Canon mirrorless

snerkler

You can obviously justify it better than me As for the tree comment, meh Whether I use a feature or not I still like to think Ive got good value for money

doug56hl

I'd prefer not to pay for features I have no need for.
Perhaps what would suit me more is a camera which comes full spec'd at a lower price and you pay extra to unlock anything but the base level features as and if you need them. Just need 3fps, get them bundled in, need anything higher and the camera flashes up 'Cross my palm with Silver' and away you go. All done via the combined rear LCD/contactless credit card reader...

snerkler

So would I which is why I’d rather them ditch video and make cameras cheaper. But Inthink you’re missing my point, for the price point it should be better/have better performance imo. YMMV

Jules

For someone who knows nothing about cameras, is this new mirrorless one a better option than the 5D Mark IV? About £900 less for the body alone

snerkler

Image quality will be about the same, and there's no denying that mirrorless makes taking photos easier because you can see the exposure in the viewfinder before you take the picture.
But the 5D IV has 2 card slots instead of one, and looks to have better weather proofing.

So, maybe.  It depends what you need.   But...

I think the point being made by the masses, including me, is that if you aren't heavily invested in any one manufacturer already... going with an over priced / under-specced Canon makes little sense.

If I was starting again, I'd go Sony... 100%.  Just get a Sony A7 Mark III and enjoy the vastly superior dynamic range, eye autofocus, speed, and hugely better video specs.

P.S.   I'm a 5D Mark IV owner, so I'm not brand biased towards Sony.   I'm just baffled at what Canon are doing to themselves.   

I think rather than stopping the rot to Sony, this release will only reaffirm to Canon users that its time to switch.  Despite rumours that they were going to be more bold and innovative,  they are still clearly protecting their own product lines instead of recognising competition from other manufacturers.

doug56hl

Jules has already covered this, but as he says it depends. Firstly one of the most important factors is the ergonomics, how easy/nice it is to hold and get to the buttons and dials. For this very reason I can't contemplate the Sony A7's as there's not enough room between the grip and lens for my fingers to fit comfortably, so no matter how good or bad those camera are they are not for me. No-one I know has had any hands on experience with the new mirrorless to offer advice how the ergonomics are, but even then you need to try for yourself. I personally prefer the ergonomics of Nikon, which is why I went this route rather than Canon, but this is purely preference.

Secondly it depends on what you want to shoot, if you just want to take single shots of static subjects then in terms of image quality there shouldn't be any difference, in which case there's a good argument for the mirrorless as it's smaller and lighter, and cheaper. However, if you shoot sports for example the 5D4 would probably be the better choice as it has a better frame rate whilst tracking, and the AF system is tried and tested whereas the new mirrorless is still unknown.

The other thing to consider is what lenses you want to use. So far there's only 5 (or is it 6) lenses that will be coming out for the mirrorless, and they are CRAZY expensive, so whilst you may save £600 on the body you'll be having to pay a lot more for native lenses. Yes there's an adapter that allows you to use any Canon lenses on the mirrorless but initial reviews coming out are showing that the adapter isn't perfect and there are AF issues. Not great, although it may be a case of being pre-productions gremlins.

The problem is that if you're starting from a clean slate there are sooooooo many options. Fuji for example have just announced the XT3 camera which should be superb, you then have the new mirrorless offering from Nikon and Canon, you have the tried and tested A6xxx series and A7 series cameras from Sony, you then have Nikon and Canon DSLRs, Pentax DSLRs, Olympus and Panasonic m4/3's, etc etc etc. Anyone starting out needs to decide what they want to shoot, what options are best for this, what lenses they might want in the future, how much bulk they're willing to carry, how much they've got to spend and then when they've narrowed it down they need to go and try various models to see which suits them.

wysinawyg

No, I get your point; but, for the reasons I've covered previously, I don't agree with your point.

Any links for that?

doug56hl

Kai Wong has finally put out his video from the event. Switched to an EF 85mm at one point and complained it just randomly stopped focussing sometimes.

Actually an issue I have on my Sony using an MC11 adaptor and a Tamron 100-400 - I will sometimes have to just move the focus ring a little to get it to start autofocusing.

doug56hl

Coming back to the video side of things would the R 1.7x 4K crop be an advantage for long lenses i.e. 500mm would be 850mm? While I don't currently shoot video I can think of one area where I might: wildlife.

Looking also at the likes of a Nikon D500 where the 4K crop is 2.25x ("a 1.5x crop of its sensor, meaning 2.25x crop relative to full frame (so an 18mm lens becomes equivalent to 40mm)"). So a 500mm lenses is 1125mm equivalent? or D7500  ("there a 1.5x crop factor (on top of the existing 1.5x APS-C crop factor") so 500mm would be 1500mm? Getting accurate focus and holding the lens stable is another ballgame though

Johnmcl7

That particular lens seems problematic with adaptors, I vaguely remember it being mentioned as a problem for Metabones/Sigma EF-->FE adaptors on Sony mirrorless too.