Canon: Camera Market Saturated

[mrca]

I suppose it depends on what your objective is and the nature of your photography. If you are a pro, you will %100 need to have a mirrorless in the bag. You may still use your DSLR for numerous shoots but there are shots, now, that mirrorless enables that the DSLR just can't get. You can't be in a with a pack of photographers shooting the same event and they get the shot and you don't because of your gear. That's why they can justify $12K telephoto primes.

I got one of the first R6's delivered to the US so I've had it nearly a year now and if I look back, I see over and over shots I got with it that the 6D Mark II simply would not. I chalk this up to 1) Very High ISO Performance, 2) IBIS, 3) Incredible Autofocus making my 100-400 with the 2x TC (800mm @ f 11) actually usable.

I am not a pro but given my experience with the R6, I would be on the list for the R3. I will definitely be on the list for the R7 if it is a mirrorless 7D Mark II replacement.

I am a pro and know what a pro needs and it isn't a mirrorless camera. Who fed you this bullschet? New camera? My last 4 cameras were 30 or 40 years old. You know who "needs" new cameras, camera COLLECTORS not real photographers. Was at the Firestone Grand Prix yesterday and saw more amateurs with zoom lenses in one place than I have ever seen and all taking snap shots with $2-3000 worth of gear. Gear COLLECTORS wring their hands over gear, actual photographers are concerned with their photos. Yeah, a bit higher iso or more megapixels might come in handy in some select circumstances, (I'll bet 90 %of the folks never print a single shot) but unless someone improves their skills, they will just create sharper crap. Mastering the craft takes work, not swiping a credit card. When I buy gear, it is subject to a cost benefit analysis. Sold a 400mm 2.8 that I didn't use much. Yesterday shot with a d850 but with a 1995 180 2.8 with 8 elements, not the crap 70-200 with 22 pieces of light sucking/ reflecting glass. But my second nikon? An fm2n with hp5 film and the 180, a zeiss 85 1.4 and a nikon 50 mm pancake all useable on digital or film bodies. I didn't go mirrorless, I went sensorless. When I raced sports cars, there were racers and there were guys who stayed home on Sunday and polished their posessions. Same for photographers and "collectors" who call themselves photographers.

 

[RacePhoto]

I still have the 50-D, got another used at an auction. 40-D for star trails and timelapse. Working 20-Ds and possibly (I never know?) 10-D. My reason for sticking to those is the easy part, lens compatibility and batteries are the same. They do what I need to do.
But as others have posted, if I had the money I'd get an R-6 or maybe I'll wait for the crop rumored R-7. Until then, yes, over saturated and most people have a phone.

Kind of like, people years ago, with the 127 Instamatic, or some pocket camera, and some people with a rangefinder, and probably most of the people here with a SLR? Oh I mean, most of the older people like me. LOL

I guess we were writing at the same time? I sold my f/2.8 400mm because it was too heavy and worth more than my car. I got a 400mm f/5.6 which is just dandy! We can all get into some traps with gear vs bottom line function. But for the most part, if I get the images I need and that the market wants, I have the right tools.

 

[mrca]

Race, I got the 400 2.8 to photo birds in my back yard and pond. Now that they are used to me, they can get within the minimum focus distance of some of my lenses! A 300 4.5 and 180 2.8 and if in pretty close a zeiss 100 mm makro planar. But I'm a portraitist, not a bird guy. Hence the 400 mm in my bedroom picture window with a slit of blinds down, just above posing table under gimbel head with camo jacket and 2 black scrims from L and right. Could shoot in full rain from the comfort of the bedroom and seated at my desk in the next room, could observe what was going on while working. The wood ducks just arrived as well as some mallards.