Canon explains Mirrorless

[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]

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]

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

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

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.

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]

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]

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]
Digital is not cost free

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

DSLR'S weight is a joke compared to mirrorless

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[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.

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

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]

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

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.

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