, I should also say I have cross posted much of this on the Sony Alpha Forum and the A mount crowd are applauding.

There is a big fad for Sony FF mirrorless at the moment, and it is like watching lemmings following each other over the cliff. I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony FF mirrorless owner because I too was suckered into following the mindless herd over the cliff. It was a big mistake. How could I have been so foolish?

This is a controversial claim, so let's go through the reasons for this bold statement. The simple question hanging over the full frame Sony FE mount system is this: what is the point of professional grade full frame mirrorless?

The first answer you will hear to this question is that full frame mirrorless is more compact. For example Maki Kimio of Sony stated in an interview:



> AP: Can you summarise the benefit of choosing an Alpha 7-series camera over a DSLR in a single sentence?
> 
> KM: Size. It’s all about size – it’s smaller and lighter. That’s the main reason of choosing our products.


 
Let's examine this allegation. I direct readers to camerasize.com where this comparison comes from:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.515,596.286,377.56,ha,t





It shows the Sony a7RII, Canon 5Ds, and Sony a99 with a native 24-70mm f/2.8 lens mounted. As you can see, the total lengths are the same. Sony has failed to overcome the laws of physics. If you take something from the camera body, you have to give it back to the lens, and by the same amount. So you have a choice: either buy one big body and lots of small lenses, or one small body and lots of big lenses. The former is economical and the latter is more expensive. The more lenses you carry on you, the worse the size disadvantage for mirrorless becomes.

In many cases, Sony FF mirrorless works out bigger:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.516,377.63,ha,t





This shows the a7RII with the new 85mm f/1.4 GM lens vs the a99 with the Sony-Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 lens. This time, FF mirrorless works out BIGGER than the rival DSLT model. The same thing happens when you compare it with a Canon DSLR:





Here the a7RII with the 85mm f/1.4 lens is bigger than the Canon 5DsR with the 85mm f/1.2 lens, despite the latter being half a stop faster. 

The only time mirrorless works out more compact is when shooting with pancake lenses:





Here, the a7RII and a99 are shown with a 20mm f/2.0 lens. This was probably the original design intention of full frame mirrorless, but it became so irrationally popular that Sony started to develop more professional lenses for the system. 

Sony and Zeiss seem to be peddling the revelation of the obvious that slow lenses make for more compactness as though this were some spectacular technological innovation. It seems that f/1.8 is the default maximum diameter for nearly all FE mount FF primes, with only a couple of exceptions. The absurdity is that the 85mm f/1.8 Zeiss Batis gives you the same shallow depth of field as the APS-C Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2. What is the point of shooting full frame if you can't get more subject isolation than you can from APS-C? The only reason to limit aperture to f/1.8 is to make the lens more compact. But look at this:





Shown are the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 85mm f/1.8 Batis, the Nikon D810 with the 85mm f/1.8, and the Fuji X-Pro2 with the 56mm f/1.2 lens. In terms of compactness, the APS-C Fuji is streets ahead. At maximum aperture all of these set-ups give you the same shallow depth of field. 

If compactness really was your priority, you would be better off choosing the Fuji with the 56mm f/1.2, which also allows you to shoot faster in low light. The Sony makes up for the slowness of the lens with IBIS, but this won't help you stop action in low light. It makes no sense to limit the aperture speed on FF lenses merely for the sake of making a system more compact. 

Even with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, there is questionable size benefit from shooting with a mirrorless:





Here the a7RII is shown with the new 50mm f/1.8 and the 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. If you carry multiple focal lengths around with you at once, then professional full frame mirrorless has a marked size disadvantage. Want a more compact professional camera system?—buy a DSLR!

Now that the realisation has slowly begun to sink in that once the lens size in taken into account size advantage is largely lost, there is talk from increasingly desperate people now begging for a "24-70mm f/2.0 FE mount lens that is more compact (sic) than the f/4.0 version". But the public have deluded themselves into thinking that Sony and Zeiss can collaborate to rewrite the laws of physics.

The next answer you will hear is that a FF mirrorless is still lighter and the width of the body might be a bit smaller. However, that is only because Sony put such a miniscule battery in their FF mirrorless bodies that you end up having to carry multiple batteries that negate any size advantage. You could make DLSR batteries smaller too, and they would still have better battery life than a mirrorless. The larger bodies found of DSLRs is more to improve ergonomics and could be made smaller if there were demand for this. 

So once again we find ourselves back to the original question. Other than as an enthusiast's compact walkabout system for shooting with a single pancake lens: what is the point of professional full frame mirrorless? It certainly isn't certainly isn't because it is more compact used with professional grade lenses. 

The next answer you will hear is that full frame mirrorless is better because of IBIS. That's like saying that Sony mirrorless is better because of the steak knives that they throw in. IBIS is hardly any more a unique technical feature inherent to the design of mirrorless cameras than either wifi or steak knives. Pentax have just incorporated IBIS into their K-1 DSLR, and Sony could have put IBIS into their A mount DSLT system. So IBIS gives full frame mirrorless no inherent technical advantage over other systems, but people are suckered in by the offer of steak knives.

But Houston, we have a problem. There is also a major flaw with Sony E mount IBIS. The Sigma CEO has been quoted as expressing serious concern for the narrowness of the E mount diameter: "...the diameter is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

We know that a narrow mount diameter is a big no-no with IBIS:



> TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. It means the amount of light at the corners is reduced when the sensor is shifted. We could correct it digitally, but we don’t want to do it: we don’t want to compromise our image quality.
> 
> TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?
> 
> ...



If you want IBIS, you have to design the mount in advance with a wider diameter, so that it doesn't compromise corner IQ as the sensor moves around. What you don't do is take an APS-C mount (NEX mount), turn it into a full frame mount, then forcibly retrofit IBIS onto a mount never designed to take it in the first place. 

Furthermore, Zeiss has admitted that the short flange distance of FE mount makes it technically challenging to design wide angle lenses: “The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses.” At short focal lengths, the light hits the corners at a steep angle, which is exacerbated by IBIS. It isn't without reason that Sony has yet to come up with any wide angle zoom lenses for the FE mount. They don't even have a 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom, one of the so-called zoom trinity of bread-and-butter professional lenses. We may never see anything like the Canon 11-24mm f/4 rectilinear lens for E mount, and it would hardly be predicted to perform well if it did appear. It is a euphemism to call the FE mount "technically challenged". The more honest expression may well be "technically flawed", or just plain retarded.

It is interesting to compare the relative diameters of various mounts:

Minolta/Sony A mount: 49.7mm
Sony E mount: 46.1mm
Fuji X mount: 44mm
Canon EOS EF mount: 54mm
Pentax K mount: 44mm 

From this you can that see Sony were better off putting IBIS into their A mount, which has a wider diameter, because it is more of a dedicated full frame mount, not an APS-C mount. Canon is in a better position to add IBIS to the EOS mount because it is so wide, and if sensor resolution goes up to 120MP we will probably need it to reduce the impact of handshake. You can also see that both Sony and Pentax are adding IBIS to excessively narrow mounts purely as a marketing ploy, with flagrant disregard towards optical fundamentals. It represents the victory of advertising over engineering. For the credulous it represents Sony's triumph over the laws of physics. 

In any case, neither throwing in IBIS nor steak knives fails to convince us that mirrorless is an inherently better camera design. With that we return to the question: what is the point of professional FF mirrorless?

The next answer you get is that the main advantage of Sony mirrorless is that you can use non-native lenses with adapters. Asked about adapting Canon lenses Kimio Maki of Sony said this:



> Do you anticipate that someone who has a collection of long telephoto Canon lenses could potentially use them to shoot sports with the a7R II?
> 
> KM: I hope that our native lenses are better! But it will happen. I see people using Sony a7-series bodies and third-party lenses all the time ... because they already own the lenses. It works, but our native lenses are much better...



Adapters are grossly impractical to use. I have a lot of adapters for my a7II, and have accidentally taken the wrong one with me or have forgotten to pack one altogether. It's also an extra pair of lens caps to lose. Saying you chose FF mirrorless because of the size advantage so you can shoot with an adapted Canon lens is like saying that you're going on a holiday to Hawaii so you can enjoy skiing on powder snow. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Adapters are also fiddly, bulky, and they decisively kill whatever marginal advantage in compactness the body might allegedly once have had. Unfortunately, the body-adapter-lens combination ends up looking like some ungainly Dr. Seuss contraption:



​ 
Worse still, my Sony A to E mount adapter reduces light transmission by about a 1/2 stop, and you lose far too much of the native autofocus functionality, which gets immeasurably worse with Canon lenses. It is always far better to use native lenses—hence why Sony actually make native E mount lenses!!! As Maki rightly says "native lenses are much better". It's a grand statement of the obvious that no fanboys wants to hear. Nobody raves on and on about the fact that you can adapt some vintage MF lenses to Canon bodies then add focus peaking to the body with Magic Latern. Micro-misalignment between lens-adapter-body causes degradation of IQ in the corners particularly at shorter focal lengths (where due to the short flange distances and narrow mount diameter the E mount is "technically challenged" already because it was originally an APS-C mount). Being able to adapt vintage MF lenses might be cute and will have its niche, but for the vast majority of photographers, the last reason to choose mirrorless is as a vintage retro lens revivalist contraption. At the end of the day, when I pick my set of lenses for a shoot, I just find myself systematically avoiding the use of adapted lenses. I would gladly toss all of my adapters in the bin just to shoot with native lenses. 

The next answer we get is that mirrorless is inherently superior because of live exposure preview. That means you get to preview the exposure in real time through the EVF before taking the picture. This is something that is not the default modus operandi on a DSLR, but a new hybrid viewfinder patent from Canon suggests exposure preview is soon coming to DSLRs. However, the Sony A mount cameras are DSLTs (Digital Single Lens Translucent), which already have an excellent EVF for live exposure preview. So once again it just isn’t true to say that live exposure preview through an EVF is the one extraordinary feature that elevates mirrorless to the status of being an inherently superior design over other alternatives.

So we find ourselves returning to the original question: what is the point of full frame mirrorless? When it comes to full frame professional grade mirrorless, the answer is that there is no point. People are buying into it because it is an irrational fad. You end up having to buy lots of big and expensive lenses for the one tiny body, when it is preferable to have lots of smaller lenses for the one big body, since the total lens-body combination is the same anyway due to physics. In actual fact the lens-body combination makes professional full frame mirrorless multi-lens packages larger overall. The only time you get more compactness is when you shoot with just one short focal length pancake or quasi-pancake lens for use as a walkabout camera. 

The fad for a7 series full frame mirrorless cameras is driven by irrational exuberance, and Sony are merely responding to market demand-supply forces, even though they know themselves that they were better off developing their A mount system, based as it is on superior optical design fundamentals. Their autofocus system, IBIS, and the 42MP BSI sensor would have reached their full potential on the dedicated professional full frame A mount system, and are being wasted on the FE mount mirrorless system. 

Mirrorless FF cameras are going through the usual cycle that goes with all novel technology. First some enthusiasts delirious with euphoria proclaim it to be the road to Elysian Fields and declare the DSLR dead. Next people find the Revolution to End All Revolutions brings its own set of problems, and it isn't the magical path to El Dorado it promised. Finally, people arrive at the more sober realisation that like rangefinders, it has its niche, along with its own peculiar set of pros and cons.


----------



## monkey44 (Mar 31, 2016)

Nice post -- 

I've shot with Canon for my entire professional life - WHY? Because Canon lenses and Canon cameras fit, react, and work for everything I need. In many cases the difference becomes minuscule between cameras and lenses when you compare brands. A little better in one area is offset in another.

And for the most part, unless you have the most technical eye in the world, you can't tell the difference between a photo created from an image shot with one camera or another, and most people cannot tell the difference, nor can anyone but a top tech (maybe?) even tell which camera shot it once it's printed...

Maybe some go to mirror-less for reasons other than quality of end product - but for me, I like continuity in my gear ... once I learned how to use it (going from film-slide to digital was a bit of a struggle at first) then any changes to my work-flow better be huge (Like the cost factor in digital vs. film) before I make any drastic change. Overcoming the expense alone becomes a burden - 

Count me in for DSLR until something comes along that knocks me off my feet - maybe then, I'll switch, but the mirror-less factor alone ain't gonna do it ... nor will a competing brand simply because it can adapt to Canon lenses - Canon lenses work just fine with Canon cameras without all the hassle and worry of fit or breakage.


----------



## wtlloyd (Mar 31, 2016)

Bravo, Sir!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 31, 2016)

Thanks for posting, but --- do you actually expect anyone to read thru your badly overlong rant?

Please don't take this harshly, but it does get boring to have the same thing posted over and over.

Its been posted here 100's of times here about the fallacy of size and weight. I do not use a mirrorless because of three things.

1. EVF Viewfinders are not there yet.

2. Camera buttons and grip too small for my hands

3. Battery life is very short.

I like the idea of eliminating the mirror from a engineering standpoint, its just another thing to fail. However, I do not like EVF or small buttons.

If a small camera is wanted, a small sensor will allow for a smaller lens and smaller overall size and weight. The 1 inch sensor size is becoming the new compact camera standard, and is ideal for those who want or need small.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 31, 2016)

nice article.... Too many fixate on components and forget about systems....


----------



## Aglet (Mar 31, 2016)

Uhmmm... So you're regretting buying an A7-something?.. ???

You could try some new G(?)-series glass on it for amazing IQ. Otherwise, it's a near DSLR-sized rig with poor battery life and very good raw files. I don't think the size of ML systems has ever been that big a draw vs SLRs and that's something easy to recognize going into it. If you're buying MILC, you're doing so for it's unique features and advantages and overall compromise; they don't smoke the competition in all facets of usability.

I LOVE my ML systems! Olympus & Fuji provide me with really great results and are quick and fun to use and save me post time because of the WYSIWYG EVF displays. And the EVFs are more than adequate for most uses on these systems and, to me, often preferable to optical VFs. Their overall system IQ is comparable to my best DSLRs. Oly's ergonomics and controls are great too, IMO; Fuji's not so much.

Trade-offs. If you have ML and DSLR systems you should readily be able to appreciate the advantages each one offers and use them appropriately and that's where the satisfaction comes in.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 31, 2016)

Excuse me while I go slap my mirror.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 31, 2016)

Wooooords... :-X

Focusing on the pictures though: it's the first time I've really had a look at the newer/mk2 A7 bodies and, looking at the wee theta marker thingy, I'm wondering why the frick Sony are putting the sensors so far away from the back of the camera bodies, leaving the mount poking out like that with dead space all around it... they've drawn up so many piles of blueprints and patents that I think they've lost track of the original post-it with "the point of it all" scrawled across the top.

That was fair amount if words too, wasn't it? Nevermiiind...


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 31, 2016)

Sator said:


> Finally, people arrive at the more sober realisation that like rangefinders, it has its niche, along with its own peculiar set of pros and cons.



I think you've reached the right conclusions. I have reached many of the same conclusions, having bought, used and then sold a Sony A7 series. I am sticking with Canon and don't intend to buy another Sony (for a bunch of reasons).

However, I think your title may go a bit too far. If we accept your conclusion that FF mirrorless has its pros and cons (I fully agree), it doesn't follow that the general "you" should stick with Canon and "forget" Sony FF mirrorless. For some people, Sony's pros will genuinely outweigh Sony's cons (though not for me).


----------



## Khufu (Mar 31, 2016)

I love the idea of something like an RX1 (mk I or II, with OVF) ...but the price is ref**kulous. Throw together something with last season's FF sensor/processing tech in a worthwhile-small package with a decent consumer grade 24~50mm prime lens and I'll throw (less-than-RX1-RRP) cash at you!


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2016)

Man that's the longest post I've seen this year. Read a bit then skimmed. 
But got the picture clearly enough in the first 20%.

Negligible or zero size advantage and a big dose of buyers regret. 
Plus having multiple systems sucks. 

-pw


----------



## Sator (Mar 31, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, people arrive at the more sober realisation that like rangefinders, it has its niche, along with its own peculiar set of pros and cons.
> ...



Thanks for your comments. 

I've cross posted slight variants of this critique on different fora. This version is pitched at Canon (but could be Nikon) users, many of whom are being tempted to try a Sony FF mirrorless because it is the talk of the town. I really wanted to provide a bit of a counterweight to all of the positives that are frequently repeated, and to discourage Canon shooter from thinking they can easily use their Canon lenses on the Sony. Another point here is that all this talk of DSLRs being replaced by mirrorless is gross hyperbole of the sort that you get with rank novelties. I just want people to know that the whole lens-body package you get from Canon is still superb, so that people stop wanting to peek over the over side of the fence. 

As a counterweight to my own critique I will say this. Sony should still be considered if:

1. You need 4K video 
2. You need good low light performance
3. You love legacy lenses

There is a niche for the Sony mirrorless, which people should still consider after soberly weighing up pros and cons, but I am seeing too much irrational exuberance. I actually still shoot with my Canon tilt shift lenses on the Sony because of the focus peaking with manual lenses. I just wish Canon would add focus peaking to their bodies (yes, I know about Magic Lantern), since all of their TS lenses are MF. 

As for the newer lenses coming out for FE mount, we'll see how they perform on independent testing. I am not terribly optimistic. People can go on about how Sony-Zeiss will perform magic and manage to overcome physics to make really competitive lenses for an APS-C mount being forced to double as a FF mount, but I am deeply sceptical. Tony & Chelsea Northrup suggested that the GM 24-70mm f/2.8 is only as good as the Canon, but costs $450 more. Sony still have no 16-35mm f/2.8 zoom in their lineup and that is considered one of the classic "essential" lenses. But I'm done and refuse to buy any more FE mount lenses altogether. I would be happy to buy more A mount lenses and bodies however, as I already have a few fine A mount lenses including a 300mm f/2.8.


----------



## No Mayo (Mar 31, 2016)

Thanks, I appreciate your offering. I am a musician and a photographer and I have noticed that the best of both are the last to complain about information that they already know being presented, but instead find it interesting to see how the material that they know is presented by someone else. I have recently seen a few posts wondering what happened to some of our favorite members who used to post more often. I think that some of us may be more happy when we degrade another's offering. I appreciate and celebrate the best of this community and welcome differing opinions and a positive debate. I wonder if criticizing the length of someones post might reveal more about the critics reading level than it does about the author of the post. Peace to all and a special thanks to the givers of information that generously share with us all.


----------



## steyr (Mar 31, 2016)

Am I the only one who's sick of AFMA on DSLRs? To me the biggest advantage of mirrorless is being able to nail focus with a fast lens wide open.


----------



## d (Mar 31, 2016)

steyr said:


> Am I the only one who's sick of AFMA on DSLRs? To me the biggest advantage of mirrorless is being able to nail focus with a fast lens wide open.



No, I'm with you on that one. I've only played around with a couple of mirrorless bodies, but being able to get a spot on focus easily was something I liked about them.

d.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 31, 2016)

Nice post.

Unfortunately all I read is that Fuji are awesome and as soon as they make that 33mm f1.0 that's being rumored then they're going to have a perfect system.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 31, 2016)

As a mirrorless user, accurate focus is something I appreciate. Also, interesting to note that the feature I like most, the EVF, is relegated to the bottom of the list of benefits.

As a Fuji user, I think they're smart in staying with the APS-C sized sensor. It should be noted that the photo in the initial port is their X-Pro2 - they're biggest camera. The more common, mainstream X-E2 and X-T10 models are noticeably smaller. And the 56mm is one of their bigger standard primes. Most of their lenses are smaller. Essentially, I'm trying to say that you can build a good Fuji kit that does have significant size and weight advantages over a DSLR kit, and it is one of the main reasons I shoot Fuji (and one of the reasons Sony has never really interested me - and you could add constant changes to mounts, RAW compression, build quality, service experiences, initial (and continuing) lack of lens choices that interested me, doubt about Sony's long term involvement etc etc).

Of course, one of the positive in Sony's favour is that their sensors are highly regarded. Their only real direct competitor in relation to sensor performance is Nikon. And Nikon have their problems, too. For some people, I can see Sony being a valid choice due to sensor performance alone.

But I agree with the general intent of the post. If you insist on using f/2.8 zooms, or longer, wider aperture primes, then what are you really gaining over a DSLR (assuming that there was a DSLR with similar sensor performance)? And I've never really considered IBIS to be that essential (or even preferable over lens based systems) but people using legacy lenses, primes without IS or making a lot of videos might disagree. And once Canon figures out how to incorporate an EVF into the DSLRs, then that advantage disappears, too. 

Ultimately, people just need to do their homework.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 31, 2016)

9VIII said:


> ...Fuji are awesome and as soon as they make that 33mm f1.0 that's being rumored then they're going to have a perfect system.



mmmmm....33 1.0. I'm always surprised that nobody is interested in Fuji and that they are languishing at the bottom of all of the sales tables when they are making the sexiest gear.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 31, 2016)

I enjoyed the post, it was a well made argument backed up by the use of visuals.
I've thought about Sony but all those issues pointed out were what would hold me back.
Certainly as a system with a series of pancake lens would be nice.

Canon rumors is great. 
In two day it's put me off Sony and looking for more dynamic range in a camera.
Canon now seems just fine. Roll on the 5D IV


----------



## Sator (Mar 31, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> As a Fuji user, I think they're smart in staying with the APS-C sized sensor.
> 
> Of course, one of the positive in Sony's favour is that their sensors are highly regarded.



I suspect that Sony's success with the a7 mirrorless series took them by surprise, and that it is a mixed blessing for them.

Firstly, they now have two competing full frame systems. The more popular of their two systems (FE mount FF mirrorless) was probably originally intended as a compact system for enthusiasts, but its popularity outgrew its original intent as a compact walkabout FF MILC system for enthusiast use. Now they have a funny FF MILC system neither fish nor fowl. The lenses are now too big to convince anyone that the system is compact. People are now demanding things from the system that Sony-Zeiss find hard to realise on an APS-C mount forced to function as a full frame mount. I bet that Sony sorely regret not increasing the mount diameter, and making the flange distance less shallow. Too late now! Unless they are really crazy and they launch a high-end mirrorless a9 series with a new, larger mount. They are much better off if they push the A mount as their premium high-end system.

Secondly, if Sony were genuine about making a high-quality _compact_ system they should have just kept going with developing an APS-C MILC system. It would have been easier to implement IBIS on the E mount, and it would have kept the lens sizes from negating any size advantage. It would have complemented their FF A mount line much better. 

They should have kept the 42MP FF sensor for the A mount DSLTs. They probably could have added IBIS to the A mount too since it is wide enough to accommodate it (it's wider than the K mount). 

The trouble is that Sony were struggling with sales of their a99, which they apparently made a loss on (according to one rumour). They know that the A mount is their only serious pro level FF mount. They want to attack the market with A mount again (hence the rumours about the a99II), but they have trepidations. The trouble is that the market is fickle and irrational. The gush of sales on the a7 series is driven by irrational mania of a kind that really isn't sustainable. I don't blame Sony for capitalising on it while it lasts, but they are also profoundly aware of the limitations of the FE mount, so they better use the profits on the a7 to help propel R&D on the a99II. 

Sony are dominant in the sensor market for now, but Canon will soon play catch up, and the Fuji-Panasonic consortium are working on an organic sensor. There will likely be more competition for Sony in future.


----------



## Sator (Mar 31, 2016)

pwp said:


> Negligible or zero size advantage and a big dose of buyers regret.
> Plus having multiple systems sucks.
> 
> -pw



There is a point to running multiple systems. I do. But these systems have to be complementary. Sony FF mirrorless plus Canon FF DLSR is NOT the way to go about this. A lot of Canon users are being tempted along this path. 

It makes more sense, just to give one example, to shoot with medium format plus a Canon DSLR. MFD is just too slow to shoot action with, and is heavy. Alternatively, you can shoot FF or MFD, plus APS-C. You get more reach with APS-C lenses (e.g. for wildlife), or else it is just more portable for on location work. It's also better to shoot with dedicated APS-C lenses rather than mounting FF lenses on an APS-C body: you just lose too much resolution otherwise.

But FF mirrorless and FF DSLR aren't as complementary in most cases as it is made out to be. That's why I made it a major point of the post to avoid going down the path of adopting Canon lenses on a Sony, and to stick with native lenses. Others have come to the same conclusions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYyj5w9wZ3k


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 31, 2016)

Size/weight advantage of mirrorless is real. Availability of large lenses does not change any of it. 

Only a mirrorless systems allows both: small, light and inconspicuous when used with compact primes *and* large lenses of any size will work too. Plus all the other system-inherent mirrorless advantages: EVF, no vibration, no noise ... and no AF/performance penalty compared to mirrorslappers ... very soon. That's why the future of photography comes without smoke and mirrors.


----------



## candc (Mar 31, 2016)

Sator said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > As a Fuji user, I think they're smart in staying with the APS-C sized sensor.
> ...



Sony just released the a6300. It is an aps-c sensor camera. A very good one it seems. I use an a7rii with fd lenses and like how it works with the legacy manual focus lenses. I also like the live histogram and exposure preview in the viewfinder.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 31, 2016)

Somebody is trying to rediscover America again LOL.

NOOOO there is something not perfect with mirrorles?

This is probably the last moment for DSLR to still look good comparing to mirrorless, allowing to write articles like that.
It's like trying to present twin lens or rangefinder technology compared with Minolta emerging AF technology some 25 years a go, of course there was a time that DSLR AF did not look so good either.

The funny thing is, and everybody will agree with, that when electronic technology is freed from mechanical restrictions it advances 10X faster ( that is why everybody is craving electronic shutter) and we wont have to wait all that long when posts like this will lose all the relevance.

I think a serious photographers that use unique models of mirrorless successfully like A7s etc already scratching heads with polite smirk reading articles like this one.
Happy shooting everybody.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

Sunnystate said:


> I think a serious photographers that use unique models of mirrorless successfully like A7s etc already scratching heads with polite smirk reading articles like this one.



Of course, the serious photographers shooting dSLRs far outnumber those shooting MILCs. There are reasons for that - one of them is support... That polite smirk will be wiped right off their face when they have to wait weeks for Sony to fix a minor problem with their mirrorless camera, and they'll be scratching their heads wondering why they didn't choose a system that offers true professional-level service. 

Just ask Matt Granger: http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/photographer-matt-granger-ditching-sony/


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2016)

steyr said:


> Am I the only one who's sick of AFMA on DSLRs? To me the biggest advantage of mirrorless is being able to nail focus with a fast lens wide open.



Lack of need for AFMA is a big advantage, but it comes at a cost - you lose all the advantages of off sensor AF (primarily the size of dedicated AF sensors relative to imaging sensors). Another gain, however, is practically limitless support for lenses, since phase baselines aren't fixed.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 31, 2016)

Of course this is a valid point and I am not making any guesses who the winner in the end will be, in the long run always the one smart enough and in business to stay not just get rich quickly win by offering most for less.
I am not advocating any manufacturer here (will dump Sony as quick and remorseless as Canon or Apple if not satisfied enough in some respects important for me) , I am defending just this particular technology. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Sunnystate said:
> 
> 
> > I think a serious photographers that use unique models of mirrorless successfully like A7s etc already scratching heads with polite smirk reading articles like this one.
> ...


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 31, 2016)

One thing I never understood why can't Sony make their adapter working with A mount lens.


----------



## krisbell (Mar 31, 2016)

its an interesting point regarding the size of the camera and lens setup - though irrelevant if you use all your current Canon lens' with an adaptor. I also dont understand why you are constantly changing lens caps and adaptors, I have one lens on my mirrorless and one on my FF and swap the two if required. The smallness of the camera body works in some other, strange ways. True story: I was once allowed to setup my A7r on a tripod at a popular bar because it looked like a toy camera but wasnt allowed to use my 5DIII.

One other point which you havent really touched on is image quality - I personally rate the a7r base ISO image quality and latitude much higher than anything Canon has produced thus far. It isnt for all applications but its a great, small backup body that takes superior base ISO landscape pictures for a smaller price than competing Canons. Say what you want about mirrorless not meeting your needs but I for one certainly do not regret investing in it.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 31, 2016)

Thanks for your post! I read it and it seems to be a pretty honest straight forward comparison to me. Its good to hear since mirrorless people endlessly spout that its simply inherently better with out honestly discussing the cons of the system. Despite mirrorless having no advantage to me, I'm starting to thinking about a FF sony mirrorless body for landscape simply to get a better sensor. I'd be pairing it with a 7DII for wildlife and would only use canon EF lenses for both. Certainly waiting to see the 5DIV before exploring the sony mirrorless route closer.


----------



## Ripley (Mar 31, 2016)

It's disappointing that, for example, the a6300 can shoot 4k and 120 frame 2k while the 80D doesn't even have 4k and tops out at 60 frame 2k.

Arguably, Canon is currently behind with some feature sets and isn't known for speed to market. I guess that's the price that has to be payed for a stronger ecosystem?


----------



## romanr74 (Mar 31, 2016)

Thank you for the post (which i didn't perceive as a rant). To me it was interesting to see comaprable system-setup's side by side.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 31, 2016)

When I decided to go mirrorless a couple years ago it wasn't to replace my Canon dSLR gear, but rather to augment it with smaller, lighter gear. Going to m4/3 format made for enough of a difference size and weight-wise - both body and lens - to have it make sense. I've considered the SL-1 & EOS M, but still the lenses alone are so much larger than m4/3 plus Imaging Resources review of IQ showed an advantage to m4/3 over Canon crop sensors of that time. I've found the m4/3 IQ way more than sufficient for my needs (stuff published is usually on the web or in print 11x17 or smaller) especially with the latest Olympus OMD bodies and PRO lenses.

EVF with WYSIWUG preview is very helpful. Battery life is a pain, but extra batteries are small and still overall kit is way less weight than any of my Canon equivalent stuff. Bottom line, I like and use both systems extensively; but, if I have to carry a lot of gear my preference is usually m4/3 unless there are really compelling reasons to grab the Canons.


----------



## krisbell (Mar 31, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I'm starting to thinking about a FF sony mirrorless body for landscape simply to get a better sensor. I'd be pairing it with a 7DII for wildlife and would only use canon EF lenses for both. Certainly waiting to see the 5DIV before exploring the sony mirrorless route closer.



Yes I'm in the same boat - happy with my Canon lenses and waiting for 5D4 before deciding whether to go with Canon or Sony for my landscape option.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2016)

krisbell said:


> Yes I'm in the same boat - happy with my Canon lenses and waiting for 5D4 before deciding whether to go with Canon or Sony for my landscape option.



I had the A7R and hated it. It gathered much dust and I always used my 5D3s. With the interface improvements in A7R2, I gave sony another shot. Now I use it (the sony) the majority of the time. I use my 5D3s with telephoto lenses. Everything else I shoot on the sony. 

If the 5D4 is a compelling update to the 3, I might replace mine.


----------



## msm (Mar 31, 2016)

Sator said:


> It's somewhat amusing that some people are trying to forcibly wringe an anti-mirrorless tirade out of my post where none exists.



Really? Is that why you compare sony a7 users to lemmings leaping of a cliff and accuse them of being irrational? :

Then goes on to "examine" the size advantage by comparing DSLR with a sony mounted the biggest F1.4 primes and F2.8 zooms available, or big adapted DSLR lenses as if that is what the size conscious photographers would choose. They wouldn't. Sorry but it's your post appears irrational to me.

How about comparing it to A7R with the compact lenses or for instance Batis, Loxia or the new Voigtländer FE lenses?

How about comparing an A7R with the new Voigtländer rectilinear 10mm FE lens with its closest match in the DSLR world?


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 31, 2016)

The problem isn´t mirrorless, but the lack of business strategy and implementation from Sony. They started out "small" but their solutions are getting bigger. Further have we seen many examples of poor quality in lenses pointed out in a gentle manner in Lensrentals teardowns. Top that with some stupid issues in every A7-model released, and way to short life time between releases.

The offerings from Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic seems much better to me, if you are in the mirrorless market.


----------



## countofmc95 (Mar 31, 2016)

I had a brief foray into the Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses. The 35mm 2.8 for $800, the 55mm 1.8 for $1000. Now I understand and agree these lenses (esp the 55mm) have outstanding IQ. But Canon has the 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 STM for under $200 each, and these lenses are almost equally compact as those Sony counterparts. 

And in terms of mirrorless, Fuji's counterpart lenses - 23mm 1.4 and 35mm 1.4 - had excellent IQ and are faster lenses to at least partially offset the shallow DOF and low-light advantage of the Sony. 

So I couldn't shake the feeling that as a value proposition, sticking with Canon DSLR or going to Fuji mirrorless was better.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 31, 2016)

countofmc95 said:


> I had a brief foray into the Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses. The 35mm 2.8 for $800, the 55mm 1.8 for $1000. Now I understand and agree these lenses (esp the 55mm) have outstanding IQ. But Canon has the 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 STM for under $200 each, and these lenses are almost equally compact as those Sony counterparts.



Sony's lens lineup is certainly immature, but it's maturing.

Here's a competitive 50, for example:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1242613-REG/sony_sel50f18f_fe_50mm_f_1_8_lens.html


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 31, 2016)

For now maybe ;-) 

Just think of A6300 plus Sigma 150-600 with Sigma native adapter and voila: incredibly capable set up for around $2500 with whopping 900mm reach, or new Sony 70-300mm with A6300 for around $2000 with reach of 450mm, beat that!!! 



dilbert said:


> Where does that leave the DSLR?
> 
> Shooting events (ie. weddings), animals/birds and sports.


----------



## Aglet (Mar 31, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Of course, one of the positive in Sony's favour is that their sensors are highly regarded. Their only real direct competitor in relation to sensor performance is Nikon.



... and Pentax and Fuji and Panasonic and Olympus and now the new 80D may be competitive too. (as far as body brands)


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 31, 2016)

The Fuji X-Pro 2 has the same sensor as the A6300 (or at least same fabrication process).
A lot of rumors last year were talking about the delays in new Fuji bodies stemming from Sony's reluctance to release a new body of their own, pushing back sensor production. They both have the same resolution (within 0.1MP) and "copper wire technology", Sony probably just kept the best Autofocus layout for themselves (twice as many AF points, but when the X-Pro 2 has over 200 points the total number is just next to irrelevant).


----------



## msm (Mar 31, 2016)

I just have to reply some of the claims in OP because they are just false. This is a typical cheerleader thread posting only negatives about Sony and mentioning none of the advantages. On top of that some of the disadvantages seem to only exist in OP's head:



> We may never see anything like the Canon 11-24mm f/4 rectilinear lens for E mount, and it would hardly be predicted to perform well if it did appear.



We can already predict that. It already performs great on the A7R or RII with no visible loss of image quality when mounted on a good adapter. I have 2 metabones adapters and the same this applies to both of them, the combo yields vastly better results than on my 5DIII. This obviously proves that it is possible to make such a lens and it is in fact no harder than it is for EF mount, but is there a market for it? We are already getting 3 native Voigtländer primes at less than 1/3rd or 1/4th the weight which can go even wider at 1/3rd the cost.



> You can also see that both Sony and Pentax are adding IBIS to excessively narrow mounts purely as a marketing ploy, with flagrant disregard towards optical fundamentals. It represents the victory of advertising over engineering. For the credulous it represents Sony's triumph over the laws of physics.



In theory IBIS can cause some image degradation as can optical stabilization. But in practice I can find no Sony users complaining about visible image degradation due to IBIS on any of the Sony forums I have read since the day IBIS was introduced. Maybe it works a little better in practice than the OP gives impression of with his ridiculous post where he calls Sony "retarded"? Could it perhaps be that the camera shake without IBIS would cause vastly more image quality problems? Not bad for a "marketing ploy" from a bunch of "retards" :

The one who is "technically challenged" here is the OP and this is the most ridiculous post I have seen for quite some time. In one of his examples of the A7 he has even mounted a APS-C lens on it, leading me to think this is just another cheerleader kiddo bashing a camera he has never used more than at most 5min if at all, sure as hell demonstrates his ignorance of the system.


----------



## j-nord (Mar 31, 2016)

Sunnystate said:


> For now maybe ;-)
> 
> Just think of A6300 plus Sigma 150-600 with Sigma native adapter and voila: incredibly capable set up for around $2500 with whopping 900mm reach, or new Sony 70-300mm with A6300 for around $2000 with reach of 450mm, beat that!!!
> 
> ...



Ever try to track birds with a mirror (DSLR)? How about simply finding a subject with 500+mm? Either can be very difficult. EVF lag makes it that much harder. I'm sure EVFs will eventually get 'good enough' but will never be as fast as a mirror reflecting light.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Ever try to track birds with a mirror (DSLR)? How about simply finding a subject with 500+mm? Either can be very difficult. EVF lag makes it that much harder. I'm sure EVFs will eventually get 'good enough' but will never be as fast as a mirror reflecting light.



Irrelevant. Some are _arteeeests_, for whom creation is about the process, not the product. As long as one is out there in nature, without the distracting slap of a mirror and viewing the world as a comfortable, slightly delayed electronic representation, well, actually focusing on the bird doesn't really matter.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 31, 2016)

I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store. 

This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.


----------



## emko (Mar 31, 2016)

dak723 said:


> I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.
> 
> This is not to say that there is nothing advantageous to mirrorless. I have owned Olympus m4/3 cameras - and because it is both 4/3 and mirrorless, then the size and weight advantage is real. Mirrorless is great - but not for FF, in my opinion.



you are comparing jpeq? and you cant see the difference in DR? well of course lol


----------



## NancyP (Mar 31, 2016)

Why? I love my mirror-slappers, always have, ever since my first one (Mamiya-Sekor 1000DTL, circa 1968). Ergonomics, good pentaprisms - what's not to like? To my mind, the SLR is the perfect all-around camera, and the mirrorless cameras are specialty items or snap-shooter items. I love my Sigma Merrill DP2M and DP3M fixed-lens 45mm equiv and 75mm equiv mirrorless cameras, but they are specialty for landscape.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 1, 2016)

emko said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.
> ...



I might have missed it, but didn't see any mention that he was comparing JPEG. 

However, there is more than that one explanation: The situations in which you'll see an advantage are a relatively narrow band (i.e. more than ~11 stops and less than about ~13 stops of scene DR), and further, you won't necessarily realize that advantage unless you increase shadow brightness in post.




dak723 said:


> What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7.



That very well may be because the shadows aren't clipped to black as early on the A7.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 1, 2016)

countofmc95 said:


> ... Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses.



+1 

exactly. Sony lens prices are way too high,. for what it is. Zeiss badge notwithstanding. And Fuji charges FF prices for APS-C only lenses. No way. Aside from the Canon UI and all the Canon gear I giot, lens pricing is the main reason I have not yet bought a Sony mirrorless system. 

Sony got the bodies, Canon got the lenses ... and I am not going to mess around with metabones adapter.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 1, 2016)

Geez, posts like this are just as silly as the folks saying that Canon cameras can't take good images. They are 2 different system and have their advantages and disadvantages. I bought the a7r2 and have zero regrets. I'll still look the the 5d4 when it comes out and also the 5dsr2. How can you seriously complain about IBIS though? It's a feature and you have the ability to use it or not and believe me it does make a difference. Is that difference significant? Probably not always but I'd prefer to have a feature that can help save a shot to a camera that doesn't have any. Seriously it's up to the user to determine whether or not a system is better or worse. Just because you have buyers remorse doesn't mean others will because people have different wants and needs. Buy whatever the heck you want to buy but don't tell me that dslrs are for everyone or that mirrorless is for everyone. Remember that it's not the camera but the tool behind it.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Apr 1, 2016)

I gave away 80% my Canon gear to grandkids.

I now carry a7r II + Batis 25/85 around the world as landscape/people portrait tools. The FE 35mm f2.8 is my street lens. Never feel I need to carry my 5dr/1dx 24-70, 70-200, 135, 400 or 600 etc...

Even on my recent trip to safari park in Kenya, a pair of a7r II plus Batis 25 and FE 70-200 f4 were perfectly fine.


----------



## tiltshift (Apr 1, 2016)

I know 3 other people, 4 counting myself with Sony FF mirrorless and not one of us bought it for the size... while that might have been the original idea behind mirrorless I doubt at least with FF mirrorless that is the case. I think people need to move past that as a reason not to buy a into a system. especially when it matters so little. I mean what is the argument here.. dont buy FF Sony cause its lenses are big and heavy, you should buy the alternative (Canon/Nikon/etc) whose lesnes are just as big and heavy? there are lots of reasons not to buy Sony and stick to Canon or Nikon but this one is just odd to me. if you want small you are looking at APS-c anyways... 

I bought my Sony a7rII because it offered features and performance NO single DLSR from Canon was offering at the time. Even factoring the metabones it still, for *my style* of shooting exceeds Canons offerings. and guess what with all my Canon glass I can just pick up a 5DIV if it changes the equation if not I can buy another sony and use adapted lenses. What does it cost anyone here if that is how myself, and others are doing to get the best results we can?

I agree with MSM, poster doesn't seem to grasp things well. very very "ranty" post. if he needs features that aren't present on a Sony then don't buy one.. Just misleading to say forget Sony FF mirrorless.


----------



## borgefjell (Apr 1, 2016)

What I have learned:

I should stick with Canon because:

Pentax offers in body shake reduction as well
Fuji is even smaller
Sony-A-Mount has an EVF as well
If owning Sony I will forget part of my equipment

Convinced, Canon it will be... not ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 1, 2016)

dilbert said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > countofmc95 said:
> ...



Hope their service improves. It's a risk when you have a lot of $$$ invested in the system.


----------



## Sator (Apr 2, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> countofmc95 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Sony A7, and the major turnoff for me was the price of the native lenses.
> ...



I think this may the reason for the higher price of native FE mount lenses. It has to do with the higher R&D costs for the lenses, which are challenging to design as the Sigma CEO states.

Here is the latest inconvenience:





From: http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.512,596.354,ha,t

It shows the full frame mirrorless Leica SL with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the 90mm f/2.8 macro G, and the Canon 5DsR with the 50mm f/1.2 lens. I had to double check a couple of times to convince myself that the Leica 50mm Summicron really was that big and that no mistake had been made with lens choice.

The Leica SL full frame mirrorless mount diameter is wider than that of the FE mount (51mm vs. 46.1mm). This shows why Sony used an APS-C mount on their FF mirrorless model, because if you use a dedicated FF mount with dimensions more typical of a full frame mount like those of the Leica SL mount, it causes an even more massive blowout in the lens size! Now we understand the basis for the Sigma CEOs puzzlement when he said that "...the diameter [of the FE mount ] is very small and makes it difficult to design high quality FF lenses ... it almost looks like E-mount was designed for APS-C more than FF".

Sony simply had to put an APS-C lens mount into a full frame body, because otherwise a 50mm f/1.4 lens would have ended up the same size as a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens:





From: http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.395,596.538,ha,t

Here the Leica SL is shown with the 50mm f/1.4 Summicron, the Sony a7RII with the Zeiss 55mm f/1.8, and the Canon 5DSR with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 lens.

Yet even after putting an APS-C mount onto a full frame body, Sony still failed to reign in the blow out in lens size on professional fast lenses as this comparison of 85mm f/1.4 lenses on the a7RII and the a99 shows:





The added difficulty in designing full frame lenses for an APS-C mount on a FF body explains why the roll out of lenses has been so slow and the resulting lenses more expensive. It explains the reluctance of Tamron and Sigma to make FE mount lenses, because they are concerned about the ability to recoup R&D cost.


----------



## LOALTD (Apr 2, 2016)

Weird, I find it much easier to take one-handed photos while climbing with my A7R II and 28mm f/2.0 than I do with my 5D Mk III and 28mm f/2.8 IS. And I get an extra stop of light gathering ability. Guess it all depends on how you shoot, I've never been an f/2.8 zoom guy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> btw, the 50/1.2L is great if you like center sharp and everything else a soft mush and out of focus.
> 
> The newer designs (e.g. Zeiss 55mm and Sigma 50mm Art) are also long lenses when compared to the Canon 50/1.2L. And they're deisgned for Canon mount Full Frame.
> 
> ...



The 50 f1.2L is a no compromise portrait lens, it is the way it is because that is what Canon wanted it to be, nothing more or less.

That the particular characteristics it has might not appeal to some people is entirely irrelevant, it was designed to give the look it gives on purpose and is certainly not _"a piece of crap optically"_, only somebody who has never used one for its intended purpose could make a comment like that. Ultimate sharpness across the frame was never its intended design objective, indeed sharpness is an entirely overrated lens characteristic nowadays, there are vastly more interesting characteristics to infuse an image, especially a portrait image, than sharpness.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the 50/1.2L is great if you like center sharp and everything else a soft mush and out of focus.
> ...



None of that logic applies in dilbertland. Heck, in that fanciful place the 50L might even be a camera!


----------



## Sator (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes, that went totally off track. I obviously chose the Canon 50mm f/1.2 just so people can get a rough idea of just how big the Leica SL 50mm Summicron is. That's what happens when you put a proper full frame mount into a full frame mirrorless camera instead of doing what Sony has done in putting in an APS-C mount. Sony have taken a big risk in creating mirrorless full frame cameras, and by differentiating themselves from the competition have created a splash, but there are sound optical engineering reasons why Sony's competitors refuse to go down the path Sony has either boldly or rashly rushed down.

For those of you who prefer to compare the Leica SL lens against the Canon nifty fifty, here you go, here it is compared against the 50mm f/1.8:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,624.512,624.580,596.306,ha,t





The point here is that there are inherent design problems with making larger format mirrorless cameras. That's the reason why Canon, Nikon, and Fuji are only making APS-C format mirrorless cameras. 

A sober reading of what I've posted would better lead to the conclusion that I have raised serious questions about the full frame mirrorless format, but that I am more optimistic about full frame DSLT and similar evolutions of the DSLR design lineage. The fact that I am all for the potential inherent to Sony's A mount DSLT technology doesn't mean I am on Sony's payroll either. Nor does the fact that I question the wisdom of jumping from Canon DSLRs to full frame mirrorless mean I am on Canon's payroll. It is simply that the naive triumphalism of those who have prematurely declared the comprehensive victory of mirrorless over DSLR is reminiscent of George W. Bush in declaring "mission accomplished".


----------



## dak723 (Apr 2, 2016)

emko said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > I, too, was one who tried the Sony a7 (and Sony A7 II) after reading about how much better it was than Canon, how you had to have the extra DR, especially for landscapes, etc. I meant it to replace my Canon 6D - especially for the reduction in weight. Well the weight advantage was the only advantage. I understand that the gear heads care all about specs and the test results of sensors. Yeah, Sony looks good there, but if you shoot in daylight (at least in my experience) there is no noticeable difference between the Sony and the Canon. That extra DR does not show up in any appreciable way. What did show up was very poor IQ at the edges of the pics using the Sony lenses. What does show up was how lousy the EVF is. What did show up was washed out color and a lack of contrast between light and shadow in the A7. I realize that these things are controlled by processing, but, quite frankly, processing is what matters most since we never actually see what the sensor sees. If the color processing and tone curves aren't up to snuff, than the sensor just doesn't matter that much. So, the Canon is still in my bag and the two Sonys I tried went back to the store.
> ...



No, comparing RAW. Why do assume I was comparing JPG? Perhaps because you are arrogant and stupid...LOL!


----------



## scyrene (Apr 2, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The other thing that strikes me about this thread *AND* the timing of this thread is that maybe it is an indication that IQ of the 5DX (or 5D Mark IV) will be a little better than the 5D Mark III but still nowhere near Sony's A7R Mark II? And although it will have a 4K video mode, it won't have the resolution of the A7R Mark II either.



Conspiracy theories? I really doubt these threads have anything to do with the company.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 2, 2016)

scyrene said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The other thing that strikes me about this thread *AND* the timing of this thread is that maybe it is an indication that IQ of the 5DX (or 5D Mark IV) will be a little better than the 5D Mark III but still nowhere near Sony's A7R Mark II? And although it will have a 4K video mode, it won't have the resolution of the A7R Mark II either.
> ...



You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?


----------



## msm (Apr 2, 2016)

Sator said:


> That's what happens when you put a proper full frame mount into a full frame mirrorless camera instead of doing what Sony has done in putting in an APS-C mount. Sony have taken a big risk in creating mirrorless full frame cameras, and by differentiating themselves from the competition have created a splash, but there are sound optical engineering reasons why Sony's competitors refuse to go down the path Sony has either boldly or rashly rushed down.



Yeah I am sure a random internet expert such as yourself know this better than Sony, based on some random quotes you have managed to pull completely out of context from the internet. :

And fyi, lens size is usually not dictated by mount diameter. You got the EF 50mm f1.4 lens which weighs 300g, you got the Sigma Art at almost 900g and you got the Zeizz Otus weighing over 1kg which all work just as good adapted to FE mount cameras as they do on Canon cameras. And you can adapt Leica M lenses to the SL, which means it can use the 300g Leica 50 1.4. Lens designs matter. Just pulling random lenses and comparing size from camerasize.com proves absolutely nothing.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?



You don't need it- it never rains in dilbertland. In fact their are never even any clouds. Nor does the sun set, as evidenced by the fact that only ISO 100 is necessary.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 2, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You forgot to pack your tinfoil hat for your trip to dilbertland, didn't you?
> ...



Tinfoil does have a very high dynamic range though.


----------



## Sator (Apr 3, 2016)

I should have thought of this before. The Leica SL 50mm f/1.4 Summicron vs the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens on the Canon 5DsR:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,596.400,596.305,ha,t





Once again, so much for full frame mirrorless being more compact.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 is smaller than either despite being a half stop faster, suggesting that lens design impacts more on dimensions than whether the body is mirrorless or DSLR:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#639.497,596.354,596.305,624.395,ha,t





I will leave it to others to argue that because they don't like the Canon 50mm f/1.2 that therefore it is larger than the Leica SL Summicron, thereby definitively proving that FF mirrorless systems are more compact.


----------



## Sator (Apr 3, 2016)

The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:

TAKASHI UENO: First of all, our XF mount is not compatible with IBIS. You may be thinking that our mount size is similar to competitors’ and why Fujifilm cannot do it. The answer is simple: for the sake of image quality. IBIS has both advantages and disadvantages. IBIS moves the sensor in the mount to stabilize the image. To secure the amount of light at any position, the diameter of mount must cover the wider image circle considering the margin of sensor movement. The diameter of our mount was designed for the image circle without IBIS. 

TOMASH: Why didn’t you design a mount in a size, which would allow implementing the IBIS?

TAKASHI UENO: To cover the larger image circle, not only mount size (and body size), but also lens size must be bigger.

http://fujilove.com/our-highest-priority-is-always-image-quality-interview-with-takashi-ueno-and-shusuke-kozaki-from-fujifilm-japan/

I differ to experts in optics. Otherwise, the only reason for Sony to have kept the APS-C dimension of the NEX mount for the full frame use is to maintain the ability to mount FE lenses on their mirrorless APS-C bodies, which is quite possible.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 3, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Would you compare the size of a F250 and a Corolla and criticize the F250 because of its size?
> 
> The F250 is built for a specific purpose as is the Corolla.
> 
> ...



What does the F250, corolla, and 50L have to do with the DSLR vs Sony FF mirrorless debate?


----------



## msm (Apr 3, 2016)

Sator said:


> The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:



I don't know anything about Fuji and their lenses, however I think you should be careful putting too much into quotes like this. It is written by a journalist (and they usually have about 0 technical understanding) and in this case it is probably translated by someone as well. And lastly managers aren't always physicists, they often have business education. There are just so many layers where something can be misunderstood here. Anyways Sony has demonstrated that this is simply not the case for A7 series with their excellent IBIS implementation which works well also on adapted lenses.

It is not harder to design lenses for Sony A7 cameras than for DSLR, the fact that pretty much all of them adapt well demonstrates that, you can simple take existing designs and remount them. What Zeiss means with their quote is that it is harder to design lenses that *take advantage of* the smaller register distance. Example: Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21 vs Zeiss Milvus 2.8/21. They say it was much harder to design the Loxia, however they pulled it off and the Loxia performs at a similar optically quality but at the same time it is cheaper, compact and weighs less than half of the really big Milvus lens.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 3, 2016)

msm said:


> Sator said:
> 
> 
> > The point about mount diameter not impacting on lens size might be a fair one. Otherwise, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (44m diameter) mounts would be quite different in size. However, could it be possible that this may change when the flange distance is extremely narrow? After all the Fuji senior design planner says:
> ...



Keep telling yourself that Sony A7 was carefully planned and tested into every last detail before release, and that Fuji don't know what they are doing. You are free to spend your money on Sony gear (unless you are paid by S) but please don't try to convince others into believing it is wise putting money into a Sony system. I'm getting more and more convinced that Sony discover many things they wish was different with the A7, and that they are likely to change physical aspects, such as the lens mount, the thickness of the sensor stack and the batteries. It would be upsetting for those having invested in Sony lenses, but then again, it isn't likely that they would last very long, since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.


----------



## msm (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Keep telling yourself that Sony A7 was carefully planned and tested into every last detail before release, and that Fuji don't know what they are doing. You are free to spend your money on Sony gear (unless you are paid by S) but please don't try to convince others into believing it is wise putting money into a Sony system. I'm getting more and more convinced that Sony discover many things they wish was different with the A7, and that they are likely to change physical aspects, such as the lens mount, the thickness of the sensor stack and the batteries. It would be upsetting for those having invested in Sony lenses, but then again, it isn't likely that they would last very long, since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.



Where have I implied that Fuji don't know what they are doing or tried to convince anyone to buy Sony? If you have some reading glasses it is time to put them on.

Unless you are an optics engineer without actual understanding of the implications of sensor stack thickness, register distance, mount diameter etc, I would just rather see you stop writing garbage about it based on random crap you find on the internet.

And the idea that they would change the mount now after making 16 lenses is just ridiculous, Sony is a company, their job is to make money just like Canon. Just throwing away all that R&D when they finally have found a niche where they enjoy growth seems rather unlikely to say the least. They'll ditch the e mount when it no longer earns them money, same thing will Canon do with EF mount when it no longer earns them money.


----------



## msm (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.



And how do you know this? :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 3, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > since making quality isn't a priority for Sony.
> ...



Thank you for asking. I will answer with the first things that come to mind...

Lets first take the mirrorless APS-C size line up. Sony has released a ton of crap lenses, and has only managed to make less than a handful that does ok in tests. You will have to look hard to find a single Sony lens that can match any of the equivalent Canon EOS-M lenses in (image) quality, size and price. Then take into consideration that Sony has been in the mirrorless APS-C market for way longer than Canon. Even so, Canon has released five EOS-M lenses that all beat every equivalent Sony lens, even those that are way more expensive. 

Lens rentals have shown us that Sony lenses generally have large sample variation. They have reported many issues with Sony lenses caused by poorly thought out solutions. The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue! 

Matt Granger has had issues with his A7RII, and Sony repair center has proved themselves useless for his needs.

Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I think that msm has a valid point – you don't and can't know the importance Sony places on quality. Maybe it's a very high priority for them...and they just suck at execution.


----------



## bwud (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!



I don't own any OEM Sony lenses, and don't take this as a defense of their design, but:

Without detailed knowledge of the specific loads and specific materials, your triumphant statement that Sony doesn't care about quality as evidenced by use of glue is unfounded.

Adhesive can very well be the best engineered solution.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 3, 2016)

bwud said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!
> ...



The many AF failures of that lens, described by lensrentals, more than suggests that it is a poor engineered solution.


----------



## msm (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Lens rentals have shown us that Sony lenses generally have large sample variation. They have reported many issues with Sony lenses caused by poorly thought out solutions. The tear down of the Sony 24-70f/4 lens revealed that moving parts in the AF was connected with glue!



They have shown us that 2 particular lenses have large sample variations. Of course you read that as "Sony lenses generally have large sample variation". Which is not what Roger writes.



> Matt Granger has had issues with his A7RII, and Sony repair center has proved themselves useless for his needs.
> 
> Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.



Nah that's of course not part of their strategy, thats obviously why they are in the process of adding professional services :.


----------



## bwud (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I'm not at all familiar with that lens. I did find an article in which Roger at LensRentals described a singular failure due to a glued joint. Is that a common failure or a one-off (which could be a workmanship issue rather than design, or infant mortality, etc)? 

The article says "The lens is very cleanly designed and modular. We’d never been inside of one before, but had it completely disassembled in less than 45 minutes (it will take less than 30 minutes next time). The construction is robust for a small lens and there are several very nice touches, like the cushions under the extending barrel to keep the mechanism smooth," which doesn't suggest that quality isn't a priority. It even later suggests that the glue joint is an outlier in an otherwise thoughtful design.

I don't have the lens, nor will I buy one, but comments suggesting a specific design choice was made due to a lack of concern for quality are spurious. 

I do own one dead canon 24-105 due to a common failed flex cable, but don't question canon's commitment to quality.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 3, 2016)

bwud said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



I understand where you stand, and therefore why you didn´t quote this:

"_My summary is that the 24-70 f/4 OSS Vario-Sonar is just what I’ve come to expect from Sony lately. Some amazingly great stuff, some rather apparently stupid stuff_", or this:

"_I would add that glue applied to smooth surfaces is unlikely to hold up forever on a frequently moving part where the force of movement is across the axis of the glue. A tiny notch or clamp from the plastic mount to the coil would have created a much more robust connection and not cost a dime if someone had simply designed it properly in the first place. So much of the lens is so thoughtfully engineered that it’s a shame such a critical connection apparently was engineered as an afterthought._"

And you should be aware, that expensive 55mm f/1.8 has the same solution. From the teardown of the Sony 35 f/1.4:

"_We did a teardown of the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 lens, showing some weaknesses in the electromagnetic AF system. We’ve been inside the 55mm FE f/1.8 lens and it has a very similar system._"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



It'll be fine as long as they used high-DR glue. 8)


----------



## bwud (Apr 3, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Actually I didn't quote more because doing so on my phone is a pain the the butt.

Your first quote was what I alluded to in mine about it sticking out in an otherwise thoughtful design (paraphrased).

Your second quote is interesting and it may be valid, but neither you, nor me, nor Roger have any idea why they opted for that solution, or whether it will cause widespread problems. Everything has a propensity to fail, and if this joint fails routinely I'd hope they issue a recall. If they don't, then we can talk about their commitment to quality. 

In any case, I don't really care. It's trivia.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 3, 2016)

[/quote]

Everything has a propensity to fail, and if this joint fails routinely I'd hope they issue a recall. If they don't, then we can talk about their commitment to quality. 

In any case, I don't really care. It's trivia.
[/quote]

I expect a new release, not a recall. Don´t you?

I know I would care a whole lot, if I had a Sony camera and wanted native lenses. Reliability matters.


----------



## bwud (Apr 3, 2016)

Everything has a propensity to fail, and if this joint fails routinely I'd hope they issue a recall. If they don't, then we can talk about their commitment to quality. 

In any case, I don't really care. It's trivia.
[/quote]

I expect a new release, not a recall. Don´t you?

I know I would care a whole lot, if I had a Sony camera and wanted native lenses. Reliability matters.
[/quote]

If there were a widespread problem due to design flaw or recurring manufacturing defect, I'd expect a recall. That's why I asked if the one Roger wrote about is representative of a common occurance.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 4, 2016)

Sator said:


> A lot of Canon users are being tempted to shoot with a Sony FF mirrorless due to the ability to adapt Canon lenses, and lured by the thought that the grass might be greener on the Sony mirrorless side of the fence. It isn't. Before you accuse me of being a Sony hater, I should also say I have cross posted much of this on the Sony Alpha Forum and the A mount crowd are applauding.
> 
> There is a big fad for Sony FF mirrorless at the moment, and it is like watching lemmings following each other over the cliff. I am allowed to say this because I am a Sony FF mirrorless owner because I too was suckered into following the mindless herd over the cliff. It was a big mistake. How could I have been so foolish?
> 
> ...



A long post that presumes that size of the system equates size of the camera. That is your basic error.

Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big. Having a mirror has nothing to do with it, because in the old days of film FF cameras are much smaller than the digital ones Canon makes these days. Essentially the modern Canon FF camera is intended to mimic the old professional cameras for wannabes so they can look "professional". In the old days most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands. Unfortunately many men and almost all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them.

The Sony (and many other MILC cameras) get back to the original design concepts for consumer DSLRs, in other words designed for average people of both sexes.

The advantages of a MILC over a DSLR is simple: they are cameras designed around the concept of the camera as a computer. A DSLR is limited by the fact that it has a mirror in the light path. A MILC has room to grow and develop in ways that a DSLR simply cannot. A MILC allows you to add tools to your viewfinder that would be impossible with a DSLR. Being caught in the past and ignoring the future is not a good thing.


----------



## Refurb7 (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big. Having a mirror has nothing to do with it, because in the old days of film FF cameras are much smaller than the digital ones Canon makes these days. Essentially the modern Canon FF camera is intended to mimic the old professional cameras for wannabes so they can look "professional". In the old days most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands. Unfortunately many men and almost all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them.
> 
> The Sony (and many other MILC cameras) get back to the original design concepts for consumer DSLRs, in other words designed for average people of both sexes.
> 
> The advantages of a MILC over a DSLR is simple: they are cameras designed around the concept of the camera as a computer. A DSLR is limited by the fact that it has a mirror in the light path. A MILC has room to grow and develop in ways that a DSLR simply cannot. A MILC allows you to add tools to your viewfinder that would be impossible with a DSLR. Being caught in the past and ignoring the future is not a good thing.



Are you serious? The Canon 6D is a FF camera and it feels great even in average-sized hands.

"Most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands." ... Ha ha ha ha ha ha! This is a joke, right? Alpha ... LOL.

"... all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them" ... Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Most absurd comment I've read on a photography forum in a long time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big.
> ...



This comment and others by Tugela would be quite funny if he didn't actually believe them. But he apparently does, which is quite sad.


----------



## d (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> A long post that presumes that size of the system equates size of the camera. That is your basic error.
> 
> Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big. Having a mirror has nothing to do with it, because in the old days of film FF cameras are much smaller than the digital ones Canon makes these days. Essentially the modern Canon FF camera is intended to mimic the old professional cameras for wannabes so they can look "professional". In the old days most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands. Unfortunately many men and almost all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them.
> 
> ...



A short post that presumes a smaller sized camera equates to a better shooting experience. That is *your* basic error.

You seem to presume that everyone's needs and shooting styles are quite similar. I'm an average sized guy with small to medium sized hands, and have no trouble with the size and form of the the FF pro bodies. I also prefer them over smaller sized bodies as the control layout is less cramped and more accessible. 

I have many female photographer friends who are very happy using their FF Canon/Nikon bodies, too.

I prefer cameras designed around the concept of a camera as a camera - my computer already functions quite satisfactorily as itself, so I see no reason for my camera to compete for the role. I'm happy to let my camera function as an interface and capture medium only. Futon's are designed to be both a couch and a bed, and in my experience compromise both experiences.

Perhaps what you see as an advantage is a liability to others? Maybe what you identify as a flaw is viewed as a strength by someone else. I personally prefer to avoid gimmicks and feature bloat; refined purpose can be a very good thing.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



Poor guy. Alpha males have it rough. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzaSBzs8mYE


----------



## Tugela (Apr 4, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big. Having a mirror has nothing to do with it, because in the old days of film FF cameras are much smaller than the digital ones Canon makes these days. Essentially the modern Canon FF camera is intended to mimic the old professional cameras for wannabes so they can look "professional". In the old days most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands. Unfortunately many men and almost all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them.
> ...



My hands are small. The 6D is a clunker in them, it is very awkward to use. Anything larger than a Rebel is a problem.

Most women have small hands, they will have similar issues with handling.

So, up front eliminate half of the worlds population in terms of ergonomics, and then most of the rest. Clearly Canon are marketing their products primarily at a sub population, specifically males who have pretensions of grandeur. In the old days there was a running joke that SLRs were "male jewelry", and it is that aspect that has driven the evolution of both Canon and Nikons form factors.

Let me repeat, in the old days of film consumer FF SLRs were about the same size as Sony's a7 range. There were larger cameras, but they were built around battery grips intended to autowind film for professional use. That is why they were so large, they needed to be big to accommodate the mechanicals of the autowinder and house the battery to drive it. Canon's DSLRs mimic that (even though they don't need to), because males came to associate the size and shape with being "professional" (and looks is everything - you can't look serious with a consumer camera body)

But here is the thing.....autowinders are no longer part of cameras, so why do they still need the giant form factor? Obviously it is affection, not function, that is the important criteria.

This is why MILCs do well. The simple reason being that they are a more sensible size for most hands. That is what the Sony executive is talking about. It has nothing to do with how larger the system becomes when you stick a giant lens on it.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 4, 2016)

d said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > A long post that presumes that size of the system equates size of the camera. That is your basic error.
> ...



Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.

The OP was confused about what the Sony exec was talking about, and missed the point entirely. That is what my post was about.


----------



## d (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.



Good point - what would Canon and Nikon know about building and selling cameras...?

d.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 4, 2016)

d said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.
> ...



Sony has it all figured out. Putting that front heavy 900grams 24-70 f/2.8 on the A7 will obviously win the ergonomics award this year. 

Sarcasm aside. I have small hands, and think the ergonomics of the 5Ds/DIII/7DII is as close to perfection as possible. I'm very curious to see if the 5DIV/X can improve on that.


----------



## NorbR (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.



"No one does it, except the two leading camera manufacturers that account for three quarters of the market."

Wow. 
Strong argument.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.



How are all those other camera manufacturers doing at competing with Canon and Nikon? Who sells more ILCs? Can you not grasp the fact that dSLRs are far more popular than MILCs, even in Asia? Apparently not. : Like some others on this forum, you seem to think you know better than major manufacturers how to make and sell cameras.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Sarcasm aside. I have small hands, and think the ergonomics of the 5Ds/DIII/7DII is as close to perfection as possible. *I'm very curious to see if the 5DIV/X can improve on that.*



I hope not, I want the exact same form factor.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 4, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Until the men from the boobie hatch show up


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2016)

size of camera + lenses: unfortunately Sony is denying their customers the full benefit of a truly compact FF MILC system. What's missing are just a couple of compact pancake lenses. As small, optically decent and dirt cheap as Canon EF 40 /2.8 STM or 50/1.8 STM. Probably caused in part by poor choice of Sony's E-mount for FF sensors and by their greed to sell expensive lenses with a Zeiss badge on them. 

Canon also delivers only very partially, as far as that class of lenses goes. For instance, I'd buy that 24/2.8 STM pancake any day, if Canon would care to make it EF [FF] rather than crop only [EF-S]. 

Myself and millions of other potential customers want such gear: small, light, optically decent and low-priced.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Myself and millions of other potential customers want such gear: small, light, optically decent and low-priced.



And yet millions _more_ people actually *buy* dSLRs over mirrorless. Which message do you think manufacturers will listen to more attentively?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Unless you are a large male, any FF Canon camera is going to feel awkward and ungainly in your hands. They are simply too big. Having a mirror has nothing to do with it, because in the old days of film FF cameras are much smaller than the digital ones Canon makes these days. Essentially the modern Canon FF camera is intended to mimic the old professional cameras for wannabes so they can look "professional". In the old days most pro photographers were large alpha males, so those cameras were made for their hands. Unfortunately many men and almost all women has much smaller hands. Canon cameras are not designed for them.



Two things. One, I have small hands and have no problem using a FF DSLR. Two, teardowns of DSLRs show there is no extra room inside - it's all electronics and suchlike. So your contention that DSLRs are large for show/to make people think they are professional cannot be the only reason they are this size (I actually think the contention is baseless, but it's an untestable hypothesis at this point).

Oh, you wrote some more...



Tugela said:


> My hands are small. The 6D is a clunker in them, it is very awkward to use. Anything larger than a Rebel is a problem.
> 
> Most women have small hands, they will have similar issues with handling.
> 
> So, up front eliminate half of the worlds population in terms of ergonomics, and then most of the rest.



Well already you've had several people disagree with this premise - we have smaller hands and DON'T have a problem with them. So unless you can provide some evidence, this looks like you are taking your personal experience and assuming everyone in a similar position feels the same - which is already disproven.



Tugela said:


> Clearly Canon are marketing their products primarily at a sub population, specifically males who have pretensions of grandeur. In the old days there was a running joke that SLRs were "male jewelry", and it is that aspect that has driven the evolution of both Canon and Nikons form factors.



Why clearly? Got any evidence to back THAT up either? Are you saying every male who buys a DSLR has delusions of grandeur, or thinks bigger is better? Again, this is easy to disprove: I am male and have a DSLR and have no interest in size for size's sake. You're making some ridiculous leaps of imagination and generalisations, to put it mildly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly Canon are marketing their products primarily at a sub population, specifically males who have pretensions of grandeur. In the old days there was a running joke that SLRs were "male jewelry", and it is that aspect that has driven the evolution of both Canon and Nikons form factors.
> ...



Clearly not. Tugela previously swore up and down that any camera with Digic 7 would shoot 4K video. Then when the G7XII came out with Digic 7 and without 4K, he started babbling about how he was still right because Digic 7 and Digic DV5 are the same base design but there are thermal issues on the G7XII...still with no evidence other than 'becuase I say so.' 

Same old BS, different day.

So we now know that Tugela has tiny hands...I just hope he's not an insecure billionaire.


----------



## msm (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently every camera manufacturer other than Canon and Nikon disagree with you. None of them are supersizing their cameras like those two.
> ...



Well, it is a pretty safe bet that most DSLRs sold are of the small rebel type though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



And most MILCs sold are of the very small m4/3 type. Did you have a point?


----------



## nvsravank (Apr 4, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Not everything is for a "consumer". Some are for professionals as well. While in one sense of the word each of these professionals are a "consumer", in some important ways they differ.

From a marketing perspective, when prospective customers see you with a 1D camera series for example, prospective customers stop asking what camera you have and start giving more importance to the photography. Where you want their heads/thinking to be.

When you are a professional where split second decisions have to be implemented, having muscle memory helps. Changing cameras affects it. Why take that risk every year?

Are the updates really revolutionary? From a spec perspective maybe, but for most professionals, it takes time to get used to a tool and to get the most out of it. Then an improvement can be easier to incorporate into your workflow. You know the limitations in your craft. Changing your devices every year does not allow you to practice enough to get really good at using your tools. Ask any high performing athlete in any sport and they spend enormous amounts of time learning. Same is the case with photography as well. (Though not as high paying).

Then there is the question of value of your investment. It falls too quickly in a consumer world, where as in the professional world that is not a very good thing. You don't get tax benefits if the value falls too quickly as there are limits on what can be booked for tax relief purposes and in most cases it is atleast 4 years.

Canon does a 4 year cycle. It falls pretty well with most professional looking for product cycles.

I understand it does not fit well with most gear heads here in this forum, but sorry "we" are a minority.

Note. I stayed with 5D until the 5D mark III came, but now going to 1dx mark II. All were pre ordered.

I am happy with the cadence.


----------



## msm (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I agree. It's always struck me as odd when people complain about the introduction rate of cameras when new tech is actually included.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2016)

msm said:


> Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?



Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type: 
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great. 
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Of course there was a point, sorry you failed to grasp it.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course there was a point, sorry you failed to grasp it.



The usual Canon Defense League blather ... was the point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there was a point, sorry you failed to grasp it.
> ...



Oh, so you share Tugela's belief that Canon and Nikon develop and market their dSLRs primarily as an affectation for large men? That mirror must be slapping you pretty hard. :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I´ve noticed that with the Sony A7 releases, far superior tech seems to be released in the next model, only a few months after the latter. Sony has to know this when releasing a model, and I know I would be upset if I bought a new A7 camera, that suddenly seems like a piece of junk 3 months later. 

There is something in between 6 months and 5 years. Personally I think 3-4 years is ok, if the upgrade is significant.


----------



## msm (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Oh yeah something along the lines of your usual sound logic like the grass is green because Canon is the market leader in unit sales?


----------



## msm (Apr 4, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yeah I know, your camera immediately stops working whenever a new version is out on the market. :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 4, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



With a Sony, I wouldnt expect it working much longer than the warranty period. 

And I just love it when a 2000+ dollar investment halves it's value every 12 months or so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2016)

msm said:


> Oh yeah something along the lines of your usual sound logic like the grass is green because Canon is the market leader in unit sales?



Honestly, do you agree with Tugela's statements?



Tugela said:


> Clearly Canon are marketing their products primarily at a sub population, specifically males who have pretensions of grandeur....
> 
> This is why MILCs do well. The simple reason being that they are a more sensible size for most hands.



Apparently it's _your usual sound logic_ that sales of millions of Canon and Nikon dSLRs per year is consistent with them being 'marketed primarily to males who have pretensions of grandeur', that MILC unit sales that haven't yet regained their 2012 levels constitutes 'doing well', and that the primary reason people buy MILCs is that they're a better fit for small hands. 

Or do you not see the connection between Tugela's asinine claims and the fact that they are refuted (among other ways) by ILC sales figures? If that's the case, my condolences for your poorly developed sense of logic.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...


Agreed, I think the only downside is it probably affects re-sale value. And it's not as if introducing a new model makes your current camera any less capable. You have the option to upgrade if you like or wait a few years. The upsides seem better than the downsides.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 5, 2016)

benperrin said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Doesn't that cut both ways, though? A company *not* releasing a new camera every year or whatever doesn't affect you if you already own one of their cameras?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2016)

nvsravank said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Professionals are consumers in every sense of the word just like everyone else, not in just one sense. In fact, many of them are hyperconsumers.

Most clients have no idea what the "pro" is shooting with or why. They just want nice finished product.

Any consumer that wants to and has the means can buy a 1DX mark II. A battery grip on a lesser camera will fool most, IF they even notice or understand. I had one on a T5i.   

Unlike Presidents, playmates and preachers... Pro-photographers are not such mythical creatures.


----------



## d (Apr 5, 2016)

Sator's article has made it onto PetaPixel:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/

d.


----------



## jrda2 (Apr 5, 2016)

*Before jumping on the bandwagon.....*

Interesting perspective on FF mirrorless:

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?
> ...


----------



## msm (Apr 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or do you not see the connection between Tugela's asinine claims and the fact that they are refuted (among other ways) by ILC sales figures? If that's the case, my condolences for your poorly developed sense of logic.



Here is the problem.

I am sure an average 12 year old can explain you this. Canon is the market leader in unit shares. What does that mean?

It means that Canon sells a *larger number* of cameras than any competitor.

It does not mean:

a) That Canon sells more full frame cameras than any competition. It is not unlikely that they do, but the data just does not support the conclusion.

b) That Canon business strategy can't be improved. The data does not support the conclusion.

c) That there is a high or low demand for large cameras in a certain segment. The data does not support the conclusion.

So why do you keep mentioning this? Want a cracker?


----------



## msm (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Do you invest your money in cameras? I buy cameras because I have fun using them.

If the situation is like you explain and you don't base your manhood on owning the latest release you could just take advantage of the situation. Wait 3 months and buy after a newer model is released then and get it dirt cheap. But you would rather buy a model that won't be improved for 4 years even though it did not exactly push the fore front of technology when at release time? To each his own.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> So why do you keep mentioning this? Want a cracker?



Well, I was hoping you'd understand reality. Guess not.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Or, like we Canon users can do, sell the old camera for a noticable amount, making the upgrade affordable.


----------



## Apop (Apr 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > So why do you keep mentioning this? Want a cracker?
> ...



Your perception of reality is flawed , hence you have a hard time convincing others of YOUR version of reality.

It's like the (partial) 'fraud' once stated; Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." 

QM
distinction between particles and the space surrounding them loses its original sharpness and the void is recognized as a dynamic quantity of paramount importance.

Luckily for the person you insulted (msn) at this time no one (really) understands reality yet, we have some decent approximations ( but they aren't really understandable ;x )


----------



## Apop (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



They seem pretty fun cameras those sony's , but for me this is also the biggest issue...
A new model 12 months later and price on the current fell harder than a crashing stock market.

From an investment point of few one could approach sony cameras like cars :x
Just buy an really old model (like the a7/a7II at this point, or a6000 and accept you don't have the latest and greatest), or buy second hand


----------



## Apop (Apr 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?
> ...



LoL , well he seems often detached from reality , but in this case his logic is sound...
Due the inefficiency of many digestive systems feces/excrement (can)actually contains a lot of nutrients !

for example ; Elephant dung is extremely rich in minerals(and has lots of fibres) , because only about half of what they eat is actually digested!. The dung is extremely important in nutrient cycling, as it provides rich nutrients to soils, acting as a great fertiliser ,it also provides an important food source for other species( ground hornbills, banded mongooses, velvet monkeys, baboons and many insect species)

So yeah , some s**t is great food indeed 

although autocoprophagy is not something I'd recommend ;p


----------



## Eldar (Apr 5, 2016)

Apop said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...


Delicious


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The Canons are worth something used because they are good at taking pictures, ergonomic, user friendly, and people expect them to be working even if the warranty period is out. 

With your reasoning, I would assume you would like to migrate to Sony for the sake of loosing a lot of money every time you want to increase shadow pulling abilities at ISO 100.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The market for used Canon gear disagree with you. Here in Norway, a 4 year old 5D3 sells for more than twice as much as a 1 1/2 year old A7. 

If money is a concern, which I guess it is for most of us, resale value matters, and I find it foolish to state otherwise.


----------



## Sharlin (Apr 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> But they're old technology.
> A used camera that is 2 years old is a very old piece of technology. Would you pay top dollar for a 2 year old computer? It still runs Windows, it still lets you surf the web, etc.
> 
> Rinse and repeat with cars, TV, etc. To me, a 5 year old digital HD TV is something that I give away, not sell.



A 2 year old DSLR body is definitely not old technology, never mind very old, not by any sensible definition. DSLRs don't have a similar planned obsolescence going on as phones, and the depreciation curves are quite different. You know what depreciation curves are, don't you? What's even more important is that _usage value_ is quite different from _resale value_. People who have an obsession of updating to the newest and shiniest every year might want to reflect on their consumption habits a little bit.

Incidentally, I'm typing this on a seven-year old desktop PC. I've upgraded its RAM once and its GPU once, but the mainboard and the CPU are the same. It runs everything I want it to, including modern 3D games. Computer tech just simply doesn't advance so quickly as it used to.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?
> ...



I'm surprised to see you write this: although I often disagree with you, I rarely see you make such absurd statements. The logic is very different, but still simple.

1) Canon executives decide what products Canon will produce.
2) Canon is consistently the leader in sales and profit, therefore Canon executives are probably happy with their line (for now).
3) The customer may choose which brands and products to buy.
4) If enough customers change brands to have an effect on (2), [or if executives perceive this will happen soon] then the executives will decide to make changes to the product line
5) The opinions of individual (or small numbers) of Internet posters has little effect on (1)

The primary insight here is not that Canon products are faultless, but that Canon is seeking profit, not a perfect Camera.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 5, 2016)

People who think Canon needs a better business model and they know better, should apply to Canon as a business consultant - there is a ton of money to be made here. Big corporations like Canon hire some incredibly smart people for carrying on their business profitably - if you are deemed smart enough, you may just hit some serious pay dirt. 

But then you probably are not smart enough to be a consultant to Canon seeing that all you do all day is whine and carp about "mirrorslappers" (is that even a word) and that Canon makes cameras for Alpha males (what sort of a claim is that?) all day on internet-forums. 

BTW, feel free to eat poop if you consider the eating habits of flies and humans to be the same. I'm wondering whether the constant slapping by the "mirrorslapper" has slapped all good sense out of you.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ah, personally I don't find that new models render those I already have pieces of junk. 

That being said, wouldn't you be similarly upset buying a 5D IV 12 months after introduction and learning that Canon could have sold you something significantly upgraded at roughly the same price, but that they're sitting on for 2-3 more years?

Not everyone buys cameras on a schedule aligned to market introduction. In fact, I imagine most people do not. Having your best technology available to consumers at any given time is a good thing for consumers.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 5, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



+1

It's difficult for some posters here to understand this and the same arguments are repeated ad-nauseam and when confronted with facts, more drivel is posted. 

To think that there is another thread running on the topic of why people no longer participate at these forums.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Well, in AvTvM's defense, he wants a camera manufacturer to make the PERFECT CAMERA to meet every one of HIS NEEDS (his own words) and he's probably coming to the realization that is NEVER going to happen, and he'll be stuck slapping his 5DIII's mirror until he dies. So maybe he's just a teensy bit frustrated. ;D


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 5, 2016)

d said:


> Sator's article has made it onto PetaPixel:
> 
> http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
> 
> d.


 
"The body may be smaller but you can’t shoot without a lens."
"you end up having to carry multiple batteries, which negate any size advantage"
“Zeiss: The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses ”.
And: "It is a euphemism to call the FE mount an “engineering challenge”. The more honest expression may well be “technically flawed”, or just plain handicapped."
Wow! 
I didn't read a set of biased thoughts like this since... 
...since last Canon release, I think. ;D 

No wonder there are already 451 comments on Petapixel article (and rapidly counting)...


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 5, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > Sator's article has made it onto PetaPixel:
> ...


 
Besides, the evil author ignores the joys of pinhole photography for the sake of insulting Sony.


----------



## msm (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Yep and seeing how a new 5D3 actually sells for 3x the cost of a new A7 here in Norway I can't really see you building a very strong case here for your claim that Canon holds second hand value better. 

And seeing that the 5D3 is due for an update soon that value might be about to take a big dive too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Fools and their money are easily parted.



So, you're destitute?


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Thank you for pointing this out. The release price of the Sony A7 was NOK 13500 in late 2013. At about the same time, the 5D3 was offered at NOK 19995 at Elkjop, here in Norway. 

Today, you can buy a used A7 for NOK 6000, and the 5DIII goes for NOK 15000. Point taken?


----------



## msm (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I do not care about about second hand prices and don't really want to discuss it, but:

It do not think it is fair to compare the release time price of the A7 to the all time low of the 5D3 (which lasted maybe a month and probably was a campaign). Almost all the 5D3s sold have been bought at a significantly higher price and a large part of the A7 sales have been at a lower price.

As for people wanting cheap gear, an a7 + some Sigma Art lenses and the sigma adapter is a really cheap way to get started with a very capable system for a very reasonable cost. And the Sigma lens autofocus precision is perfect when adapted on A7 cameras.


----------



## MickDK (Apr 5, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Today, you can buy a used A7 for NOK 6000, and the 5DIII goes for NOK 15000. Point taken?


Here in Denmark things are somewhat different:

Used A7: 5700 DKK (original price in 2013 was 13500 DKK, new price today 9000 DKK)

Used 5D3: 9000 DKK (original price in 2012 was 25000 DKK, new price today 21000 DKK)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Ahhh, so when the actual number do indeed show he had a case, you 'do not care about' it and 'don't really want to discuss it.' 

: : : : : : : :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

MickDK said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > Today, you can buy a used A7 for NOK 6000, and the 5DIII goes for NOK 15000. Point taken?
> ...



Not quite representative prices on the 5DIII in Denmark, now is it? I searched and found on a danish site a used 5DIII with estimated 75000-125000 shutter actuations on it, with two problematic buttons, costing 9000DKK. On the same site I found a used 5DIII at 17500DKK and a 5DIII with 15000 shutter actuations, a battery grip and 4 batteries, at 16500DKK. 

It isn't a problem finding higher used demands than 15000NOK for the 5DIII in Norway, but I am trying to be accurate, because an argument looses it's power if the facts it is based upon proves to be incorrect. (Or so I thought untill I payed attention to a man who's-name-shall-not-be-mentioned, who is running for president.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Ahhh, defending dilbert – who claims that Canon broadcast field lenses are cameras and that the 1D C isn't a dSLR – as not foolish. Way to jump into his pail of crap with both feet!


----------



## msm (Apr 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



Oh, did he have a case? Lets look at the prices. He cherry picked the highest price of the A7 and the lowest price of the 5D3 to try to make his case and you swallowed it "hook line and sinker" to use your words:

http://www.prisguide.no/produkt/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-156065#anchor-price-follow
http://www.prisguide.no/produkt/sony-alpha-a7-195823#anchor-price-follow

From these graphs it can be easily seen that over time:

The cheapest prices they sold for were: 9k A7, 20k 5D3
The highest prices they sold for were: 13.5k A7, 28k 5D3
The average prices they sold for were: ~24k 5DIII vs ~11k A7.

So the 5D 3 has generally been more than twice as expensive so sorry but he does not present a very strong case. And neither do you. As usual.


----------



## Apop (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



He did get a lot of practise not presenting strong cases, spending well over 1500 hours in this forum! ( likely closer to 2000/3000 hours, my 'best estimate' is 2468 hours!), I think he just ran out of patience with all us inferior people lately  lol
Due to this his comments/contributions to 'meaningful' discussions seem to have degraded to just insulting people , his avatar should be more like 






Over here a used 5d3 is also around twice the price of an used a7 , (New the 5d3 is 1.75 x the price of the a7II, and 2,86 times the price of the a7!).

A7 = 979
A7R = 1529
A7II = 1629
A7RII= 3499
5d3 = 2799


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



So in a much larger market than Norway, the 5DIII has held value a bit better. 

EDIT: interesting, my numbers disappeared. In the US, the a7 launched at $1700, current list is 35% lower and average dealer used prices are $850, a *50% drop from launch*. The 5DIII launched at $3500, current list is 29% lower, average dealer used is $1950, a *44% drop from launch*.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 5, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



If you dont want to compare prices for the same period, and the 5DIII price I gave was from the time of the release of the A7, you have to take the time factor into consideration.

According to your links, the 5DIII was NOK 25000 a short time after release, 1. july 2012. The A7 was 13500 a short time after release, 1. january 2014. I ignore the very first 16000 pricing of the A7, and the 27500 pricing of the 5DIII.

After 44 months, lets say the used price of the 5DIII is 15000, a degradation of 10 000. That equals approximately 9% depreciation a year.

After 28 months, a used A7 is worth 7000 less than when purchased. That equals 22 % depreciation a year. See the difference?


----------



## djack41 (Apr 5, 2016)

Very informative post. I buy the camera "system". When it comes to lens options and customer service, Sony falls far short of Canon. Also, Sony lenses are more expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2016)

Apop said:


> He did get a lot of practise not presenting strong cases



After a quick perusal of your 'contributions' here (I use the term loosely), I can't find an example of when you actually helped another member, answered a technical question, etc. Plenty of requests from you for advice and help from others, though. 

Since you're fond of pictures...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> So in a much larger market than Norway, the 5DIII has held value a bit better.



Meaning if you go buy a 5D3 in Norway, you're going to pay more for that previous generation tech than if you go buy the A7.

Personally, I'd rather have access to the newer tech sooner, meaning I can opt to pay full bore for new or pay less for old, rather than have to wait on an artificial (i.e. not tied to development and production capacities) timescale giving me the option to either pay more for old tech or wait longer for new.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> A used camera that is 2 years old is a very old piece of technology. Would you pay top dollar for a 2 year old computer? It still runs Windows, it still lets you surf the web, etc.
> 
> Rinse and repeat with cars, TV, etc. To me, a 5 year old digital HD TV is something that I give away, not sell.



Not a terribly good analogy with computers. Cars are better. After all, a working camera still takes pictures - and especially in the case of DSLRs, really good ones even after 5-10 years. A car can still take you from A to B. A computer tends to have ever greater demands with each passing year, as software is regularly being refreshed.

As for giving away an old tv... Well, you're not alone in that, but it's a bit odd given that 5yo HD tv is going to allow you to watch programmes just as well as a newer one would (not counting leaps in tech like SD>HD>3D/4K).

Resale on older cameras is a good way for beginners to get into the hobby. I started with an old secondhand 300D, which despite its age produced much better image quality than I'd have got spending the same money on a more modern compact or bridge camera. I'm sure someone upgrading from, say, a 40D would be thrilled to own my 5D3 when I sell it later this year.

Later you say that a 2yo DSLR is as obsolete as a 2yo mobile phone, which is patently ridiculous.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 6, 2016)

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/


But wait, I thought the mount didn't support quality lenses!


----------



## d (Apr 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/
> 
> 
> But wait, I thought the mount didn't support quality lenses!



I think in this instance it will be the lens that is supporting the mount...

d.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Apr 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/
> 
> 
> But wait, I thought the mount didn't support quality lenses!



Got my 24-70 GM today. First 100 shots look extremely good.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 6, 2016)

This article is everywhere. Sony GM lens are designed to resolve 100MP sensor in future. That is why it is bigger.


----------



## Apop (Apr 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apop said:
> 
> 
> > He did get a lot of practise not presenting strong cases
> ...



Thanks for the vivid explanation , So thats what's gotten into your brain and drained it ? , . Your brain should be able to redeem itself , I hope it's just temporary thing and that you'd regain some decency.
Such a shame to waste brainpower on 'meaningless' insults to people in an online camera forum.
Everyone should do whatever they want with their time , but don't you feel a bit silly when you calculate the time you have spent on these forums? ( Maybe study some philosophy , it can really change the way you look at things!)

Ever since, I have just been reading forums from time to time. ( I wasn't really active here before since I preferred forums with a bigger community) , at first your numerous insults to everyone not agreeing with you were kind of funny (malicious pleasure is a guilty pleasure , and yes (IMO)... a lot of the people you aim them at kinda deserve it  ) ,but then I felt a bit sad for you...( and i'd like to help you)

I thought I point it out since sometimes it's hard to see your own flaws , spending half of your comments insulting people ( or;failed attempt at a cunning remark aimed at people with a different perception (of reality), which translates to over 1000 hours insulting people on here ) doesn't seem so healthy or a good way spending time for an intellectual mind like yours :-\ . (seem<- ; because I don't want to make claims about what is good/bad way of spending your time)

Sure internet can be like a release valve/venting for frustration build up in real life , but I think there are limits. (A lot of) Your posts seem a bit narcissistic ,or just breath a lot of frustration (I won't claim to be able to diagnose anything but a certain pattern is obvious.) 

if you have a similar attitude in real life as in these forums then that could have resulted into some social issues. (maybe thats why you have many hundreds/ thousands of hours to post here ?)

I really hope you are capable of some self reflection , maybe read some of your own posts ( 
the last 1000 or so), and treat them like they are someone else's posts (how do you perceive them then?).
For yourself and the people around you I hope you'd be able to make a (small) change,

If your online attitude/behaviour is just a replacement for how you used to be in real life ,then I think thats a good thing for those surrounding you and people here need to adjust to you (Ignoring goes a long way)

This is all the help my time allows , 
I hope your perception of reality is changed for the better,
Best of luck


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 6, 2016)

Over the last year or two, there seems to be an ever increasing percentage of topics that are designed to antagonise and bait Canon users. I think this is why a lot of people are less visible, leading to the recent where have all the older members gone topic. Rather than slink away, others are more inclined to stand up for their views and be counted. In most areas of life, that would be considered a positive trait.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 6, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/
> 
> 
> But wait, I thought the mount didn't support quality lenses!



Since people must think I am a Sony hater in this thread, I want to admit that I think this new lens from Sony looks very promising indeed, and a large step in the right direction. Sony are improving. For the Sony people, I hope the quality lives up to the optical performance. The size and weight would put me of, but at least it is way smaller and lighter than the new Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> MickDK said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



The opposite is true elsewhere, in much larger markets. Do you believe Denmark is representative of all countries? :


----------



## NorbR (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Nice! A second zoom lens that whips Canon's butt.



"Whips Canon's butt"? 
So you didn't read the article, did you?


----------



## d (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



24mm - "All three of these are excellent lenses at 24mm. The Sony might be a hair better, but it’s a pretty minor hair."

70mm - "Again the Sony is at least as good as the others. It has, by a tiny hair the best center resolution, and while it isn’t quite as flat across the image as the Nikon, it is better in that regard than the Canon. It does have just a bit more astigmatism / lateral color on the MTF bench, though."

"Sure the fanboys can split hairs about this or that, but the differences in the lenses themselves are tiny."

Hardly a whipping.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So are you getting your Sony camera now?


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



If you have bought it, its good you have nice lens options now ... but "Maybe"? duh!


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> MickDK said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



The 5DIII price he gave in Denmark was very misleading and not representative for the used market. Please see my former post on that.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If you have bought it, its good you have nice lens options now ... but "Maybe"? duh!
> ...



Duh! you are right, who cares what you buy! 

My point was that with your continuous dull posts as to how Sony is great and Canon is crap, at least one should be sure you have first hand experience of using a Sony product to be taken seriously. 

But then that's probably too much to expect from you.


----------



## d (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If you have bought it, its good you have nice lens options now ... but "Maybe"? duh!
> ...



If only you kept your opinions as well guarded...


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

d said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Too many times I sit on my hands trying to avoid corresponding with dilbert, but I still end up posting something once in a while and regretting it immediately. :'( 

Something has come to mind ... I'm going to change my Signature immediately.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Look, my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's and I don't see anyone else holding theirs back!



No. You have just as much right as anyone else to share your opinions, but that doesn't make your opinions valid. When others base their opinions on knowledge and understanding of facts, and you base your opinions inadequate knowledge, misunderstood facts and pure imagination, your opinions have an inherent lack of validity. 

Someone might be of the opinion that the Earth is flat or that Olympus sells more cameras than Canon, and while they have every right to share that opinion, doing so makes them look like a fool.


----------



## NorbR (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Look, my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's and I don't see anyone else holding theirs back!
> 
> :-D



Maybe it's because they're holding back their opinions that you don't get to see them ... 

(which is obviously a wise choice in threads like this one, and I will get back to doing just that)


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

Troll ... really? simply for asking whether Dilbert had finally purchased a Sony camera? 

Wrestling with a pig ... Guilty as charged!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> _In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into ..._









Hey dilbert, what happens if you Google "armchair expert"??


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Troll ... really? simply for asking whether Dilbert had finally purchased a Sony camera?
> ...



dilbert - read that bit in red and then have a little pause for reflection......


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 6, 2016)

Come on people..... take a deep breath.... step back from the keyboard... go take some pictures.....

Just please stop this endless bickering. You are better than this.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/04/sony-goes-world-class-the-24-70mm-f2-8-gm-mtf-and-variance-tests/
> ...



Hi dilbert,
On paper, the Sony does look good Vs Canon. I ran quick test yesterday(might not be apple vs apple test). I took some shots with 5dr + Canon 24-70 II Vs a7r ii and new GM. I'm in early 70yrs and looking through those photos on my 32" 4K monitor, results were very-very close.

However, this is great news for Sony when comparing to others FE zoom lenses. Huge step forwward for them.


----------



## msm (Apr 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Look, my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's and I don't see anyone else holding theirs back!
> ...



Yep, precisely like your opinions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Yep, I can understand how _you_ might believe the statement that, for example, "The 1D C is not really a dSLR," is a perfectly valid opinion based on properly understood facts. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. :


----------



## msm (Apr 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Your straw man arguments just back up my point.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If you have bought it, its good you have nice lens options now ... but "Maybe"? duh!
> ...



Agree with above statement, but it appears to be our business (or it is just my business) when you are trying to educate us while you are not be able to manage/utilize your tools to get nice images... Have been waiting for years to see your proof(s) that you can deliver decent (Yes, I just require decent look images from you. Sharp, nice images and composition is to muchhhh to expect from you.)


----------



## J.R. (Apr 6, 2016)

dilbert said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Troll ... really? simply for asking whether Dilbert had finally purchased a Sony camera?
> ...



;D ... Asking whether you have a Sony camera is provocation? How old are you ... 12?

You post no pictures, don't reveal what gear you shoot with and always have a supposedly "valid opinion" which at times interesting is so far detached from reality that it is laughable. But for you, what is it? Water of a duck's back! 

I've wrestled with the proverbial pig (that's you) and feel extremely dirty in the process. Just reverting to your comment feels like I'm debasing myself right now. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 6, 2016)

Not really sure why we have gotten into the dogma of either having to choose one side or the other. There are obvious advantages and conversely, disadvantages to both platforms and only the shooter can determine for themselves which one is best suited to their needs. 

It all goes back to the sayings "horses for courses," and "different strokes for different folks."

I for one got rid of my last Canon DSLR months ago as I just didn't feel it gave me what I needed as much as my mirrorless rigs. But that doesn't mean that I feel other people should make the same decision. Canon is still the most reliable company out there offering the widest range of products in their ecosystem and backing the entire line with highly regarded support. This is precisely why although I no longer own a DSLR, I still use numerous Canon DSLR lenses. I am also not opposed to one day picking up another Canon or other branded DSLR if there is to come a body I feel compelled enough to use over what I have in the bag now. 

The best way to go is to walk the walk. Rent or buy and find out for yourself. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. All the arguing for one side or the other is merely an exercise in futility. Only one thing should be kept at the forefront of all our minds with regard to topics like these, shoot what is best for you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 7, 2016)

dilbert said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Three things:-

1/ I'd take Rogers interpretation of his own optical measurements over your interpretation of his measurements any day.

2/ People say DPR are biased because what they write is easily shown to be biased, and the 'examples' they post to illustrate Canon 'issues' are complete falsifications. Roger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion (he is not a paid reviewer) of the empirical data he personally measures, along with that data, and his work does not rely on the good grace, sales, nor advertising dollars of the camera companies, unlike DPR.

3/ At a rate of two lenses so far it will take until hell freezes over for Sony to make even a modest inroad into the lens range Canon has for sale today. You are going to miss a lot of shots between now and then...........


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 7, 2016)

I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

Canon do so well partially because they have such a fantastic range of lens to go with rock solid cameras. 
Sony are really pushing the forefront of technology with their cameras but don't (as yet) have the same range of glass.

From this article I got the impression that the Canon Mount has a great potential for mirrorless than Sony. Sony is a bit hemmed in. Because the mirror is a mechanical moving part I presume at some point it will be consigned to history. I'm looking forward to Canon's first attempt at it in full frame. I like Fuji's EVFs. I like the ability to view the photograph after it's taken through the view finder. It's very handy in bright sunshine. I believe Canon will be able to produce a brilliant mirrorless full frame camera. Hopefully first they will produce a brilliant M camera to show the way.

[/quote]
2/ People say DPR are biased because what they write is easily shown to be biased, and the 'examples' they post to illustrate Canon 'issues' are complete falsifications. Roger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion (he is not a paid reviewer) of the empirical data he personally measures, along with that data, and his work does not rely on the good grace, sales, nor advertising dollars of the camera companies, unlike DPR.


[/quote]


----------



## jd7 (Apr 7, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.



My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 7, 2016)

Sator said:


> They should have kept the 42MP FF sensor for the A mount DSLTs. They probably could have added IBIS to the A mount too since it is wide enough to accommodate it (it's wider than the K mount).



Is that what you meant to write? Sony's A mount cameras have IBIS (which is why I almost bought one, but then the a7 series came along and I , with "irrational exuberance," bought one, then another, and another.... Said exuberance has yet to fade).


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 7, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.
> ...



+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.


----------



## msm (Apr 7, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...



I can see how it seems that way to you, seeing how you have demonstrated that you are anti Sony biased to the point of being delusional in this thread. Throwing out accusation after accusation against Sony with no data to back it up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> ...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.



Indeed, they are. 

[quote author=DPR Canon 7DII review]
The 7D Mark II's base ISO Raw dynamic range capabilities, though improved over its predecessor and on par with the 5D Mark III, falls far short of what the competition offers and has offered for some time. 
[/quote]

So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "_Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR._" In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to _over-stress_ the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money). 

But DPR claims they're not biased. :


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 7, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...



I´m surprised that you follow this up, since you have backed out of the discussions we have had in this thread after beeing presented with facts. Do I have to remind you of the AF with glue attaching moving parts in at least two Sony AF lenses, or the much faster depreciation in the value of the A7 compared to Canon?


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.
> ...



So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "_Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR._" In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to _over-stress_ the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money). 

But DPR claims they're not biased. :
[/quote]

I just had to repost this. +1. DPR should be embarrassed.


----------



## JClark (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > ...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.
> ...



So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "_Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR._" In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to _over-stress_ the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money). 

But DPR claims they're not biased. :
[/quote]

I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch. Elsewhere in the review, DPR acknowledges that the 7dII will likely be seen and purchased as a consumer-grade camera despite it's pro-level features cribbed from the 1dx. In the conclusion, DPR is quite complementary:



> So, should you take the plunge? Most likely, yes. If you're thinking about moving up from the 7D, the Mark II is a great upgrade and can run circles around the 7D while remaining comfortable and familiar. If you're a 5D III shooter and need extra telephoto reach or crazy fast shooting with reliable autofocus it would be tough to go wrong. Image quality is extremely high, and the two bodies are virtually indistinguishable. For that matter, anyone who's ever considered buying a 1D X should probably take a look at the 7D Mark II as well; it might actually meet your needs at a much lower price point. Finally, for raw shooters using most other EOS body, can you say "goodbye banding?"
> 
> The EOS 7D Mark II is an exciting camera and a great upgrade from its predecessor. It's not without its faults, but it has a lot more pros going for it than cons.



So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this. 

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias. But from what I'm reading of the referenced DPR review, I don't see it. To make an analogy, an uncomfortably jittery, track-biased ride is a flaw in a general-purpose sports car like, say, a BMW M4. In a Viper, it's a feature, brought about by an uncompromised special usage case. 

Incidentally, I shoot Canon, Sony and digital MF professionally, and rely almost exclusively on Canon for my lens kit, so I'm not "against" the company at all.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 7, 2016)

JClark said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money). 

But DPR claims they're not biased. :
[/quote]

I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch. Elsewhere in the review, DPR acknowledges that the 7dII will likely be seen and purchased as a consumer-grade camera despite it's pro-level features cribbed from the 1dx. In the conclusion, DPR is quite complementary:



> So, should you take the plunge? Most likely, yes. If you're thinking about moving up from the 7D, the Mark II is a great upgrade and can run circles around the 7D while remaining comfortable and familiar. If you're a 5D III shooter and need extra telephoto reach or crazy fast shooting with reliable autofocus it would be tough to go wrong. Image quality is extremely high, and the two bodies are virtually indistinguishable. For that matter, anyone who's ever considered buying a 1D X should probably take a look at the 7D Mark II as well; it might actually meet your needs at a much lower price point. Finally, for raw shooters using most other EOS body, can you say "goodbye banding?"
> 
> The EOS 7D Mark II is an exciting camera and a great upgrade from its predecessor. It's not without its faults, but it has a lot more pros going for it than cons.



So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this. 

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias. But from what I'm reading of the referenced DPR review, I don't see it. To make an analogy, an uncomfortably jittery, track-biased ride is a flaw in a general-purpose sports car like, say, a BMW M4. In a Viper, it's a feature, brought about by an uncompromised special usage case. 

Incidentally, I shoot Canon, Sony and digital MF professionally, and rely almost exclusively on Canon for my lens kit, so I'm not "against" the company at all.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the D5 review was the first time DPR hinted, that dynamic range really isn't that important. I guess Rishi was ill that day.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2016)

JClark said:


> I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch.
> 
> So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this.
> 
> To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias.



Fair enough. I agree it's not so much the same market as it is the factors which DPR lists as key for D5 users (high ISO, AF, durability) are also likely key for 7DII users, but no pass on low ISO for the latter. 

I'd suggest you compare DPR's review of the Nikon D4 and D4s to their review of the 1D X, except that while they did review the two prior Nikon flagship bodies, they didn't review the 1D X (to be fair, the D4/D4s didn't get 'full' reviews, but did have static scene test results/comparisons published). Overall, their tone is that Nikon and Sony cameras deliver stellar images under challenging conditions, and Canon cameras take decent pictures. It's more of a damning with faint praise sort of bias, not flagrant. 

The point is that DPR have hammered the joys of more DR, created a comparison page where you can push images 6 stops to highlight the importance of ISO invariance, and suddenly those don't really matter. For a Nikon flagship, that is. We'll see what they say about the 1D X II, if they bother to test it at all. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## d (Apr 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'd suggest you compare DPR's review of the Nikon D4 and D4s to their review of the 1D X, except that while they did review the two prior Nikon flagship bodies, they didn't review the 1D X (to be fair, the D4/D4s didn't get 'full' reviews, but did have static scene test results/comparisons published). Overall, their tone is that Nikon and Sony cameras deliver stellar images under challenging conditions, and Canon cameras take decent pictures. It's more of a damning with faint praise sort of bias, not flagrant.
> 
> The point is that DPR have hammered the joys of more DR, created a comparison page where you can push images 6 stops to highlight the importance of ISO invariance, and suddenly those don't really matter. For a Nikon flagship, that is. We'll see what they say about the 1D X II, if they bother to test it at all. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.



I'd been thinking about the same thing - the 1DX review that they never wrote. And if there was ever a flagship camera to review, the 1DX was it - going backwards in pixel count relative to one of the *two* bodies it was designed to replace.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JClark said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch.
> ...


As soon as 1DX2 released, DPR published article by comparing with D5 stating it is evolutionarily. They argued that, Canon did not mention any DR improvements in sensor to them.


----------



## msm (Apr 8, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



I got better things to do than sit check this website all day every day, like for instance going outside and actually using a camera :.

You provided 0 data that any Sony lens or camera has higher failure rate than Canon.
You provided 0 data about second hand prices on A7, you cherry pick to look at prices at 1 specific point in time when it comes to prices of new cameras. Why are we even comparing the A7 which already has been succeeded (at which point it price dropped from 13.5k to 11k) with a 5D3 which has not yet been succeeded? What do you think will happen to second hand 5D3 prices once the 5D4 is out? Already see a lot of used 1DX on the market.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 8, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I believe everyone reading our posts will see that I have backed up my statements with facts. You have not, and you have backed out. 

If you read lensrentals more carefully, you will see that they have had problems with Sony lenses.


----------



## msm (Apr 8, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> I believe everyone reading our posts will see that I have backed up my statements with facts. You have not, and you have backed out.
> 
> If you read lensrentals more carefully, you will see that they have had problems with Sony lenses.



I'll back out the day you start backing your statements up with relevant facts. Making general claims based on internet anecdotes and things taken out of context from lensrentals blog doesn't cut it.


----------



## Larsskv (Apr 8, 2016)

msm said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > I believe everyone reading our posts will see that I have backed up my statements with facts. You have not, and you have backed out.
> ...



I wish you would dispute the facts I have presented instead of making general claims. Stick to the case instead of making personal accusations.


----------

