We are about two weeks out from the R3 announcement and it seems like a good time to reflect on the current state of digital cameras.
I've been quite candid that I fully intend to switch over completely to mirrorless with the R3, taking a hit on my 1Dx III for the sake of having a single lens system and reducing the amount of equipment I have to lug around. But the following quote from @GMCPhotographics, raises questions that I have been wrestling with and which I think warrants further discussion.
To put it bluntly, I wonder if Canon's alluring little mirrorless lap dance will leave us all with much lighter wallets but unsatisfied.
I like the R5. I find many of its features brilliant, but I ask myself, if I had the choice between the R5 and a 5DV with a 45mp sensor, animal eye autofocus, and the feature improvements of the 1DX III, would I have chosen that over the R5. The answer is, I would have gone for the DSLR. There simply aren't enough features/benefits that are intrinsic to mirrorless to make it more desirable in my view than DSLRs.
I recognize the risks of comparing real cameras to hypothetical cameras, but if you look at what the 1DX III offers, it's pretty easy to see what could have been added to a 5DV. Similarly, for me, the major benefits of the RF lens line seems to be in adding a few new lenses and focal lengths and reducing weight. But, when comparting EF and RF apples to apples it's pretty evident that many of those perceived benefits would have been incorporated into the next generation of EF lenses.
Now, credit to Canon, they've played the game very well and no one is forcing me to keep stuffing dollar bills into their hands, but I do have regrets for what could have been.
I've been quite candid that I fully intend to switch over completely to mirrorless with the R3, taking a hit on my 1Dx III for the sake of having a single lens system and reducing the amount of equipment I have to lug around. But the following quote from @GMCPhotographics, raises questions that I have been wrestling with and which I think warrants further discussion.
I also recall another forum participant (apologies for not remembering who it was) saying they felt like we were all beta testers for the R5. A sentiment I can identify with given the frequency of lockups that I've experienced....There are are rumours that Canon only introduced the RF mount to extract premium prices in a declining market to replace lost revenues from the declining market...
To put it bluntly, I wonder if Canon's alluring little mirrorless lap dance will leave us all with much lighter wallets but unsatisfied.
I like the R5. I find many of its features brilliant, but I ask myself, if I had the choice between the R5 and a 5DV with a 45mp sensor, animal eye autofocus, and the feature improvements of the 1DX III, would I have chosen that over the R5. The answer is, I would have gone for the DSLR. There simply aren't enough features/benefits that are intrinsic to mirrorless to make it more desirable in my view than DSLRs.
I recognize the risks of comparing real cameras to hypothetical cameras, but if you look at what the 1DX III offers, it's pretty easy to see what could have been added to a 5DV. Similarly, for me, the major benefits of the RF lens line seems to be in adding a few new lenses and focal lengths and reducing weight. But, when comparting EF and RF apples to apples it's pretty evident that many of those perceived benefits would have been incorporated into the next generation of EF lenses.
Now, credit to Canon, they've played the game very well and no one is forcing me to keep stuffing dollar bills into their hands, but I do have regrets for what could have been.