# Canon explains Mirrorless



## Solarflare

Canon explains why they still don't have a professional mirrorless camera | Photo Rumors


> This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch.


 Not bad, not bad. But the third IMHO would be the angle of incidence issue.

One of the prime benefits of having a mirrorless camera is that the distance between sensor and lens can be much smaller. This in principle allows simpler, shorter, more lightweight, higher quality and cheaper wide angle lenses, that do not need to be constructed as retrofocus. But to fully exploit this advantage, the sensor has to be able to handle light with steep angles of incidence.

And finally, of course there is also battery life.


----------



## jaomul

I understand that this is an article of some interest, but with the amount of dslr systems and mirrorless systems why does anyone give a rats ass if Canon or Nikon make a mirrorless. The lenses will be different so will need an adapter regardless of your existing non mirrorless system, and existing mirrorless systems already adapt to other lenses


----------



## beagle100

jaomul said:


> I understand that this is an article of some interest, but with the amount of dslr systems and mirrorless systems why does anyone give a rats ass if Canon or Nikon make a mirrorless. The lenses will be different so will need an adapter regardless of your existing non mirrorless system, and existing mirrorless systems already adapt to other lenses




right on
I'll stick with my ($100) mirrorless camera
maybe some day I'll go crazy and splurge on a $200 mirrorless camera !
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Solarflare

Um, what ?

Canon and Nikon both already make mirrorless systems, Canon EOS M and Nikon "One".

The issue is if they are making a PROFESSIONAL mirrorless system. I.e. something like their DSLR - only mirrorless.

And such a thing isnt around yet. The closest is maybe Fuji X. Sony TRIES to make something like that, but I bet Canikon can do better.


----------



## robbins.photo

jaomul said:


> I understand that this is an article of some interest, but with the amount of dslr systems and mirrorless systems why does anyone give a rats ass if Canon or Nikon make a mirrorless. The lenses will be different so will need an adapter regardless of your existing non mirrorless system, and existing mirrorless systems already adapt to other lenses



Which is probably why they don't make one in a nutshell.  The big advantage to mirrorless is size and weight.  Well, if you want to use all the same lenses as your DSLR's, you can't really make the camera body a whole lot smaller than what it is already.  So your really inheriting all the mirrorless design issues (such as autofocus and the need for ELV) without really getting the biggest benefit from using mirrorless in return which is smaller size and weight.

On the other side of the coin if you do change the lens mount then none of your vast array of lenses designed for your DSLR lines are really going to work, and you need smaller, lighter lenses to really take advantage of the much smaller camera body.  

My guess is both Canon and Nikon did the market research and realized that at least for now their just isn't a big enough market out there to really make such designs profitable.  Eventually my guess is as the tech improves and the prices of engineering and building such systems decreases in comparison to the current DSLR tech being used today that eventually both Nikon and Canon will begin to offer such options.


----------



## Overread

Thing is Canon might well do a mirrorless camera in DSLR format - once the mirrorbox is superseded by video and liveview and once that won't impact battery life in a meaningful way. The thing is for that we need a huge advance in video tech and processing power; plus a likely shift to sensor reading data from the whole unit not in strips (again even more processor power needed). 

And in the end a digital overlay over the viewfinder image is easier to work with; likely cheaper and not as resource intensive. 

Mirrorless saves in size and weight and that's is main selling point; heck its its only real selling point. Take that away and their systems are nothing special next to a regular DSLR.


----------



## Derrel

Canon has just about ZERO need to create a professional mirrorless camera system--and that is exactly what a "professional" mirrorless entry would require--a system. Currently, digital system cameras of the smaller size is a market dominated by Canon and Nikon. The market leaders, Canon and Nikon, have no need to try to legitimize what upstarts in the camera business have tried to do, and failed with--which is making lots of cameras and selling lots of cameras, and tens of millions of lenses for each company (EF, EF-S, and F mount lenses).

THE market LEADER, Canon, does not need to go chasing after new customers when it already has the lion's share. This is the difference between mirrorless fanboys and camera company executives. The former occasionally pine for something they think they would like, the latter devote their lives to the camera business.

The idea that Canon needs a "professional mirrorless" system doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Besides, switching the paradigm is a potentially very dangerous proposition in the camera business. Leica, Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Yashica, Bronica, Minolta, Konica, Petri, Graflex, Pentax, Olympus, Ricoh--all of those companies had severe,severe problems when paradigms shifted. Making a "new type of camera" is something that the above companies had immense difficulty with.


----------



## Overread

The other is that mirrorless isn't really replacing DSLRs. It's sitting alongside as another option for a person to use.

Those I see selling up and moving tend to be those who have reached the end of their DSLR lifespan and were not investing further into it because they were no longer using it. As null customers their loss is minimal and the act of moving away to a new format might well even make them a repeat customer in a few years - when the novelty of mirrorless has worn off and they've built their mirrorless into a monster as big as entry level DSKR


----------



## Derrel

The original premise of mirrorless cameras was set forth years ago as, "Smaller and lighter cameras, smaller and lighter lenses." However, once one gets into lenses that have top-shelf optical performance, especially at the telephoto end, there really is no size or weight savings for the performance lenses that give the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 equivalence--those types of lenses really can not be made much smaller or lighter than they have been since the 1980's...so what people end up with is a tiny camera body with a BIG lens hanging off the front of it. Sony's newest lens releases, their BRAND-new last month 85/1.4, 24-70, and 70-200 are BIG, heavy, solid lenses, touted as having exceptionally high performance optics, but again, pretty much as large and heavy as a Canon or Nikon lens of comparable specification.

Leica's new SL mirrorless: a no-compromise, MASSIVE body camera...BIG, full-bodied, and a massive standard zoom with it, high-performance EVF, apparently the best ever built and offered...priced right at Canon 1DX or Nikon D3x price points--right at around $7,999 US dollars body-only.

Canon already faces a diminishing sales camera market, so devoting hundreds of millions of Yen to R&D and tooling for an all-new lens line doesn't make a lot of sense. I think Canon ought to maintain the Canon EF mount in any serious mirrorless camera they might make. Frankly, I think the _smaller, lighter_ mirrorless original premise has mostly been played out, and that people are now realizing that the original premise and promise of the 2007 era has just not been met, except in the short-lens and compact zoom end of things.

I think if Canon or Nikon do decide to enter the professional mirrorless segment, they would be incredibly foolish to do it using anything except their current, best mounts: Canon EF and Nikon F-mount. Sacrifice the non-retrofocus wide-angle idea, and go with what has the worlds's two largest installed user lens bases...EF and F. Go for a balls-out, high-performance mirrorless, and leave the tiny camera business to Fuji and Panasonic and Olympus--companies that each sell a month's worth of Canon d-slr sales over their entire calendar year.


----------



## pixmedic

I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's? all I really hear about is the AF system and FPS differences. what if your profession doesn't need the higher end AF or FPS?  
a wedding photographer I follow uses M4/3 cameras to shoot weddings. Featured: 'Mu43 Wedding Experience' by SSSYURRR
his shots are amazing, using an E-M5 and a E-p5. 
I cant imagine_* not*_ being able to shoot a wedding with my fuji X-E2. or a sony a7. (with proper glass of course)
how about portraits? im pretty sure I can still do good portrait work with my mirrorless. 
or is a fuji mirrorless somehow less "professional" than the myriad of people using entry-mid level nikon and canon DSLR's for the same work?

I remember years ago, Nikon, on their own web site, stated that the only "professional" model's they made were the Dx line. 
(at the time that was D3 (X, S) and D4. everything else was listed as "consumer". im pretty sure canon probably had a similar listing. 

I agree on the reasons canon/nikon probably are not very serious in the mirrorless scene now, but I dont think that detracts any from the fact that many MILC's are extremely capable cameras for all but those few that actually _*require *_high FPS and the absolute best AF system for their job/hobby.


----------



## Dao

Look back at 6 to 7 years ago.  There were a lot more companies made DSLRs for the consumer market but something changed. Low end consumer camera market share are shrinking due to cell phone camera and  nobody were able to make a dent on the DSLR market which dominated by Canon and Nikon.  Sony tried, but not going anyway.

In order to survive,  Panasonic and Olympus create a new market called Mirrorless and hoping to gain some business.  Soon after that, others followed and they are the one who are not able to make money in point and shoot camera as well as DSLR market.

I really don't see why Canon need to create a high end mirrorless camera.  They do good in the DSLR market.  They create a small DSLR (SL) for someone who like to travel lighter.  Their high end point and shoots are not bad.  Their super zoom point and shoot are decent.  Of course, it is hard to beat the Smartphone camera market now.  They did come up with one camera that pair with Smartphone, but I do not think it gain any traction.

I think we need to understand Canon is here to make money, and they will focus on where they can make more money.  I really do not think making a Professional Mirrorless camera will make them more money.


----------



## Solarflare

I dont care for mirrorless being smaller. That effect much less strong than most people think. Current mirrorless are mostly being smaller simply because they have smaller sensors. While Sony A7* cameras are smaller than DSLR, but their lenses have to be longer than the DSLR counterparts, because the laws of optics do not change with mirrorless.

Also, personally I simply have large hands. Current mirrorless are thus more or less uncomfortable to hold for me. Especially if theres huge lenses attached.

Mirrorless, to me, have the following advantages and disadvantages (I hope I didnt forget something):

+ no mirrorbox - much less complexity, more reliable and cheaper camera possible
+ short flange distance - allows smaller, higher quality and cheaper wide angle lenses if angle of incidence issue with digital sensors is resolved
+ can adapt any DSLR lens thanks to reduced flange distance
+ EVF with many secondary processing possible - focus peaking, magnification, digital split screen, life histogram, false color, zebras, ...
+ very broad coverage of the AF
+ viewfinder size independent of sensor size
+ perfect framing
+ often no calibration of the AF necessary, since it is at least partially a contrast autofocus
+ possibly a rangefinder OVF (see outside the current picture frame for better descisive moment)

- increased current requirement (sensor and EVF have to run permanently during useage)
- issue of using current during looking through sensor for prolonged times without actually shooting a photo (typical wildlife scenario)
- general heat and overheating issues with the sensor
- typical EVF issues (lag especially in low light, dazzling the user in low light by being too bright, flickering in artifical light, etc)
- having a rangefinder OVF solves above issues, but the coverage of the finder is limited (no ultra wide, no macro, no tilt/shift, poor telephoto, issues with polarization filters, wont notice lens cap still on the camera)
- no "real" OVF like a SLR, useable for any lens
- no film camera variants for the system
- potentially poor action focus performance especially with pure contrast autofocus concepts
- incompete systems, small number of lenses, poor flash support, poor used and secondary markets

All in all I currently doubt I will ever fully convert to mirrorless. I think I will always have a full frame DSLR with two zooms (wide and tele) and some primes, and I will later point get a medium format mirrorless system with a nice trinity of prime lenses (wide, normal, tele).


----------



## robbins.photo

Solarflare said:


> Also, personally I simply have large hands. Current mirrorless are thus more or less uncomfortable to hold for me. Especially if theres huge lenses attached.



I'm in the same boat.  I have nothing against a mirrorless system, honestly I really don't care if there is a mirror flipping up and down in there or not, as long as it takes good pictures when I press the button.  Like you I prefer a larger camera, I have the devil of the time manipulating the smaller ones and wouldn't really wan't anything much smaller than my current DSLR.

However the thing to think about is that you and I are in the minority.  When you consider this in terms of marketing and sales, there really isn't a lot a mirrorless system offers over current DSLR technology for the companies involved in manufacturing them other than the size and portability of the system.

In your list you mention the flange distance and the ability to create a system that can adapt to lenses from multiple manufactures, for example.  Which for those of us who use the cameras is fantastic.  However Canon and Nikon, well when they view it from a company perspective why would Nikon want to put out a camera that could use Canon lenses or vice versa, since a good portion of their profits are made in selling lenses that only work with their mount?  While this would be an advantage to the user, it's not really an advantage to the manufacturer.

I do think eventually that mirrorless might overcome some of the various issues with AF and EVF/OVF and when it does then you'll probably start to see more DSLR sized cameras that will incorporate this technology rather than the current technology.  Like you said, fewer moving parts usually means better reliability.  Until then though I think mirrorless will likely remain an option used primarily to make cameras smaller and more portable while maintaining a certain image quality, at least by the major manufacturers by Canon and Nikon.

I could be wrong of course, it has been known to happen on occasion, but that's what I see in my crystal ball at any rate.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> THE market LEADER, Canon, does not need to go chasing after new customers when it already has the lion's share. This is the difference between mirrorless fanboys and camera company executives. The former occasionally pine for something they think they would like, the latter devote their lives to the camera business.



Very good point.

It's almost as if Canon know what they are doing.


----------



## runnah

pixmedic said:


> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's?



I don't think Canon considers wedding and portrait photographers "professionals". To them their professional range is aimed at the war journalist, sports photographer, wildlife adventurer. People who need rugged dependability and simplicity.


----------



## JacaRanda

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> THE market LEADER, Canon, does not need to go chasing after new customers when it already has the lion's share. This is the difference between mirrorless fanboys and camera company executives. The former occasionally pine for something they think they would like, the latter devote their lives to the camera business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point.
> 
> It's almost as if Canon know what they are doing.
Click to expand...


Size and numbers matter?


----------



## robbins.photo

JacaRanda said:


> Size and numbers matter?



Yes, no matter what the wifey tells you.  That's just something they say, they don't really mean it.  Lol


----------



## Braineack

Solarflare said:


> This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch.
Click to expand...


These are two things I don't like about mirrorless.

Lining up a shot in DLSR viewfinder feels right, kinda like looking through the sights of a firearm.  You see what the lens see and you can physically track movements much better this way (regardless of how well the AF module performs itself). 

My A6000 EVF is rinky-dinky.  It feel awkward trying to use it, and the tiny little LCD screen doesn't look real and doesn't offer much in terms of seeing details/focus/etc.  I DO however, like that both EVFs can display the image as it will be captured, so you have a better idea of what your settings will output once you press the button. 

Some hybrid of this in the future could be interesting.


----------



## pixmedic

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Canon considers wedding and portrait photographers "professionals". To them their professional range is aimed at the war journalist, sports photographer, wildlife adventurer. People who need rugged dependability and simplicity.
Click to expand...


it seemed, for a while anyway, that Nikon felt the same way. 
even the D700 was listed in the "consumer" bracket. 
now though, it appears that the "prosumer" label has made its way into the CanNikon vocabulary. 

Aside from someone needing high FPS or THE best AF capability (which we never did),  I cant think of anything that I did with my D600's that I cant do with my fuji X-E2. Its certainly feasible for the type of paid work _*we*_ did. 
I can get fast glass for the fuji, the ISO performance is on par with what I got from the Nikons, and the image quality is certainly as good. 

I realize ergonomics are still a factor, and too small a camera is just as problematic as too large a camera. 
size and weight were not a factor for me as far as work went, but it was definitely one of the biggest things keeping me from shooting for myself, and taking a camera when we went out.


----------



## runnah

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Canon considers wedding and portrait photographers "professionals". To them their professional range is aimed at the war journalist, sports photographer, wildlife adventurer. People who need rugged dependability and simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it seemed, for a while anyway, that Nikon felt the same way.
> even the D700 was listed in the "consumer" bracket.
> now though, it appears that the "prosumer" label has made its way into the CanNikon vocabulary.
> 
> Aside from someone needing high FPS or THE best AF capability (which we never did),  I cant think of anything that I did with my D600's that I cant do with my fuji X-E2. Its certainly feasible for the type of paid work _*we*_ did.
> I can get fast glass for the fuji, the ISO performance is on par with what I got from the Nikons, and the image quality is certainly as good.
> 
> I realize ergonomics are still a factor, and too small a camera is just as problematic as too large a camera.
> size and weight were not a factor for me as far as work went, but it was definitely one of the biggest things keeping me from shooting for myself, and taking a camera when we went out.
Click to expand...


Well I think that both companies use the people that actually hold a camera in their hands every day as their test market. Develop for them and let that trickle down into the lower markets. 

Personally while I like some things about the tech of the Sony mirrorless the rest of the issues were deal breakers. The a7s II was terrible ergonomically, the battery life was appalling and EVF switching LCD was a joke.


----------



## pixmedic

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Canon considers wedding and portrait photographers "professionals". To them their professional range is aimed at the war journalist, sports photographer, wildlife adventurer. People who need rugged dependability and simplicity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it seemed, for a while anyway, that Nikon felt the same way.
> even the D700 was listed in the "consumer" bracket.
> now though, it appears that the "prosumer" label has made its way into the CanNikon vocabulary.
> 
> Aside from someone needing high FPS or THE best AF capability (which we never did),  I cant think of anything that I did with my D600's that I cant do with my fuji X-E2. Its certainly feasible for the type of paid work _*we*_ did.
> I can get fast glass for the fuji, the ISO performance is on par with what I got from the Nikons, and the image quality is certainly as good.
> 
> I realize ergonomics are still a factor, and too small a camera is just as problematic as too large a camera.
> size and weight were not a factor for me as far as work went, but it was definitely one of the biggest things keeping me from shooting for myself, and taking a camera when we went out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I think that both companies use the people that actually hold a camera in their hands every day as their test market. Develop for them and let that trickle down into the lower markets.
> 
> Personally while I like some things about the tech of the Sony mirrorless the rest of the issues were deal breakers. The a7s II was terrible ergonomically, the battery life was appalling and EVF switching LCD was a joke.
Click to expand...


the EVF (and the auto switching between viewfinder and LCD) is one of the things I like most about the fuji X-E2. 
it knows when you have the camera at your eye, and when you dont, it switches to LCD. its very fast on the x-e2.  you can turn off that feature if you want to save battery, or if you only want to use the EFV.  ive been using the auto-switch lately just to get a feel for it, but ill probably change it to viewfinder only at some point. battery life has not really been  a big deal for me, but using lcd+viewfinder does eat up the battery faster. 

personally, Im loving EVF. being able to see the actual exposure before i press the button is amazing. I wish I had the ability to do that shooting weddings. the changes are fast on the x-e2. i move a dial, i immediately see the change in the viewfinder or LCD.  there's almost no lag. 

ergonomically speaking, i love the x-e2 on that point as well. aperture changing dial on the lens is awesome, scroll wheel to change shutter speeds +/- a few stops from what you set the actual dial at, and a button to change ISO (button press then spin the wheel) its easy to shoot manual once I got used to button placement after having used Nikon for so long.  
(the only thing i wish i could do is change the scroll wheel to just ISO)

im not trying to say mirrorless is the right option for everyone... im not even saying there IS a good mirrorless option for everyone. you just have to do the comparisons and decide what system is best for you. 
But, I do think that there's a number of people still against mirrorless based on old information that either have not researched newer mirrorless bodies/lenses or have not actually gone and physically tested any mirrorless cameras themselves. 

I did a LOT of research before buying a camera again. especially since i was starting over from scratch and not tied to any system what-so-ever. Budget was also a big factor. _*huuuuge*_ even.   the X-E2 was on a short list of options I had within my budget, and I took the advice of several forum members citing the Fuji as the best option for me. (one of which sold me the camera) best. camera. choice. _*evah! *_The wife agrees. 

I dont really care one way or the other if Canon and Nikon get into mirrorless or not. Im just glad _*somebody*_ did.


----------



## sashbar

pixmedic said:


> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's? all I really hear about is the AF system and FPS differences. what if your profession doesn't need the higher end AF or FPS?



A professional camera is first and foremost a very durable one that is able to withstand daily abuse and lasts long enough to justify the investment. That is the main difference. AF, FPS, if we do not talk about sport and some reporting, are not really that important. Most prosumer and even beginners DSLRs have good enough AF and FPS.


----------



## pixmedic

sashbar said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's? all I really hear about is the AF system and FPS differences. what if your profession doesn't need the higher end AF or FPS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A professional camera is first and foremost a very durable one that is able to withstand daily abuse and lasts long enough to justify the investment. That is the main difference. AF, FPS, if we do not talk about sport and some reporting, are not really that important. Most prosumer and even beginners DSLRs have good enough AF and FPS.
Click to expand...


the fuji XT1 has a metal chassis and is weather sealed.  Pro camera?


----------



## Derrel

I've bought a number of d-slr cameras over the past 15 years, probably too many looking back on it. There have been some good cameras, and a few that had some issues that were always a PITA or an annoyance. Fuji S1 Pro...lowest ISO level? 320! And being built on a cheap Nikon N60 film body, the thing had crap AF, and a flash synch sped that was a nightmare with an ISO 320 lowest value! Fuji S2 Pro from 2003 or 2004--nice images, but again, built on a cheap consumer-level body, and the biggest annoyance was it needed 2 x 123A lithium batteries, and then 4 x 1.5 AA batteries--two sets of batteries, probably about 400 frames per set of AA batteries. It did not absolutely require the 123A lithiums, but when they were absent, the 4 AA's shot about 125 frames before needing to be swapped out. My Gawd...what a fricking PITA...I lost count of the *Dead Battery! Ack!* situations.

A camera that forces you to have two, or three, or four charged up batteries for a day of shooting very soon becomes a really,really annoying issue. You have to constantly worry about "juice", as well as, "Can I get through this shoot without running out of power?" "How many batteries do I have on me?" "How long before I can get three batteries recharged and be able to shoot something else?" *THAT WAS MY LIFE with the Nikon D1*...horrible battery life, always had to have three batteries on you to shoot anything that lasted four hours.

Once Nikon pioneered the large lithium-ion batteries ALONG WITH the battery monitoring in-camera, and sophisticated battery chargers, the flagship D2x went to about 3,800 actual frames per charge. That was the peak of battery capacity, and now the Japanese govt. has regulated lithium-ion batteries downward in max capacity, but still...a small EN-EL 15 that DarkShadow was using recently had his D7200 at 1,234 frames shot and 48% battery remaining.

A "professional camera" needs to be one where the battery has capacity enough that you do NOT need to constantly worry about having enough "juice" to get through even a 1- to 2-hour shoot.


----------



## sashbar

pixmedic said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's? all I really hear about is the AF system and FPS differences. what if your profession doesn't need the higher end AF or FPS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A professional camera is first and foremost a very durable one that is able to withstand daily abuse and lasts long enough to justify the investment. That is the main difference. AF, FPS, if we do not talk about sport and some reporting, are not really that important. Most prosumer and even beginners DSLRs have good enough AF and FPS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fuji XT1 has a metal chassis and is weather sealed.  Pro camera?
Click to expand...


No, it is not a heavy-duty camera. I was talking about DSLRs. As Derrel mentioned, mirrorless cameras need to figure out how to make batteries last longer - much longer - before they become truly pro cameras. And of course the AF. But it will happen, and probably sooner than we think, as far as I can see.

XT-1 is my main camera for the last 2 (?) years. I would classify it is a hipster's tool. It gives me this "I-wanna-hold-it-and-take-another-shot" feeling like no other camera I ever used. But it is a serious camera nevertheless.


----------



## pixmedic

sashbar said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it interesting that there is all this talk of canon/nikon getting into "professional" mirrorless cameras. what would a "professional" mirrorless camera be anyway? is anyone suggesting that people cant/dont do professional work with canon or nikons  "non professional" DSLR's? all I really hear about is the AF system and FPS differences. what if your profession doesn't need the higher end AF or FPS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A professional camera is first and foremost a very durable one that is able to withstand daily abuse and lasts long enough to justify the investment. That is the main difference. AF, FPS, if we do not talk about sport and some reporting, are not really that important. Most prosumer and even beginners DSLRs have good enough AF and FPS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fuji XT1 has a metal chassis and is weather sealed.  Pro camera?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not a heavy-duty camera. I was talking about DSLRs. As Derrel mentioned, mirrorless cameras need to figure out how to make batteries last longer - much longer - before they become truly pro cameras. And of course the AF. But it will happen, and probably sooner than we think, as far as I can see.
> 
> XT-1 is my main camera for the last 2 (?) years. I would classify it is a hipster's tool. It gives me this "I-wanna-hold-it-and-take-another-shot" feeling like no other camera I ever used. But it is a serious camera nevertheless.
Click to expand...



I think a lot of this is really subjective as to ones definition of what "professional" is. 
long ago, Nikon and Canon set the precedent that "pro" bodies had the built in vertical grip. everything else was "consumer".


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> I think a lot of this is really subjective as to ones definition of what "professional" is.
> long ago, Nikon and Canon set the precedent that "pro" bodies had the built in vertical grip. everything else was "consumer".



Well my definition of "professional" in regards to cameras is pretty simple:

"A BS marketing term that really has little to no real life significance and yet seems to cause an inordinate amount of discussion when someone uses it as a descriptor in a message forum"

Didn't check Websters though so not sure if that's the "official" definition or not, just one I go by.


----------



## pixmedic

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of this is really subjective as to ones definition of what "professional" is.
> long ago, Nikon and Canon set the precedent that "pro" bodies had the built in vertical grip. everything else was "consumer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well my definition of "professional" in regards to cameras is pretty simple:
> 
> "A BS marketing term that really has little to no real life significance and yet seems to cause an inordinate amount of discussion when someone uses it as a descriptor in a message forum"
> 
> Didn't check Websters though so not sure if that's the "official" definition or not, just one I go by.
Click to expand...



"Professional" is not a term I designate to any camera. only the person behind it.


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> "Professional" is not a term I designate to any camera. only the person behind it.



Huh.. so why are people always telling me.. wow, that's a great picture.  You must have a really nice camera?

Weird.


----------



## pixmedic

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Professional" is not a term I designate to any camera. only the person behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh.. so why are people always telling me.. wow, that's a great picture.  You must have a really nice camera?
> 
> Weird.
Click to expand...


ok well....you got me. 
_*sometimes*_ it actually _*is*_ the camera...


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> ok well....you got me.
> _*sometimes*_ it actually _*is*_ the camera...



So if you take a shot like that and get paid for it.. bam, professional camera.

Whew.. finally, a workable definition.  Problem solved.  Smoke Break!

Lol


----------



## Fox_Racing_Guy

I don't understand the complaint on battery life. did anyone else here shoot 35mm film, how fast could you rewind and load a new film canister verses changing a battery? Do people complain about having to change memory cards when they run out of capacity as well?
Nikon had absolutely nothing to do with Lithium-ion battery development and pioneered nothing, this was all Sony's work. 
For the record I don't own or have any interest in mirrorless   cameras.


----------



## robbins.photo

Fox_Racing_Guy said:


> Do people complain about having to change memory cards when they run out of capacity as well?



People complain about the remote control being just to far away to reach without getting up.


----------



## table1349

I loved these extra large memory card from my film days.


----------



## Derrel

Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.

Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.

The Sony A7r battery has a CIPA test result of *350 images per charge*.

A typical all-day wedding shot total today is 2,200 frames fired. The D4s, if used as the main or "only" camera will need only one battery, and it will last alllll day long, without a single battery change, and not a single worry.

The Sony A7r at 350 shots per charge will require 6.28 batteries...so that means SEVEN batteries will be required for the day. Maybe even an eighth battery will be needed.

Hauling around seven or eight batteries for one day of work? Needing to STOP, and reload a battery into your "professional camera" six, or seven times?

Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...


----------



## pixmedic

Derrel said:


> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> The Sony A7r battery has a CIPA test result of *350 images per charge*.
> 
> A typical all-day wedding shot total today is 2,200 frames fired. The D4s, if used as the main or "only" camera will need one battery, and it will last alllll day long.
> 
> The Sony A7r at 350 shots per charge will require 6.28 batteries...so that means SEVEN batteries will be required for the day. Maybe even an eighth.
> 
> Hauling around seven or eight batteries for one day of work? Needing to STOP, and reload a batter six, or seven times?




ok..come on now. 
lets not go overboard..
im willing to bet i can change a battery faster than someone can change film, meaning its faster than anyone shooting any pro film camera.  so realistically, I fail to see this as anything more than the most minor of nuisances in the grand scheme of things. 
in fact, im willing to bet i can change a battery in my x-e2 in 10 seconds or less. 
seriously...this is a non issue for me.


----------



## Derrel

_ok..come on now.
lets not go overboard..
im willing to bet i can change a battery faster than someone can change film, meaning its faster than anyone shooting any pro film camera.  so realistically, I fail to see this as anything more than the most minor of nuisances in the grand scheme of things. 
in fact, im willing to bet i can change a battery in my x-e2 in 10 seconds or less. 
seriously...this is a non issue for me._

*It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time*--it's the absolute imperative to have six, or seven, or eight batteries for one day's work. It's is the need to haul around, and keep track of, seven or eight batteries. It's the need to get home and IMMEDIATELY begin recharging not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but SEVEN gutless wonder batteries after every long wedding.

It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time--it is the *worry that the battery will crap out in the middle of a video sho*t. It's knowing that the battery MUST be swapped out and a new battery located, and installed, six, or seven times during an all-day wedding or any other long event.

It's the constant need, the essential need, to make sure that your batteries never get stolen, misplaced, or lost, or that you never,ever,ever allow yourself to show up with any dead cells. It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time--It's the issue that without at least four or five batteries, that you might very well, unexpectedly, be unable to use the camera when needed. THAT is a "minor nuisance"?

As he mentioned, Runnah bought into the Sony A7 video camera concept for his work-related videography. But the lousy battery issue was an insurmountable obstacle.

A 350-frame battery is like driving around with 1/8 of a tank of gasoline or a FULL tank of fuel--with 1/8 tank you realize that you are on thin ice, constantly. One miscalculation, or one un-recharged battery, and you could easily be out of commission. And that is the thing professional cameras specialize in--dependability. An XE-2 with a small battery is no big thing. Even the Canon 1DX, which badly lags the D4 or D4s in battery performance, has a 1,500 frame CIPA rating.


----------



## cherylynne1

I don't know...the numbers seem off to me. I guess that doesn't include bursts? I went to the zoo yesterday with my a6000. The battery was at 85% when I turned it on. It lasted about three hours and I took around 800 shots. Then it took about 30 seconds to switch out the battery, which was no big deal to me. I'm not suggesting that it's better suited to a wedding than a DSLR, just that the numbers aren't quite as cut and dry as the testing makes them out to be. There was another day when I started with a 100% charge and a 32gb memory card, and I filled the card long before the battery died, which is around 1200 shots. I was taking pictures of kids running around, so again, tons of bursts. I think it's partly a matter of shooting style. Do any of the tests mention the amount of time that the battery will last? Or how long it takes them to take 350 pictures? Or whether they're using the viewfinder or the LCD?


----------



## gsgary

My new Fuji is a professional  camera because  it says professional on the front of the camera it gets a new sensor every 8 shots and the sensor is 6cm X 9cm and it's mirrorless 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> The Sony A7r battery has a CIPA test result of *350 images per charge*.
> 
> A typical all-day wedding shot total today is 2,200 frames fired. The D4s, if used as the main or "only" camera will need only one battery, and it will last alllll day long, without a single battery change, and not a single worry.
> 
> The Sony A7r at 350 shots per charge will require 6.28 batteries...so that means SEVEN batteries will be required for the day. Maybe even an eighth battery will be needed.
> 
> Hauling around seven or eight batteries for one day of work? Needing to STOP, and reload a battery into your "professional camera" six, or seven times?
> 
> Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...


The A7 shooter would be more selective and not shoot a ridiculous 2200 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> _ok..come on now.
> lets not go overboard..
> im willing to bet i can change a battery faster than someone can change film, meaning its faster than anyone shooting any pro film camera.  so realistically, I fail to see this as anything more than the most minor of nuisances in the grand scheme of things.
> in fact, im willing to bet i can change a battery in my x-e2 in 10 seconds or less.
> seriously...this is a non issue for me._
> 
> *It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time*--it's the absolute imperative to have six, or seven, or eight batteries for one day's work. It's is the need to haul around, and keep track of, seven or eight batteries. It's the need to get home and IMMEDIATELY begin recharging not 1, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, but SEVEN gutless wonder batteries after every long wedding.
> 
> It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time--it is the *worry that the battery will crap out in the middle of a video sho*t. It's knowing that the battery MUST be swapped out and a new battery located, and installed, six, or seven times during an all-day wedding or any other long event.
> 
> It's the constant need, the essential need, to make sure that your batteries never get stolen, misplaced, or lost, or that you never,ever,ever allow yourself to show up with any dead cells. It's not the battery swap-out and swap-in time--It's the issue that without at least four or five batteries, that you might very well, unexpectedly, be unable to use the camera when needed. THAT is a "minor nuisance"?
> 
> As he mentioned, Runnah bought into the Sony A7 video camera concept for his work-related videography. But the lousy battery issue was an insurmountable obstacle.
> 
> A 350-frame battery is like driving around with 1/8 of a tank of gasoline or a FULL tank of fuel--with 1/8 tank you realize that you are on thin ice, constantly. One miscalculation, or one un-recharged battery, and you could easily be out of commission. And that is the thing professional cameras specialize in--dependability. An XE-2 with a small battery is no big thing. Even the Canon 1DX, which badly lags the D4 or D4s in battery performance, has a 1,500 frame CIPA rating.


If I was to loose 1 Sony battery I would still have 6 left what if your super Nikon shooter goes with 1 battery because he is a smug bustard and that battery craps  out he is ...

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle100

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> 
> Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...
> 
> 
> 
> The A7 shooter would be more selective and not shoot a ridiculous 2200
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


seems crazy shooting a ridiculous 2,000 
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Derrel

beagle100 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> 
> Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...
> 
> 
> 
> The A7 shooter would be more selective and not shoot a ridiculous 2200
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems crazy shooting a ridiculous 2,000
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
Click to expand...


Yeah, kind of does to me as well, but that's about what today's ALL-DAY coverage entails for many wedding shooters. Arrive at 10:00 AM, and shoot until around 11:00 PM. As was mentioned, 2,000 to 2,200 or even 2,400 frames is the kind of blanket coverage a lot of younger shooters are firing today...with formal group photos of two families, five bridesmaids, four or five groomsmen, the bridge and groom, the ceremony, and then a four to five-hour reception with 150 to 200 guests. with just TWO images per guest, that would be 300 to 400 images simply as a here's who showed up record. maybe you, and gsgary ought to check around and see some of the actual 2015 and 2016 wedding shot click counts modern wedding shooters are tallying these days, now that film has been dead for 10 years as a wedding standard operating procedure. The "500 shots" rule of the 1980's went out the window, along with the handwritten love letter, MySpace, the Sunday newspaper, and Caller I.D..

Back to that *ridiculous 2,000 frames *all-day wedding coverage (the common "unlimited wedding coverage" meaning the ENTIRE event, prep to last dance). So, 10 AM arrival, 11 PM departure, 13 total hours. That 2,000 frames over 13 hours means 13 hours times 60 minutes per hour, or 780 minutes.So, that means a photographer who snaps *three pictures every minute *will, over the entire day, rack up a total of 2,340 frames over the entire day, for photos of 150 to 200 people, or more. Today, American wedding customers are getting 1,000- and 1,400 frame final wedding cuts (on-disc) as far as "big, traditional" weddings, for all-day coverage. Even with a 2:1 kill to keep, that's 2,000 frames.

Shooting slower, and shooting *five frames every TWO MINUTES*, an all-day shooter from 10 AM to 11 PM will end up shooting a total of *1,950 photos, and still a 1,000 frame final cut*.

Maybe you guys ought to, first do some very basic math, and then maybe even, God forbid, head over to a wedding forum and see how far the business has changed since the princess telephone and 12-channel television days? The biggest issue is with getting the BEST expression in groups of four and five people....which many wedding shooters will figure takes four clicks per shot.I suppose most of this depends on photographers who wants to deliver the best product, and to not simply be a middle-aged old fart who wants to be a grinch and just shoot the whole event half-assedly and with a total "Aw...fuggit!" attitude.


----------



## pixmedic

Derrel said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> 
> Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...
> 
> 
> 
> The A7 shooter would be more selective and not shoot a ridiculous 2200
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems crazy shooting a ridiculous 2,000
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of does to me as well, but that's about what today's ALL-DAY coverage entails for many wedding shooters. Arrive at 10:00 AM, and shoot until around 11:00 PM. As was mentioned, 2,000 to 2,200 or even 2,400 frames is the kind of blanket coverage a lot of younger shooters are firing today...with formal group photos of two families, five bridesmaids, four or five groomsmen, the bridge and groom, the ceremony, and then a four to five-hour reception with 150 to 200 guests. with just TWO images per guest, that would be 300 to 400 images simply as a here's who showed up record. maybe you, and gsgary ought to check around and see some of the actual 2015 and 2016 wedding shot click counts modern wedding shooters are tallying these days, now that film has been dead for 10 years as a wedding standard operating procedure. The "500 shots" rule of the 1980's went out the window, along with the handwritten love letter, MySpace, the Sunday newspaper, and Caller I.D..
> 
> Back to that *ridiculous 2,000 frames *all-day wedding coverage (the common "unlimited wedding coverage" meaning the ENTIRE event, prep to last dance). So, 10 AM arrival, 11 PM departure, 13 total hours. That 2,000 frames over 13 hours means 13 hours times 60 minutes per hour, or 780 minutes.So, that means a photographer who snaps *three pictures every minute *will, over the entire day, rack up a total of 2,340 frames over the entire day, for photos of 150 to 200 people, or more. Today, American wedding customers are getting 1,000- and 1,400 frame final wedding cuts (on-disc) as far as "big, traditional" weddings, for all-day coverage. Even with a 2:1 kill to keep, that's 2,000 frames.
> 
> Shooting slower, and shooting *five frames every TWO MINUTES*, an all-day shooter from 10 AM to 11 PM will end up shooting a total of *1,950 photos, and still a 1,000 frame final cut*.
> 
> Maybe you guys ought to, first do some very basic math, and then maybe even, God forbid, head over to a wedding forum and see how far the business has changed since the princess telephone and 12-channel television days? The biggest issue is with getting the BEST expression in groups of four and five people....which many wedding shooters will figure takes four clicks per shot.I suppose most of this depends on photographers who wants to deliver the best product, and to not simply be a middle-aged old fart who wants to be a grinch and just shoot the whole event half-assedly and with a total "Aw...fuggit!" attitude.
Click to expand...

I don't know how many wedding YOU have shot, but I promise you we would be fine using a mirrorless at a wedding.  


Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel

I've shot only about 50 weddings over a 30 year time frame, so not that many really. MOST of mine were on 35mm film, some on 120 rollfilm, later ones on digital. I'm used to reloading film at 36- or 12-frame intervals with four film backs, each with one 12-frame roll in it.

There's a significant number of reasons Canon has not released a professional mirrorless system. As a Canon VP told dPreview,

" There are some features, such as AF, which have not yet caught up with DSLRs, so given the current state of affairs it would be a little unrealistic to say that we will suddenly start offering a professional mirrorless camera. There’s still a performance gap that needs to be addressed.

Q: If we assume that at some point in the future Canon will create an enthusiast or professional mirrorless camera, what are your benchmarks?

A: This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch."

************

So....substandard autofocusing. And substandard viewfinder performance.

Two things professional photographers really want--substandard focusing, and substandard image composing, right? And what he called, "a performance gap".  Riiiiiiiighhht... and that came from the mouth of a Canon vice president, talking to the world's largest digital camera in formation portal. We're not talking about pocket cameras in this thread--we are discussing cameras that qualify as "professional cameras". Not weekend, walkabout cameras.

Waiting for Apple to release a killer 56k modem in the net iPad.

Mic drop.


----------



## pixmedic

How is mirrorless AF substandard?  Compared to the flagship nikon and cameras? Sure. Nikon and canon also don't consider anything except sports and wildlife photography "professional" and that is exactly what they design their "pro" cameras around. How many wedding and portrait photographers do you imagine use D4s and 1Dxs compared to other "consumer or prosumer" bodies? 

Mirrorless AF is absolutely sufficient to shoot weddings.  Which is a fact. Plain and simple.
Whatever you and Thom, and canon and nikon want to label them, it does nothing to detract from fact that many mirrorless systems make more than capable wedding and portrait cameras. 

So fine. ..you win. 
I admit that mirrorless camera are not "professional" cameras. 
Somehow though,  I don't think all the wedding photographers using mirrorless cameras are going to run out and switch to a D4 or 1Dx. 

In case you forgot what weddings are like, brides don't moce fast enough to tax most mirrorless cameras. 
Canon and nikon make every professional comparison against people that need 12 fps and tracking for small fast moving objects. They have never considered wedding and portrait photographers in their flagship designs. Hence why those models are always lower MP snd higher FPS. 

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> I've shot only about 50 weddings over a 30 year time frame, so not that many really. MOST of mine were on 35mm film, some on 120 rollfilm, later ones on digital. I'm used to reloading film at 36- or 12-frame intervals with four film backs, each with one 12-frame roll in it.
> 
> There's a significant number of reasons Canon has not released a professional mirrorless system. As a Canon VP told dPreview,
> 
> " There are some features, such as AF, which have not yet caught up with DSLRs, so given the current state of affairs it would be a little unrealistic to say that we will suddenly start offering a professional mirrorless camera. There’s still a performance gap that needs to be addressed.
> 
> Q: If we assume that at some point in the future Canon will create an enthusiast or professional mirrorless camera, what are your benchmarks?
> 
> A: This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch."
> 
> ************
> 
> So....substandard autofocusing. And substandard viewfinder performance.
> 
> Two things professional photographers really want--substandard focusing, and substandard image composing, right? And what he called, "a performance gap".  Riiiiiiiighhht... and that came from the mouth of a Canon vice president, talking to the world's largest digital camera in formation portal. We're not talking about pocket cameras in this thread--we are discussing cameras that qualify as "professional cameras". Not weekend, walkabout cameras.
> 
> Waiting for Apple to release a killer 56k modem in the net iPad.
> 
> Mic drop.


Lots of professionals use  Leica M  cameras, no auto focus figure that one out and they have been doing so for years

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrorless scenario, day-long wedding coverage...pre-ceremony makeup to last dance at the reception.
> 
> Nikon D4s: According to the CIPA testing results, the D4s will fire over *3,000 frames on one,single charge*. A battery than can be charged from dead to 100% in less time than it takes to figure out who did the murder on an episode of NCIS.
> 
> 
> Runnah got lured into the Sony A7's siren's trap...
> 
> 
> 
> The A7 shooter would be more selective and not shoot a ridiculous 2200
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> seems crazy shooting a ridiculous 2,000
> *www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, kind of does to me as well, but that's about what today's ALL-DAY coverage entails for many wedding shooters. Arrive at 10:00 AM, and shoot until around 11:00 PM. As was mentioned, 2,000 to 2,200 or even 2,400 frames is the kind of blanket coverage a lot of younger shooters are firing today...with formal group photos of two families, five bridesmaids, four or five groomsmen, the bridge and groom, the ceremony, and then a four to five-hour reception with 150 to 200 guests. with just TWO images per guest, that would be 300 to 400 images simply as a here's who showed up record. maybe you, and gsgary ought to check around and see some of the actual 2015 and 2016 wedding shot click counts modern wedding shooters are tallying these days, now that film has been dead for 10 years as a wedding standard operating procedure. The "500 shots" rule of the 1980's went out the window, along with the handwritten love letter, MySpace, the Sunday newspaper, and Caller I.D..
> 
> Back to that *ridiculous 2,000 frames *all-day wedding coverage (the common "unlimited wedding coverage" meaning the ENTIRE event, prep to last dance). So, 10 AM arrival, 11 PM departure, 13 total hours. That 2,000 frames over 13 hours means 13 hours times 60 minutes per hour, or 780 minutes.So, that means a photographer who snaps *three pictures every minute *will, over the entire day, rack up a total of 2,340 frames over the entire day, for photos of 150 to 200 people, or more. Today, American wedding customers are getting 1,000- and 1,400 frame final wedding cuts (on-disc) as far as "big, traditional" weddings, for all-day coverage. Even with a 2:1 kill to keep, that's 2,000 frames.
> 
> Shooting slower, and shooting *five frames every TWO MINUTES*, an all-day shooter from 10 AM to 11 PM will end up shooting a total of *1,950 photos, and still a 1,000 frame final cut*.
> 
> Maybe you guys ought to, first do some very basic math, and then maybe even, God forbid, head over to a wedding forum and see how far the business has changed since the princess telephone and 12-channel television days? The biggest issue is with getting the BEST expression in groups of four and five people....which many wedding shooters will figure takes four clicks per shot.I suppose most of this depends on photographers who wants to deliver the best product, and to not simply be a middle-aged old fart who wants to be a grinch and just shoot the whole event half-assedly and with a total "Aw...fuggit!" attitude.
Click to expand...

3 shots every minute to me means no thought what so ever is being put into the shots

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

gsgary said:


> 3 shots every minute to me means no thought what so ever is being put into the shots



Why do you say that?
Just because they work with a higher volume than you prefer to doesn't mean that they cannot think about their photography. It surprises me you of all people would say that when you've covered things like eventing where you can very easily be nearly at 3 shots a minute if not more (a singe run around the showjumping ring might be under 2 minutes and might present two or so jumps with a few shots at each).

Different photographers aim to produce a different end product; further different clients want different end products. Some just want the formal; others want all those reporters style shots through the whole event. So long as the photographer can agree with the client and preform their task without being a disturbance to the flow of the wedding then all is good.

Digital opens up doors - it makes taking the shot cost-free and thus yes many are willing to use that to good effect. Taking a burst of shots quickly to get every eye open; taking shots at opportunistic points that might or might not work; taking shots at more points during the wedding.

Furthermore many people WANT those additional shots today. The days of the formal photos being only a handful of posed shots are long gone for many  and they want a book full of photos and memories.





At the end of the day so long as the methods are not causing harm nor distraction then we should embrace different methods for their own worth rather than keep trying to make some methods or approaches into some kind of superior elite form.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


----------



## gsgary

Overread said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 shots every minute to me means no thought what so ever is being put into the shots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> Just because they work with a higher volume than you prefer to doesn't mean that they cannot think about their photography. It surprises me you of all people would say that when you've covered things like eventing where you can very easily be nearly at 3 shots a minute if not more (a singe run around the showjumping ring might be under 2 minutes and might present two or so jumps with a few shots at each).
> 
> Different photographers aim to produce a different end product; further different clients want different end products. Some just want the formal; others want all those reporters style shots through the whole event. So long as the photographer can agree with the client and preform their task without being a disturbance to the flow of the wedding then all is good.
> 
> Digital opens up doors - it makes taking the shot cost-free and thus yes many are willing to use that to good effect. Taking a burst of shots quickly to get every eye open; taking shots at opportunistic points that might or might not work; taking shots at more points during the wedding.
> 
> Furthermore many people WANT those additional shots today. The days of the formal photos being only a handful of posed shots are long gone for many  and they want a book full of photos and memories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of the day so long as the methods are not causing harm nor distraction then we should embrace different methods for their own worth rather than keep trying to make some methods or approaches into some kind of superior elite form.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Digital is not cost free

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

gsgary said:


> Digital is not cost free



It is cost free in comparison to film in that you don't have to pay in advance for film for the digital camera for every shoot. The photographer pays once for a memory card and that's the end of the cost; its more of a once in a while cost rather than a continual cost. Thus compared to film its essentially closer to cost free when looking at the individual shoot.

Certainly you've got to buy gear, edit and all the rest which are real world costs of course (editing being a cost for professionals as it is work time - although effective shooting practice and batch processing should keep editing time to a minimum - depending on the product they are expected to produce)


----------



## dtmateojr

Going mirrorless is an all or nothing decision. That's what Olympus did and that's what Sony is going for now. Lots of pros have locked themselves into Canon or Nikon because of their lens investments. These lenses are impractical on mirrorless systems where size reduction is the main goal. When you've got heavy lenses you want a body that balances well which also means a hefty grip. When you've got a grip you sacrifice size. 

Mirrorless only makes sense in small formats like m43 where you can guarantee size reduction on the whole system. Full frame mirrorless does not make any sense.


----------



## gsgary

dtmateojr said:


> Going mirrorless is an all or nothing decision. That's what Olympus did and that's what Sony is going for now. Lots of pros have locked themselves into Canon or Nikon because of their lens investments. These lenses are impractical on mirrorless systems where size reduction is the main goal. When you've got heavy lenses you want a body that balances well which also means a hefty grip. When you've got a grip you sacrifice size.
> 
> Mirrorless only makes sense in small formats like m43 where you can guarantee size reduction on the whole system. Full frame mirrorless does not make any sense.


It does when you see the quality of A7/A7R photos


----------



## Derrel

HERE is the first attempt at a really,really,really capable "professional" mirrorless system, one built to the current highest standards possible. The Leica SL (Type 601) mirrorless is the first mirrorless camera aimed squarely at the Canon and Nikon professional D-SLR camera models. Of course, at this time there's nowhere near enough lens options, compared to what both Canon and Nikon offer to the professional photographer.

Leica SLR Review, by Steve Huff, world's most widely-read mirrorless camera blogger.
The Leica SL (type 601) Camera Review. My Camera of the Year 2015!

A second, much shorter review is here: Leica SL (Typ 601) Expert Review

Still cannot outperform a Nikon or Canon d-slr in focusing, or viewfinder performance or battery life. But it does look like a pretty nice machine.


----------



## gsgary

Derrel said:


> HERE is the first attempt at a really,really,really capable "professional" mirrorless system, one built to the current highest standards possible. The Leica SL (Type 601) mirrorless is the first mirrorless camera aimed squarely at the Canon and Nikon professional D-SLR camera models. Of course, at this time there's nowhere near enough lens options, compared to what both Canon and Nikon offer to the professional photographer.
> 
> Leica SLR Review, by Steve Huff, world's most widely-read mirrorless camera blogger.
> The Leica SL (type 601) Camera Review. My Camera of the Year 2015!
> 
> A second, much shorter review is here: Leica SL (Typ 601) Expert Review
> 
> Still cannot outperform a Nikon or Canon d-slr in focusing, or viewfinder performance or battery life. But it does look like a pretty nice machine.


Any M lens and R lens will work on it so there is plenty of lenses for it, but you don't class those because they are not autofocus 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Braineack

cherylynne1 said:


> I don't know...the numbers seem off to me. I guess that doesn't include bursts? I went to the zoo yesterday with my a6000. The battery was at 85% when I turned it on. It lasted about three hours and I took around 800 shots. Then it took about 30 seconds to switch out the battery, which was no big deal to me. I'm not suggesting that it's better suited to a wedding than a DSLR, just that the numbers aren't quite as cut and dry as the testing makes them out to be. There was another day when I started with a 100% charge and a 32gb memory card, and I filled the card long before the battery died, which is around 1200 shots. I was taking pictures of kids running around, so again, tons of bursts. I think it's partly a matter of shooting style. Do any of the tests mention the amount of time that the battery will last? Or how long it takes them to take 350 pictures? Or whether they're using the viewfinder or the LCD?


The a6000 battery life is a joke compared to a dslr.

using tapatalk.


----------



## gsgary

Braineack said:


> cherylynne1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...the numbers seem off to me. I guess that doesn't include bursts? I went to the zoo yesterday with my a6000. The battery was at 85% when I turned it on. It lasted about three hours and I took around 800 shots. Then it took about 30 seconds to switch out the battery, which was no big deal to me. I'm not suggesting that it's better suited to a wedding than a DSLR, just that the numbers aren't quite as cut and dry as the testing makes them out to be. There was another day when I started with a 100% charge and a 32gb memory card, and I filled the card long before the battery died, which is around 1200 shots. I was taking pictures of kids running around, so again, tons of bursts. I think it's partly a matter of shooting style. Do any of the tests mention the amount of time that the battery will last? Or how long it takes them to take 350 pictures? Or whether they're using the viewfinder or the LCD?
> 
> 
> 
> The a6000 battery life is a joke compared to a dslr.
> 
> using tapatalk.
Click to expand...

DSLR'S weight is a joke compared to  mirrorless 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## dtmateojr

gsgary said:


> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going mirrorless is an all or nothing decision. That's what Olympus did and that's what Sony is going for now. Lots of pros have locked themselves into Canon or Nikon because of their lens investments. These lenses are impractical on mirrorless systems where size reduction is the main goal. When you've got heavy lenses you want a body that balances well which also means a hefty grip. When you've got a grip you sacrifice size.
> 
> Mirrorless only makes sense in small formats like m43 where you can guarantee size reduction on the whole system. Full frame mirrorless does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> It does when you see the quality of A7/A7R photos
Click to expand...


People are buying the A7 because it's the only option if you want to go Sony. Sony DSLR is dead. But the quality of A7 photos is not unique to Sony. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, practically every other brand can produce the same if not better output in a package that is well balanced and makes sense. The Sony mirrorless, no doubt, is good but it's impractical and inferior in performance compared to its DSLR counterparts. Even the Olympus mirrorless run circles around Sony in terms of AF speed even with their cheapest kit lenses.


----------



## gsgary

dtmateojr said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dtmateojr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going mirrorless is an all or nothing decision. That's what Olympus did and that's what Sony is going for now. Lots of pros have locked themselves into Canon or Nikon because of their lens investments. These lenses are impractical on mirrorless systems where size reduction is the main goal. When you've got heavy lenses you want a body that balances well which also means a hefty grip. When you've got a grip you sacrifice size.
> 
> Mirrorless only makes sense in small formats like m43 where you can guarantee size reduction on the whole system. Full frame mirrorless does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> It does when you see the quality of A7/A7R photos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are buying the A7 because it's the only option if you want to go Sony. Sony DSLR is dead. But the quality of A7 photos is not unique to Sony. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, practically every other brand can produce the same if not better output in a package that is well balanced and makes sense. The Sony mirrorless, no doubt, is good but it's impractical and inferior in performance compared to its DSLR counterparts. Even the Olympus mirrorless run circles around Sony in terms of AF speed even with their cheapest kit lenses.
Click to expand...

I don't use AF so it is not a problem 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic

Nikon only considers the D5 and D800/D810 as its current linup of "professional" cameras. 
Professional Camera | Professional DSLR Cameras | Nikon
however, according to the NPS professional equipment list,  http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf
the D300 and D600 both make the cut... So my D600's were Professional Nikon cameras.  ya for me!

Canon does not use the "professional" label at all, instead, grouping their cameras into "experience" levels. 
so...no professional cameras for you canon users. 
Product List


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> Nikon only considers the D5 and D800/D810 as its current linup of "professional" cameras.
> Professional Camera | Professional DSLR Cameras | Nikon
> however, according to the NPS professional equipment list,  http://nikonpro.com/Renewal-NPS-Equipment-List.pdf
> the D300 and D600 both make the cut... So my D600's were Professional Nikon cameras.  ya for me!
> 
> Canon does not use the "professional" label at all, instead, grouping their cameras into "experience" levels.
> so...no professional cameras for you canon users.
> Product List


Wow..  so it's almost as if the term "professional" as it applies to cameras is just some made up BS marketing term.

Huh.  Who'd a thunk it?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

gsgary said:


> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk



You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

robbins.photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

when your using top quality Leica and Voigtlander lenses i don't mind manual focus but then the only autofocus camera i use is the A7





Here's a crop of above, i think i will stick to manual focus


----------



## robbins.photo

gsgary said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when your using top quality Leica and Voigtlander lenses i don't mind manual focus but then the only autofocus camera i use is the A7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a crop of above, i think i will stick to manual focus
Click to expand...

Gary, I'm surprised at you.  You should know the end result doesn't matter.  All that matters is the bragging rights you get for using the "right" equipment and the "right" techniques.  Nobody cares about the final image, what's important here is that it was taken by a "real" photographer.  Not a poser like the rest of us bozos.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic

robbins.photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when your using top quality Leica and Voigtlander lenses i don't mind manual focus but then the only autofocus camera i use is the A7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a crop of above, i think i will stick to manual focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gary, I'm surprised at you.  You should know the end result doesn't matter.  All that matters is the bragging rights you get for using the "right" equipment and the "right" techniques.  Nobody cares about the final image, what's important here is that it was taken by a "real" photographer.  Not a poser like the rest of us bozos.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Huh? I thought Gary took these pictures?

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when your using top quality Leica and Voigtlander lenses i don't mind manual focus but then the only autofocus camera i use is the A7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a crop of above, i think i will stick to manual focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gary, I'm surprised at you.  You should know the end result doesn't matter.  All that matters is the bragging rights you get for using the "right" equipment and the "right" techniques.  Nobody cares about the final image, what's important here is that it was taken by a "real" photographer.  Not a poser like the rest of us bozos.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? I thought Gary took these pictures?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup, proving he's a "real" photographer.  But posting the actual image was superfluous given his previous arguments.  Who cares what the image looks like, as long as it's taken with the right equipment with the proper high end name brand, using the right old school technique?   The actual end result is meaningless, because well let's face it any schmo with a basic DSLR and a kit lens could pretty much wind up with about the same end result.  

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use AF so it is not a problem
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I've often thought how much cooler I could be if only I owned a cell phone with a big old hand crank on the side that I'd have to wind up over and over again to make a call.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when your using top quality Leica and Voigtlander lenses i don't mind manual focus but then the only autofocus camera i use is the A7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a crop of above, i think i will stick to manual focus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gary, I'm surprised at you.  You should know the end result doesn't matter.  All that matters is the bragging rights you get for using the "right" equipment and the "right" techniques.  Nobody cares about the final image, what's important here is that it was taken by a "real" photographer.  Not a poser like the rest of us bozos.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh? I thought Gary took these pictures?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, proving he's a "real" photographer.  But posting the actual image was superfluous given his previous arguments.  Who cares what the image looks like, as long as it's taken with the right equipment with the proper high end name brand, using the right old school technique?   The actual end result is meaningless, because well let's face it any schmo with a basic DSLR and a kit lens could pretty much wind up with about the same end result.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You easy to wind up [emoji3] 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

gsgary said:


> You easy to wind up [emoji3]
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk



Nahh, not really.  For the most part I find equipment snobs terribly amusing.


----------



## gsgary

robbins.photo said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> You easy to wind up [emoji3]
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nahh, not really.  For the most part I find equipment snobs terribly amusing.
Click to expand...

I'm not an equipment snob all my gear get used and abused

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------

