Oh, no! Oncoming GAS attack

[DanK]

I've managed to fend off GAS by reminding myself that what I own is very good and that changing equipment probably won't matter most of the time. One of the 13 x 19 prints I have on exhibit was taken with my little Lumix MX-100, and I have exhibited up to 17 x 22 with images from my old Canon 5D Mark III.

But for all that, the rumored new Canon R5 has stirred up those repressed materialist impulses. Check it out here: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eo...pecifications/. It looks like the underwhelming R was a placeholder in the full-frame mirrorless market, while the pending R5 is the real deal, the next iteration of the 5 series DSLRs, but mirrorless. From what I have read, it looks like this is going to have 45 mpx, a redesigned sensor, and a much improved processor. They apparently are going to add back a few of the features from the upper-level DSLRs that were oddly missing from the R, like the toggle. The video features look very good, but i don't do video, that doesn't sway me. It looks like this will be a serious competitor to the Sony line, without the lousy menus that people complain about. And in addition, from what I have read, EF lenses work flawlessly with Canon's own EF-to-R adapter.

Price hasn't been announced. Rumored to ship in July. That gives me plenty of time either to talk myself out of it or to rationalize buying one.

[ST1]

I think I may have caught the same GAS virus that you describe Dan
I had been considering buying a 5D Mark 4, now I’m wobbling on the top of the fence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[William W]

Some believe, me being of that belief - you only live once and you're dead a long time: if it is within means and you're usually measured, then on the balance of things, treating yourself once and a while is not at all a sin.

Enjoy.

WW

[Chataignier]

Some believe, me being of that belief - you only live once and you're dead a long time: if it is within means and you're usually measured, then on the balance of things, treating yourself once and a while is not at all a sin.

Enjoy.

WW

Oh yes, I do agree - but I do have a big worry : that if I should depart this life, my wife might sell my gear for what I told her I'd paid for it !

[Chataignier]

I think I may have caught the same GAS virus that you describe Dan
I had been considering buying a 5D Mark 4, now I’m wobbling on the top of the fence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would not consider an SLR today except perhaps used at a bargain price. The future is mirrorless : less weight, simpler mechanics, less to go wrong, less vibration at moment of shooting... the arguments all point to mirrorless. I'm quite sure that Canon's next model targetting the pro market will be mirrorless and will out perform the 5D mk4.

[Shadowman]

I'm experiencing the same regarding the Fujifilm camera but for me its do I choose the XT-30 which I tested or go for a later model, I've read some reviews that older models get firmware upgrades to nearly match the latest technology and I was comfortable handling the XT-30. My only dilemma would be getting caught up adding additional lenses beyond the 35mm I tested the camera with, I however saw a 18 or 27mm pancake lens that would be a better ergonomic fit for my street photography needs; the change in UW focal length would change the camera's versatility as a alternate architectural tool. I'm going to take my time and research both the available models and lens quality, I think doing a thorough analysis of the system will help alleviate any GAS attacks experienced by forum members.

[Chataignier]

I'm experiencing the same regarding the Fujifilm camera but for me its do I choose the XT-30 which I tested or go for a later model, I've read some reviews that older models get firmware upgrades to nearly match the latest technology and I was comfortable handling the XT-30. My only dilemma would be getting caught up adding additional lenses beyond the 35mm I tested the camera with, I however saw a 18 or 27mm pancake lens that would be a better ergonomic fit for my street photography needs; the change in UW focal length would change the camera's versatility as a alternate architectural tool. I'm going to take my time and research both the available models and lens quality, I think doing a thorough analysis of the system will help alleviate any GAS attacks experienced by forum members.

Motivated mainly by weight reduction, I recently changed from Canon SLR to Fuji - the X-T3. I now have a range of lenses and have also bought a Viltrox adaptor that allows me to use my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and the Canon 50mm f1.8. all the rest of the Canon gear has been sold. I'm delighted with the performance from the X-T3. No regrets about going to an APSC sensor - I exhibit quite a lot and print up to 50x70cm with impeccable results.

[Donald]

I think mirrorless cameras are a great invention, but there are downsides as well. It's not all wine and roses.

With mirrorless, the one biggest drawback, for me, would be sensor exposure. Here is a copy of what one website says:- "When you change the lens on a DSLR, the sensor is mostly protected by that mirror that sits right in front of it. Dust can still get into the camera housing when you change lenses, but floaties in the air are less likely to land on the sensor.

When you change the lens on a mirrorless camera, bam, the precious, delicate sensor is vulnerable to the world, right there in front. This is one of the most expensive disadvantages of mirrorless cameras."

Given that my lens changes happen out in the field and not always in clean conditions, I'll stick to conventional DSLRs.

[DanK]

you only live once and you're dead a long time: if it is within means and you're usually measured, then on the balance of things, treating yourself once and a while is not at all a sin.

I like that perspective!

I had been considering buying a 5D Mark 4,

I don't know what you shoot now, but I decided that it isn't a big enough improvement from my Mark III to make it worth the money.

It's anyone's guess what comes next. It looks like Canon is positioning the R5 to be the next step in the 5 series, but they could easily pop the new sensor and processor into a 5D Mark V down the road.

The future is mirrorless : less weight, simpler mechanics, less to go wrong, less vibration at moment of shooting... the arguments all point to mirrorless. I'm quite sure that Canon's next model targetting the pro market will be mirrorless and will out perform the 5D mk4.

I'm not worried about what the future will bring. I only care about the options in front of me now. It's true that mirrorless cameras are simpler, but my Canon bodies have been tanks and have stood up to both years of use and occasional, accidental serious abuse without a single malfunction and repair. They may well outlast me.

I think mirrorless cameras are a great invention, but there are downsides as well. It's not all wine and roses.

Absolutely true, and if I go ahead, I will want to shoot with this one before deciding. As I understand it, Canon has solved the problem you mention; when you detach the lens, a cover comes down over the sensor. But that isn't the only drawback. I have questions about how well an EVF will function for me. The only one I have is old, so it isn't a good indication of what the best new ones will do. One issue is how well they function at night, as I do night photography. Another is how well they work for people with old, read, inflexible, eyes. I'm also concerned about the shutter lag. Even if it is very short, it could be a big drawback in field macro work.

With respect to old eyes: I realized that I don't understand how EVFs work. In the case of on OVF, you focus on the subject, not the viewfinder; you are looking through the viewfinder, just as you would with binoculars or glasses. But with an EVF, the image is millimeters in front of the eye. Even young eyes can't focus that closely. So the image must be emulating somehow what one sees focused at infinity. In any even, I have to check this out. When I had cataract surgery, my dominant right eye was set for distance vision, and for the first time, I could use an OVF without glasses and without a diopter adjustment, seeing the entire frame.

No regrets about going to an APSC sensor

I must say that APS-C is attractive because of the weight, but leaving that aside, I'm reluctant to go that route. I have FF, APS-C, and MFT bodies, and I get the best results with FF, particularly when conditions aren't optimal. Then again, my APS-C is an older camera than my FF.

The rumored 45 mpx is attractive to me also both for printing large and for cropping. With this pixel density, I might be able to use my primary body for field macro. I currently use APS-C because the higher pixel density of that body allows me to put more pixels on the subject at 1:1 or close to it.

[Manfred M]

There are advantages and disadvantages to DSLR versus mirrorless and the final decision will always be dependent on what one is planning to shoot and what output one is planning to create.

While people are quick to mention the lower weight of a mirrorless camera, they forget to include the weight of the lenses, so when I look at my typical kit, the weight saving of a mirrorless body is a very minor part of what I am carrying around. They also forget that a heavier camera can be held more steadily and images can be sharper, even when using stabilization.

On the flip side, as the sensor is used to determine focus, rather than an external module, there is no issue with a lens front focusing or back focusing. Having the back end of the lens close to the sensor improves image quality, but that means getting rid of ones legacy lenses and replacing them with the new mirrorless ones.

[steveg4iwr]

Personally I prefer the phrase we live every day and die once

I moved from Canon 7d mk2 to a LUMIX G9 and never regretted it. It is lighter and smaller and with stabilisation built in hand holding this lighter kit is so easy. My neck and shoulders also smile now at the end of a day with camera and spare lens weight not crippling me. People say heavy is easier to balance until they try the lighter kit and then they generally reluctantly start to agree unless they are so bloody minded they will never agree.

It’s a good job we are all different as camera manufacturers rely on our diverse views and beliefs. As do forms such as this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

I moved from Canon 7d mk2 to a LUMIX G9 and never regretted it. It is lighter and smaller and with stabilisation built in hand holding this lighter kit is so easy.

Been thinking about the G9 myself to replace the G1 & GH1, reason being the G9's IBIS for my M42 lenses now my hands are getting shaky.

Re: North Lincolnshire, I used to fly small planes out of Sturgate, long, long ago.

[Shadowman]

Motivated mainly by weight reduction, I recently changed from Canon SLR to Fuji - the X-T3. I now have a range of lenses and have also bought a Viltrox adaptor that allows me to use my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro and the Canon 50mm f1.8. all the rest of the Canon gear has been sold. I'm delighted with the performance from the X-T3. No regrets about going to an APSC sensor - I exhibit quite a lot and print up to 50x70cm with impeccable results.

I have no concerns about going to APS-C as that is the system I started with, I don't plan to give up my FF camera, the Fujifilm would be for specific projects/photo styles but I don't want to get drawn into the allure of purchasing a full set of lenses and don't think I'm really interested in a zoom lens either. I want to work with one lens and the 27 or 35mm is optimal for me, the 18 or 27mm lens is attractive because both are pancake but I don't really want to work in UWA all the time, the 27mm is pushing it.

[DanK]

Well, the balance issue doesn't enter into my calculations about this. I prefer only two things about the FF body I use, or perhaps 3, depending on how you count. One is the image quality, particularly in low-light conditions. The second, or second and third, are ergonomics: the larger size fits my hands better, and it allows for more external controls and better spacing of those controls.

And for that matter, for the reason that Manfred gave, the once you add in lenses, the weight savings from switching to mirrorless are in proportional terms small. The big variation in weight is a function of sensor size, which is independent of mirrorless/mirrored.

[Shadowman]

I think mirrorless cameras are a great invention, but there are downsides as well. It's not all wine and roses.

With mirrorless, the one biggest drawback, for me, would be sensor exposure. Here is a copy of what one website says:- "When you change the lens on a DSLR, the sensor is mostly protected by that mirror that sits right in front of it. Dust can still get into the camera housing when you change lenses, but floaties in the air are less likely to land on the sensor.

When you change the lens on a mirrorless camera, bam, the precious, delicate sensor is vulnerable to the world, right there in front. This is one of the most expensive disadvantages of mirrorless cameras."

Given that my lens changes happen out in the field and not always in clean conditions, I'll stick to conventional DSLRs.

I'd like to eliminate the sensor exposure issue by utilizing only one lens without the need for changing in the field, the other drawback I've seen is the AF response time, I would like to use zone focusing to overcome the lag but noticed that more of my captures were softer than I would have liked. I still missed a few with the AF system but those that hit the mark were exceptional.

[rpcrowe]

I went from a combo of Canon 7D Mark-2 and 6D Mark-2 to Sony gear and I haven't looked back... I love the AF of the Sony APSC and Full-Frame bodies as well as the lighter weight of a mirrorless.

A good example of a comparison between the two systems was my Canon 7D2 and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens which I replaced with the Sony A6600 plus 70-350mm f/4.6-6.3 G OSS lens.

Granted the Sony lens is 50mm shorter at the long end but, it is 30mm wider at the short end. It is a half stop slower at the long end but the same aperture at shorter focal lengths. I also consider the high ISO capabilities of the A6600 better than that of the Canon 7D2 which I replaced.

The biggest difference is that the Canon combination weighs 2,547 grams while the Sony combination weighs 1,128 grams. I use the Sony combo far more often than I ever used the Canon combination because it is way less than half the weight and far smaller in physical size...

I thought that the AF ofthe 7D2 was the best I ever used until I started using an A6400 or A6600,,,

Two other combinations that I am very fond of are the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens and either the A6400 or A7iii... These two combinations weigh 953 and 1210 respectively. Quite light for their capabilities...

The full-frame Canon 6D2 weighs 765 grams while the Sony A7iii weighs 115 grams less at 650 grams. However, although the Sony is only a tad bit lighter than the Canon, it beats the pants off the 6D2 in capabilities...

In the field, I most often shoot with two cameras A6400 and A6600... So I don't need to switch lenses. These two cameras combined, weigh only 138 grams more than the 7D2 alone.

If I were into landscape photography, it would be a toss up between Canon and Sony outfits. Since I would be carrying a tripod, weight would not be the deciding factor. Additionally, since AF speed and accuracy (including Eye-AF) doesn't need to be the very best in landscape photography, the Canon and Sony (I am thinking of the A7R4) would probably be equally matched...

NOTE: I have not had many problems with sensor dust in using my Sony gear. Using two cameras negates the need to change lenses in the field as often... However, even when using the full frame A7iii sensor in the field, I have not (given decent precautions in changing lenses) experienced many sensor dust problems...

[Manfred M]

Let me go a step further. Unless one prints a lot of large format images, then any camera over around 12MP is superfluous. Most standard computer screens in use are around 2MP and even the newest 4K screens are running at around 8MP, so the large sensors (even "small" mFT) are really unneccessary, given the large number of pixels most people are throwing away. A camera phone is just fine for images posted on the internet. The only part that I would miss is shallow DoF, but the emulation in a lot of camera phones is good enough.

Print large format and the dynamics change; a bigger sensor and more pixels do have a noticeable impact on the final product. For the type of work I do, I would not hesitate switching to medium format, but of course, I would have problems justifying the expense.

[DanK]

Yes, it's for printing large that I am interested in more resolution. Files from my current camera can be printed to about 13 x 19 (33x 48 cm) without uprezzing, but that assumes no cropping at all. I print as large as 17 x 22 (43 x 56 cm), and I often have reasons to crop substantially. I assume that I would notice no improvement at all in smaller prints, but a fair portion of my prints are these larger sizes.

The issue in field macro is somewhat different. At any given magnification, the size of the image projected on the sensor is a constant. If I am photographing a 1 cm bug at 1:1, I need to cram a lot of pixels into that 1 cm.

[rpcrowe]

I fully agree with Manfred regarding the need for ultra high resolution cameras... The need for resolution depends on what your final outcome is expected to be as well as what cropping that you usually do.

The old saying "Different horses for different courses!" is very valid in the choice of cameras and lenses.

I am guessing that many photographers are using cameras with capabilities far beyond what they need for their "normal" use.

Years ago in the "Dark Ages" of film photography, we often used larger format gear because that was what we really needed to produce the quality prints we wanted. I never shot wedding pictures of the ceremony and the church portraits with other than medium format film and it wasn't towards the end of wedding shooting that I used 35mm - and then it was only for the reception shots.

Now, the primary tool for wedding photographers is a full-frame digital camera and there is virtually no problem in producing any size print from the 24x36 mm sensor size and a 24 mp sensor... In fact some photographers use crop sensor cameras which can, if handled correctly can produce the occasional large print...

[LePetomane]

The best deterrent to being a gear hound is to have an accountant for a wife. She knows where every penny goes.