Canon's Flagship DSLR Line Will End With the EOS-1D X Mark III, Eventually (theverge.com) 128
An anonymous reader shares a report: When Canon revealed the EOS-1D X Mark III in January 2020, we proclaimed that the DSLR "still isn't dead," but that camera will mark the end of the line for a flagship model that some pro photographers still swear by to capture everything from sporting events to wild animals. CanonRumors points out an interview Canon's chairman and CEO Fujio Mitarai gave this week to the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun (via Y.M. Cinema Magazine). The piece highlight how high-end mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras have taken market share digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) cameras previously dominated. In it, the CEO is quoted (in Japanese, which we've translated to English) saying "market needs are rapidly moving toward mirrorless cameras. So accordingly, we're increasingly moving people in that direction." The article states that the Mark III is "in fact" the last model in Canon's flagship EOS-1 series and that in a few years Canon will stop developing and producing its flagship DSLR cameras in favor of mirrorless cameras.
What's the equivalent? (Score:2)
Despite being a happy owner of a 5D Mk 2, I haven't been keeping up with the state of the camera industry. What is the equivalent mirrorless camera these days?
Re:What's the equivalent? (Score:4, Informative)
To replace your 5D, check out the conveniently named Canon R5. :)
Re: (Score:3)
*cough* $5000? *cough* Yikes. But thank you for the response.
Re:What's the equivalent? (Score:4, Informative)
The R6 is $2500. It's essentially the same camera as the R5 except that the sensor is tuned for low light rather than high sample rate, and it's missing the ability to shoot in 8k and 4k120. I have both an R5 and an R6 (or, more accurately, I have an R5 and my roommate has an R6) and for most purposes the two are interchangeable. The have the same magical autofocus. I have a bigger battery, have to use more expensive storage cards, and my .CR3 files take longer to process.
I'm not going to say I regret getting an R5, but if I'd gotten to try both cameras instead of pre-ordering the bigger one, I would probably have spent the $1000 difference on a lens instead.
Re: What's the equivalent? (Score:2)
How much was your 5DII new (if you got it that way)? Also - note that they make an adapter for your EF lenses to the new mount.
Re: (Score:2)
I got it within the first year of its release. Like so many other people, I saw that amazing video shot by a professional cinematographer and said "Shut up and take my money". It wasn't anywhere near $5k though.
Re: (Score:2)
When the 5D mk II came out, the price was $3500 for the kit with the 24-105mm lens. Adjusted for inflation, that's pretty close to the price of the R5.
Re: (Score:3)
The actual equivalent to the 5D Mark II is the Canon R since these both came out at the same time and have roughly the same specs (except the 5D is mirror and R is mirrorless).
As Nebulo states though if you are looking to replace the 5D you would probably be looking at the newer R5. There is a problem with lens compatibility though so you would need an adapter to use your old lenses.
Re: (Score:2)
I use an equivalent Nikon camera with such an adapter, though, and it works great. So it's not a problem with compatibility, not really -- you just need another widget.
Re: (Score:2)
Third parties will continue to support EF. The market for used lenses is very healthy and isn't going anywhere. The earth isn't about to sunder and swallow all the EF glass out there, and it all adapts very well to RF. There's honestly real reason to give up EF lenses for Canon shooters anyway, but it can also be said that the new RF lenses are lighter and smaller and they all focus faster than anything on the old mount, so if you're replacing or filling a hole in your kit, the RF lens should be a top choic
Re: What's the equivalent? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of the many updates, the mk3 had a better AF system and speed than both, and most importantly, had 2 numbers for lens micro focus adjustment.
There's a mark4 I know of, they did a bunch of things with the higher end models.
You already know the most important FACT/SECRET: existing gear doesn't just burst into flames when a new one get released or stop taking great pictures.
Can someone explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Can someone explain why you would want a camera with a mirror on it? My understanding is that the mirror is just there for the optical viewfinder, so on a mirrorless camera you have to use the screen.
Does the mirror do anything else? Is there any benefit to using an optical viewfinder over a really high quality screen?
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
Is there any benefit to using an optical viewfinder over a really high quality screen?
no screen artifacting. the screen has all the quality degradation of the lens AND the screen, sometimes these multiply in ways that provide results inferior to what you might expect. high quality doesn't mean it gives the same experience.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
Correct answer. Plus, you don't want a camera "with a mirror on it", you want a camera best suited to your application. Since lenses are a huge investment, you may want a camera compatible with that investment. Existing technologies have produced significant momentum in support of cameras with "mirrors on them" even if you might not design a camera like that today.
AF sucked on early mirrorless cameras, as did MF of course due to lack of TTL viewing.
Re: (Score:2)
The AF in a Canon R5 or Sony A7r4 is nothing short of magical in my opinion. Canon in particular just added an entire additional autofocus category to its R5 and R6. They can both detect vehicles in subject detection now. I've found it to work on cycles cars and snowmobiles.
I'm not a nature or landscape guy, but I've managed to take off-the-cuff in-focus shots of a hawk in flight with my 70 - 200 from a moving car (I was not driving!), which is just mind-blowing to me.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to actually try one of those electronic viewfinders in my specific domain. Which is low-light photography. Or more specifically, astrophotography. I find it quite hard to properly identify fainter stars in a DSLR's viewfinder, and am rather sceptical whether an electronic one from a mirrorless camera will be sensitive enough.
Any insights / practical knowledge on this?
Note: if I switch from my Canon EF setup, it will logically go to the Canon RF stuff, as the EF/RF adapter allows for continued use o
Re: (Score:3)
Astrophotography is a field in itself. And for cameras can include everything from modifying DSLRs by removing/changing the filter over the sensor, to specialist cameras (think go-pro but for astrophotography). See something like this [stackexchange.com] on the Photography SE, or this [stackexchange.com] on the Astronomy SE
Re: (Score:3)
I am reasonable well versed in astrophotography using a (self-modified) DSLR or specialized cam (color planetary cam or monochrome + filters for deep sky in my case). My question was meant specifically about the electronic viewfinder of mirrorless cameras (e.g. R6 or similar), how well (or not) they work in this field.
In another post, there was a remark about the risk of losing night vision when using the electronic viewfinder, which might indeed be quite a hindrance.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case those two forums are probably the best place to be asking that question than here on /.
Re: (Score:2)
This is based on my experience with the Sony A7S III specifically, but I assume it should apply to other mirrorless cameras. The EVF will try to show the preview image at as close in brightness to your camera settings as possible, but at in real-time up to the maximum native ISO. For example, if the camera is set to 1" @ iso 1600, then the live view will be as bright as if the image was taken at 1" @ iso 1600, but in real-time and a much higher ISO (base on trial and error, the preview brightness tops out
Re: (Score:3)
Link up your camera to APT (Astro Photography Tool), and use your laptop screen (in red mode) to do your focus / selection / capture.
Even on 10x magnification, the LCD screen on the back of the camera, or the LCD screen in the viewfinder, isn't going to allow you to focus as sharply.
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Informative)
Mirrorless cameras were actually the enabling technology for me to get into astrophotography (10 years ago, with Sony's first generation of APS-C mirrorless). The biggest advantage over SLR is the much shorter flange height, so you don't need a scope with as much back focus. The lower weight was also a plus (I started on a Newtonian, so both the back focus and weight were key concerns).
Regarding your specific concern of focusing, I found the electronic viewfinder equal or better to optical. Because an SLR's viewfinder has a diffusing screen in it to simulate the focal plane, you're only getting a fraction of the light from the scope to your eye that you would with an eyepiece. There's a decent advantage in the gain and edge enhancement that the electronic finder provides.
Where I've gone in the past couple of years, though, is to ZWO's line of astro-specific cameras. They're similar sensors to what you would get on a normal photography camera (no low-pass or Bayer filters), but packaged up in a form factor and with electronic interfaces that are optimized for astrophotography.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use the screen on the back of the camera. It's getting the same data from the sensor that an electronic viewfinder would. It's not great.
If you're doing astrophotography just hook up a computer of your preferred size to either type of camera. You don't have to crane your neck and you can do whatever you want, including stacking preview frames.
Re: (Score:3)
These days it's only there for the optical viewfinder, in the past DSLR autofocus and metering was also better because dedicated sensors for those tasks were better than the stuff put on the imaging sensors, but that is no longer the case. The reason people kept wanting the mirror until recently was that electronic viewfinders were worse for many uses than optical viewfinders. With increasingly non-garbage electronic viewfinders the benefits are starting to outweight the negatives for most if not all use ca
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
Does the mirror do anything else? Is there any benefit to using an optical viewfinder over a really high quality screen?
The optical viewfinder has the solution of your eye (through the pentaprism, mirror and lens etc). The screen has what ever resolution the manufacture supplies, but is pretty well a hell of a lot less than what an eye can resolve. The screen also has whatever color cast the device has.
The screen is a light emitter in itself. So in dark conditions your eye can be peppered with a lot more light than in the surrounding area - which will affect your sight. And optical viewfinder only illuminates to the surrounding level of light.
The optical viewfinder allows your eye to naturally focus to the distance of the subject. With a screen you are forced to focus at the distance between your eye and the screen (this leads to what I know as being called "chimping", where the device is held at arms length in order to focus on the screen - most often seen with phones and point and shoot cameras)
I'm sure there are other benefits that I haven't mentioned.
Re: (Score:2)
^&^^ typos resolution, not solution
Re: (Score:3)
The screen has what ever resolution the manufacture supplies
Funny you say that. Despite having an optical split-prism in my viewfinder I find these days when I manually focus I flick on the screen and hit the zoom button to really dial in the focus. The eye may have a high native resolution, but limiting yourself to optics is incredibly self defeating.
CCD based viewfinders unfrotunately got off to a rough start back in the day, but likewise they present benefits beyond optical viewfinder which address many of your points.
- screen colour cast is irrelevant, colour gr
Re:Can someone explain (Score:5, Informative)
> Is there any benefit to using an optical viewfinder over a really high quality screen?
1) There's a satisfying clunk when you take a picture on an SLR.
2) Manual focussing is easier when looking directly through the viewfinder, if you care about that.
3) Your old DSLR lenses will work with your new DSLR but not with a mirrorless. This was the reason I got the 5D instead of the R5. Who want's to spend 10 grand replacing lenses collected over 20 years?
Re: (Score:3)
$10k over 20 years? Shit, I could drop $10k on a single lens today - assuming my wife let me .. lol
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Funny)
I've dropped a few $10K lenses in my day.
Re: (Score:3)
Linus (from Tech Tips) is that you? /s :-)
Re: (Score:2)
3) Your old DSLR lenses will work with your new DSLR but not with a mirrorless. This was the reason I got the 5D instead of the R5.
You ARE aware that one of the key design goals of the RF mount was that old EF lenses can be used with it?
https://www.canon-europe.com/l... [canon-europe.com]
I'm still using 5D Mk II, but the only reason I have not yet gotten an R series camera has been that due to all the covid lockdowns there hasn't really been that much possibility to travel around.
Re: Can someone explain (Score:2)
> You ARE aware that one of the key design goals of the RF mount was that old EF lenses can be used with it?
So, by definition, making it possible was a key design constraint. Which means that without that constraint, the results could have been better (better image, lighter weight, lower price or improved operational characteristics). Why would newcomers want to buy into a new series if it's knowingly suboptimal for the benefit of other people? Do some of the other major brands have equivalent viewfinder
Re: (Score:2)
So, by definition, making it possible was a key design constraint
Please let me know how this "goal" became a "constraint"? What specifically was sacrificed? All you are stating is speculation.
Key difference between RF and EF is the shorter focal distance because there's no need to have room for the mirror mechanisms. The adapter to EF mount is optically an extension ring. On the electrical connection side there's a new protocol for the camera to talk to the lens, and adapter of course handles converting the
Re: (Score:2)
The Canon R mirrorless cameras have a manual focus assist on screen/viewfinder that puts a set of arrows up to indicate how much focus you need. Manual focus on new mirrorless cameras basically couldn't be easier.
EF to RF conversion is, so far as I can tell, perfect. RF glass is crazy expensive, but given how well the adapters work, there's no reason to give up the lenses you might already have. Nearly everything I have is Sigma Art or Sport-series. Sigma isn't even making RF mount lenses yet, but they work
Re: (Score:2)
3) Your old DSLR lenses will work with your new DSLR but not with a mirrorless. This was the reason I got the 5D instead of the R5. Who want's to spend 10 grand replacing lenses collected over 20 years?
Doesn't that somewhat depend on the lens system?
Re: (Score:2)
3) Your old DSLR lenses will work with your new DSLR but not with a mirrorless. This was the reason I got the 5D instead of the R5. Who want's to spend 10 grand replacing lenses collected over 20 years?
Doesn't that somewhat depend on the lens system?
On a Canon lens system, DSLR lenses are not compatible with mirrorless bodies. The sensor is close to the lens in a mirrorless camera body.
Re: (Score:2)
On a Canon lens system, DSLR lenses are not compatible with mirrorless bodies. The sensor is close to the lens in a mirrorless camera body.
Huh. I'd have thought that way round you could use an adapter ring/spacer of some sort if they make them, to move the old lenses further away than is natural on the body so the spacing is right. You'd be screwed I guess if it was other way round?
PS looks like you have a slashdot stalker, lol!
Re: (Score:2)
I just recently bought a Micro Four Thirds camera (Olympus EM-10 - not too expensive with a couple of lenses) because, well, I haven't had a camera with interchangeable lenses since, oh, 1979. (A Canon A1 - massive and heavy camera, albeit capable).
It's nice to use, sure, if biggish compared with my Lumix TZ220.
But it makes an annoying "thunk" on taking pictures - whihc I initially thought was generated, but no. I gather it has, to my surprise, a mechanical as well as an electronic shutter. There is a rathe
Re: (Score:2)
I've been tempted by a u4/3 camera for the lecture videos I make. They're cheaper, the lenses are cheaper and the quality is plenty of good enough for 1080p video. Then I would not require me to keep wrestling the 5D Mk 4 from my wife who uses it for her business.
Re: (Score:2)
This was the reason I got the 5D instead of the R5. Who want's to spend 10 grand replacing lenses collected over 20 years?
Canon want you to. This is the reason for the big manufacturers' push for mirrorless.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain why you would want a camera with a mirror on it?
Several reasons:
1: As stated in another reply Autofocus and Light Metering are done on a second set of sensors, instead of the image processor looking at the data from the active sensor. This can be done much faster depending on the image processor speed.
2: You can see what is there in the frame in low light / long exposure tripod photography. If you need 5+ seconds of light to make an image, the mirrorless display will not show you much of anything to frame your shot. Especially with astrophotography whe
Re: (Score:2)
3: The mirror protects the sensor from being damaged from excessive light being focused on it from the lens. With a mirrorless camera you better keep your lens cover on if your camera is going to be pointed even accidentally at bright light sources for any length of time.
The counter point to this, is of course, Rental Camera Gear Destroyed by the Solar Eclipse of 2017 [lensrentals.com]
Re:Can someone explain (Score:4, Informative)
3: The mirror protects the sensor from being damaged from excessive light being focused on it from the lens. With a mirrorless camera you better keep your lens cover on if your camera is going to be pointed even accidentally at bright light sources for any length of time.
Plenty of mirrorless cameras use shutters. The Fuji range (I have an x100) use leaf shutters built into the lens which offers many, many advantages in addition to protecting the sensor from light. They're almost completely silent and have incredibly high flash sync speeds - so fast you can shoot with on-camera fill flash in bright daylight. Normally that would be 10k+ watts of strobe gear with a regular DSLR.
But most importantly is that a mirror camera has the lens quite a distance from the sensor (or film) which is why DSLR lenses are so complicated. You need extra glass (elements and groups) to correct for the distance, then more glass to correct for aberration etc caused by the extra glass. That's more expense and weight. And more aspheric elements.
The lens of a mirrorless camera can be right next to the sensor, which means it can be of a much simpler design therefore - for a given price - a mirrorless lens is higher quality than a DSLR lense. It's why rangefinder cameras like Leica's were popular back in the day. Razor sharp lenses, but quite simple as they didn't need to accommodate the space of a flapping mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
You need extra glass (elements and groups) to correct for the distance, then more glass to correct for aberration etc caused by the extra glass.
I always thought it was the other way around. Many older cameras with long bellows were pretty good and yet had very simple optics. Complex optics are a side effect of making the path length relative to the film/sensor size shorter. Hence the insane complexity of a wide angle or fisheye lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all cameras, and nearly all flashes, support high speed sync (HSS) now, usually up to about 1/8000s.
The advantage of leaf shutters with high shutter speeds is when the flash is using regular sync speeds, and you're setting the shutter speed higher anyway. This is useful in various small/creative ways. But everybody can do fill flash in bright sun now with a regular flash, like an $80 Godox or whatever. With the leaf shutter you can do that with a manual flash, so it is popular with the (manual) x100.
Re: (Score:2)
... most importantly is that a mirror camera has the lens quite a distance from the sensor (or film) which is why DSLR lenses are so complicated. You need extra glass (elements and groups) to correct for the distance, then more glass to correct for aberration etc caused by the extra glass. That's more expense and weight.
That is only becomes relevant with ultra-wide angle lenses
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't really like that body. I do a lot of night photography in very low light levels, and I can see struggling with that digital viewfinder in those conditions. I think I would end up having to rent one for a weekend or two, after downloading the manua
Re: (Score:2)
The R was a uniquely bad design, I think. Those were my first exposure to Canon Mirrorless as well. The touch bar drove me insane, even after two full weeks of actively using one, I still couldn't get the hang of it. Canon has never used that interface again, and I think that's for good reason.
Fortunately, the R5 and R6 exist. They have traditional button and dial layout, no screen blackout during shots and autofocus I'd consider insane. I'm not a birder or a sports guy, but I've been able to get sharp fo
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info, Slaker!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Can someone explain (Score:2)
With mirrorless cameras, you have to use the screen. Which consumes some additional battery power.
Re: (Score:2)
My reason for preferring a mirror is that thanks to that mirror my eye sees exactly what the lens sees. If you care about framing and composition of the picture then being able to do that is a must. Using the screen on the back of the camera works but I've had issues with glare or reflections on the screen causing grief. Having my eyeball right on the viewfinder avoids this and also give you a perspective of how the picture will really look, you don't see some little 4x5 digital image, what your taking a
Re: (Score:3)
Canon has made this announcement.
Nikon has declared that its new mirrorless Z9 is its flagship model.
The industry certainly seems to be moving that way.
But, there are good reasons that mirror-based SLR's were required for a quality picture when film dominated, and many same or similar reasons why digital SLR cameras have still reigned over pure electronic models since digital cameras first appeared about 25 years ago, at least for professional photography using flagship cameras.
But, the deficiencies of mirr
Re: (Score:2)
On-sensor phase detection has been around for quite a long time now, and is now pretty much ubiquitous, even in smartphones. The combination of on-sensor autofocus allowing for a great deal more autofocus points spread over the entire frame and combined simultaneously with contrast detection for hybrid solutions means that a good mirrorless camera can have a better autofocus system than a DSLR. Especially since DSLRs often can't use their phase detection autofocus and must fall back to pure contrast detecti
Re: (Score:2)
On-sensor phase detection has been around for quite a long time now, and is now pretty much ubiquitous
True enough. Even my Pentax DSLR has both traditional autofocus sensors when you're using the viewfinder, and on-sensor autofocus when using "live view" on the LCD.
means that a good mirrorless camera can have a better autofocus system than a DSLR
There is no reason at all to believe that on-sensor autofocus in a DSLR has different constraints than on-sensor autofocus in a mirrorless. The reason the mirrorless have better autofocus is that the companies are putting their latest tech into the mirrorless instead of the DSLRs, because they want customers to like it better. They've been able t
Re: (Score:2)
There are a couple of ways to make a mirrorless camera. The most common is to direct all the light to the sensor and use an electronic viewfinder. Electronic viewfinders have lower dynamic range and poorer resolution than an actual optical viewfinder, but they are getting better.
You can also use a permanent beamsplitter and have an optical viewfinder. That means you lose somewhere around a stop of light sensitivity.
Re: Can someone explain (Score:2)
Re: Can someone explain (Score:2)
You actually don't want a mirror in your camera. The mirror means the distance between the lens and the sensor is sub optimal and leads to lower picture quality over a design that is mirrorless. Anyone with a passing understanding of optical design knows this. There is a reason rangefinder cameras never went away. Mirrorless cameras are the digital equivalent of the rangefinder. The mirror is only of value for a viewfinder and one came easily argue that a digital viewfinder that shows actually what you are
Re: (Score:2)
You actually don't want a mirror in your camera.
Yes. I do.
That's why Pentax does not make a mirrorless, and has stated they never will. Because there are people who do want a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mirror means the distance between the lens and the sensor is sub optimal and leads to lower picture quality over a design that is mirrorless
Not true except for the wider angle lenses. I have some lenses for my SLR and DSLRs where the rear element in not even close to the mount flange. If what you said is true, they would be as close as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the past, the LCD screen on a camera was of piss poor resolution - basically 640x480 or lower (320x240 was common). This makes it impossible to determine focus because it's just reall
Bingo (Score:2)
Mirrorless is the future, for sure. (Score:2)
But unless you're one of the tiny handful of people that have actually maxed out a full frame modern camera and are actually missing shots due to its limitations, there's no need to trade in your gear and lenses.
Hell, my Nikon D90 was better at being a camera than I am at being a photographer.
The human eye has superior dynamic range to camera (Score:2)
But unless you're one of the tiny handful of people that have actually maxed out a full frame modern camera and are actually missing shots due to its limitations, there's no need to trade in your gear and lenses.
Hell, my Nikon D90 was better at being a camera than I am at being a photographer.
There's one major benefit and that is that your eyes are FAR superior to any computer sensor made today. It looks great in your eye and like shit on the camera.
Going mirrorless is a game-changer. The reason is I screw up shots all the time with a DSLR due to white balance or odd outdoor lighting, usually backlit...the sun is low and the face, which looks perfect to me comes out as a barely intelligible shadow. It looks GREAT in the mirror because a human eye has more dynamic range than a camera and it
Re: The human eye has superior dynamic range to ca (Score:2)
It looks GREAT in the mirror because a human eye has more dynamic range
Are you stopping down the aperture when checking out your shot composition through the viewfinder? Many SLRs leave the aperature wide open until you take the shot. So you might be looking at your subject at f2.0 but taking the photo at f11. Many cameras have a switch to set the selected aperature while viewing. That gives you a better idea of exposure as well as depth of field.
Re: (Score:2)
On my Pentax I set the "wifi" button to be "viewfinder preview" instead, it is very convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
The other way around for me. I always made better photos with my old Sigma SD15 than with any of the mirrorless I had, but since they are much smaller and lighter my Sigma has been collecting dust for the last few years.
Re: (Score:2)
If you shoot in raw mode you can just fix the white balance when you develop the pictures. If you do any closeups, you'll usually need to crop anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is I screw up shots all the time with a DSLR due to white balance or odd outdoor lighting, ... It looks GREAT in the mirror because a human eye has more dynamic range than a camera and it can focus on the backlit area. Viewing it on a screen, you can catch your error if the photo is too backlit.
Actually, a modern digital sensor (DSLR or mirrorless) has more dynamic range than your eye. Anyway, if you are in doubt, on a DSLR you can always look at the screen on the back in Live View which will show the same as the viewfinder would in a mirrorless.
The other issue is terrible white balance. .... I am having to compensate for the fact that most photos look piss-soaked.
Are you not aware that any decent digital camera has settings for compensating for light balance? Mine has settings for tungsten light, flourescent light and about five others, plus an Auto white balance. I'm begining to wonder how ancient or low-end yo
Re: Mirrorless is the future, for sure. (Score:2)
Bahh, my D40 is still going strong, landscapes with plenty of light is all I need it for :)
Re: Mirrorless is the future, for sure. (Score:2)
Yea, just small stuff and digital stills, Iâ(TM)m just a hack and this still takes nice pics for what it is
Re: (Score:2)
there's no need to trade in your gear and lenses.
With my Pentax DSKR sometimes I use old film lenses. It is fun. Backwards compatibility is great.
iPhones. (Score:2, Interesting)
These traditional camera makers not keeping up with computational photography is sad, because the larger sensors could do truly amazing things with it.
As is, my phone takes much better photos at night than my DSLR did, and daytime photos are about on-par. DoF can be faked and only really came with very expensive lenses anyway. Out of the box without faking DoF, the phone does DoF about as well as my canon kit lens
Re: (Score:2)
Comforting thought, but wrong viewed on a monitor (Score:3)
As is, my phone takes much better photos at night than my DSLR did, and daytime photos are about on-par. DoF can be faked and only really came with very expensive lenses anyway. Out of the box without faking DoF, the phone does DoF about as well as my canon kit lens.
It must be comforting and validating to your life choices to think that, but if your iPhone is taking better low light pictures than your DSLR, you're either being disingenuous or you really never bothered to learn how to us a camera. Sure, that $300 Rebel from 2010 will take worse pics than your 2021 $1100 iPhone 13 Pro Max. I'll be money that my 2020 Canon R6 with a Sigma Art prime lens will take much better pics than your iPhone.
Phones are analogous to earbuds vs headphones. Those new airpods soun
Re: (Score:2)
you're either being disingenuous or you really never bothered to learn how to us a camera.
At the beach, they are equivalent because there is a surplus of light
There is a guy in my region that does insect macro using a flagship phone with a macro lens attachment. It's really impressive, because most of the pictures he posts are as nice looking as most of the DSLR pics other people post. But if you pay attention, they're all taken in the same lighting, they all have the same depth of focus, etc. So he can go to the park during bright sun and find nice shots to take. But I sure wouldn't want to trade my setup for his, because even though I only have a $500 camera an
Re: (Score:2)
These traditional camera makers not keeping up with computational photography is sad, because the larger sensors could do truly amazing things with it.
You're begging the question without telling us what model iPhone vs what DSLR. While cheaper dedicated cameras are largely being outclassed the iPhones can't even remotely hold a candle to the capabilities of current prosumer and professional DSLRs, never have, and the assertion that there's not keeping up with computation is just silly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to buy a DSLR with Google computational photography. Big sensor, much less compromised optics.
Someone said that the new Sony models are a bit like that, but they start at 6k so I'm not going to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
DSLRs don't do computational photography. That's what post processing on a PC (or in The Cloud) is for. As computational photography improves, you don't have to leave your camera body and lenses behind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the camera needs to do some of it though. Capture multiple frames, multiple exposures, that kind of thing.
What software would you recommend? For example I want to one click night sight mode.
Re: (Score:2)
To me it's utterly amazing ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... how little even today in 2021/22 photographers know about the fundamentals of digital image processing.
A friend of mine is a hobby photographer and somewhat of an IT expert and even he couldn't understand the concept let alone the advantage of an array camera with built in image processing vis-a-vis a *digital* camera with a *mechanical* shutter and mirror-lifter (SLR). You know, that thing that needs counter balances and extra weights to prevent classic mechanical cameras from shaking on the *tripod* when attempting high quality tele shots.
I get that photographers wanted to use their old/existing optics for as long as possible, which can cost as much as a mid-range car and have an ROI measured in decades, and thus require compatible cameras and lens bajonetts that sport digital sensors, but the IMHO patently absurd insistence on a mechanical mirror / SLR mechanism has me bedazzled for at least 15 years now. How these SLRs could even have a market today is totally beyond me, regardless of whether they're digital or not.
Meanwhile we have cheap-ass smartphones with built in computational photography doing ultra high quality print resolution pictures with lenses and sensors so cheap as if some kid just pulled them out of a gum machine.
Light Corp. did a neat array camera a few years back, basically an all in one pro camera in a pocket format, the way "camera" should be done post 2000. They failed because they didn't have the quality control and couldn't maintain operations to get the software on par with the hardware. But why haven't others done this already? Sony, Nikon, Canon sure have the resources to do this, no? Is there too much money to be made selling steam age technology to unwitting and digitally ignorant photographers? Or am I missing something here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: To me it's utterly amazing ... (Score:2)
You know, that thing that needs counter balances and extra weights to prevent classic mechanical cameras from shaking on the *tripod* when attempting high quality tele shots.
Or just use the two second shutter delay setting most DSLRs have. Even without a mirror going "clonk", your finger poking a button is enough to shake a tripod.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that thing that needs counter balances and extra weights to prevent classic mechanical cameras from shaking on the *tripod* when attempting high quality tele shots.
Or just use the two second shutter delay setting most DSLRs have. Even without a mirror going "clonk", your finger poking a button is enough to shake a tripod.
Which is why I use a cable release when tripod mounted, even with shutter delay. In fact, I use mirror up + shutter delay + cable release to minimize shaking since I prefer to keep my ISO setting low (personal choice). I can miss shots (macro shots) due to subject movement or a breeze passing by, but then I'm not machine gunning my shots either.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with a remote shutter release I often use the 2 second delay if it is a super-low-light shot. But that's rare. Typically the remote release is more than enough. I use a wired one, but I also have a IR one in my bag, and there is also a wifi phone app...
You missed my point. Entirely. (Score:3)
I know smartphone cameras are cheap-ass and way before what would be possible with a larger array and specialized hard- and software. . (Although I would recommend taking a look at Googles Pixel 6 and the photo features it comes with. )
To emphasize: I'm talking about digital array cameras, like the light L16. Yeah, that was a flop and didn't even do array that well, but the general concept was spot on with everything we know about modern photography.
That you don't understand what I was saying above might p
Re: (Score:2)
Canon not so much
Canon's mirrorless mount (RF) is quite compatible with EF with an adapter. I'm not sure where you get this from.
Re: To me it's utterly amazing ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they ever do that? Considering that third-party adapters also exist, e.g. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c... [bhphotovideo.com]
So if Canon somehow decided to cripple their own adapters, someone else is bound to cook one up that does not get disabled. If by nothing else, then by identifying to the camera as "Not an adapter!" device.
Re: (Score:2)
Canon not so much
Canon's mirrorless mount (RF) is quite compatible with EF with an adapter. I'm not sure where you get this from.
The EF’s require and adaptor with mirrorless, and when the EF was introduced the you also needed an adaptor. Adaptors can change the ability of a lens to focus to infinity as well image quality if a lens is added to rectify the focus issue. Nikon, OTOH, has kept compatibility with its F mount for older lenses. That’s what I said “Canon not so much.” I get technology moves on, but as someone who has much more invested in Canon glass than bodies it si still frustrating. I probably
Re: (Score:2)
Adaptors can change the ability of a lens to focus to infinity as well image quality if a lens is added to rectify the focus issue.
Then the good news is that the EF RF adaptor has absolutely no lenses in them. They are basically an extension ring with elecrical connector adaptors. Reason for the adaptor is primarily that in EF lenses the focal plane (sensor/film) is much farther from the lens than with RF, since with EF you need to allow for all the room for the mirror. There are certain other differences
Re: (Score:2)
It's just an extension ring. Only thing where optics come into play is the one adaptor type that allows you to put filters in there, but that's still entirely optional.
Exactly. It thus impacts flange focal distance, which, depending on the lens and adapter, impacts focusing ability.
Pentax Forever! (Score:2)
This is why Pentax keeps saying they're not going to make a mirrorless. They're positioning themselves as the DSLR enthusiast brand, since everybody else is abandoning it.
I do a lot of macro insect photography, and I make do with bird/wildlife in the winter, and so I chose Pentax because it is "weatherproof." I don't want to be one of those Canikon users who run for the parking lot when they see a dark cloud! I just keep shooting.
But I can't imagine giving up my through-the-lens (TTL) viewfinder. Display te
I switched years ago (Score:2)
For me, mirrorless is FAR superior. The whole camera market is in trouble. Except for serious photographers, everybody uses a smartphone