May 17, 2019
6
0
OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
My G-series cameras are mirrorless. The G5X II even has a popup EVF. But I don't plan to replace my DSLRs with IL mirrorless cameras. I don't want to give up an OVF unless I'm using something that fits in my pocket.

Is there some reason you feel that the 5DS or SR don't meet your needs?
 

dcm

Good or bad - it's not the gear.
Apr 18, 2013
741
79
Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started. Even at several megapixels, digital was still considered to have less than half the resolution of film and lack the “feel” of film. Many said they would never switch. For me it was just a matter of when. We are now looking towards 80 megapixels, and I hear less about the “feel” these days. I still have my old film equipment but haven’t used it in the last 10 years.

The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made. I have the M/M3/M5 with an M6lI on the way. OVFs are usable and continue to improve.

I’ve worked in hi tech for the last 40 years, at a university as researcher/lecturer now. I tend to be an early adopter. I was waiting for the 5DSr II myself. The draw for me is high megapixel to complement my 1DX2. I believe Canon will provide an OVF worthy of the high megapixel sensor in the RS.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
528
190
OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.
I've only been taking photos heavily for maybe 3-4 years, and it still took me MONTHS to adjust to an EVF. There was a long time where I just felt disconnected from what was going on in front of me when using the EOS R. Definitely just felt like watching TV vs actually seeing what was happening in front of me.

From my experience adjusting to an EVF is absolutely not something you can do just trying a camera out in a store or even renting it, even for a few weeks. You just have to take the plunge, and then stick with it until it feels right, even when you just want your flappy mirror back.

I can't really explain it, but I think my brain just got re-wired. The EVF doesn't feel weird anymore. It feels just as natural and connected as a DSLR now. And I also really appreciate having my exposure settings immediately affecting what I see in the viewfiinder in real time. I miss that when going back to a DSLR now.

However one thing I will admit is that seeing the scene in the EVF can be a little misleading at times, especially in low light situations. The EVF by its nature is a backlit display. So very dark areas might tend to look brighter than they will really come through in the photo itself. This is especially true if you have your EVF brightness set too high. You need to keep an eye on the histogram, which is conveniently also available in the EVF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluediablo

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
Sep 8, 2012
925
37
So, I am not getting rid of my 5Div any time soon but, like anything else, there are pros and cons. There are some things that my RP (like BIF or action) can not do as well as a mirrorslapper (please, let's not fall into the abyss of why some think other mirrorless cameras are better than Canon's because that is being argued in so many other threads). But, once I got used to the EVF, I cannot see giving it up. I used to shoot an M and than an M5. Never was happy with those viewfinders but that was then and this is now.

My RP has become my go-to camera and the 5Div only comes out when I need it.

If there is ever a high FPS and rapid refresh mirrorless (Again, avoid the abyss :rolleyes: ), I'll be in line to get it.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,629
442
Germany
Hi Mike27713!

I can understand your argumentation and I partly feel the same, but ...
...I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way?????
Never say "Never!".
Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started
...
The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made.
...
THIS 100% is it.

And this is the reason why we haven't seen an 1DX equvalent MILC camera yet. Because Canon knows that people like you are not pleased yet.
I've tried several EVFs (Canon, Oly, Pana, Sony; but haven't tried the a9 or Nikon Z yet) and found that they are okay, but not more.
Right now I'd take an OVF for sports, action, wildlife, kids a thousand times over the EVF.
And right now I would gladly welcome a "5Dmk5" over an "EOS R5".

But with time that'll change. And you should choose that tool today that fits your needs today best.
But know that within a few years EVFs will become much better than they are yet.
So never say "Never!" but stay with OVF as long as it is the better solution for you - as it is for me today.

I hope you feel better now after your little rant.
And maybe you can see, that "hate" is a too strong emotion for this little problem and you can accept that others here also have some kind of "aversion".
 
Last edited:

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
528
190
Canon is clearly still struggling to get their full frame mirrorless technology and processing power up to the point where there is zero lag or blackout/lag when taking photos in the EVF. However, not going to name names, but based on other manufacturers, we have already seen it's possible to do this.

I have no doubt Canon will get there, probably in the next year or two. And at that point, I really don't see any reason to continue to clutch onto an OVF as theoretically superior to an EVF. In fact then at that point the OVF becomes the inferior technology since you still have blackout in the viewfinder for that instant when the mirror flips up. And yes, I understand that at high fps bursts on the 1DX MkII, the DSLR viewfinder blackout is more of just a viewfinder dimming because the mirror is flipping up and down so fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonOregon

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
Somehow it never occurred to me that having the viewfinder black out for a moment after I've pushed the shutter button could be a problem. That just seems normal. And it's not like my mirrorless G cameras and live view in my DSLRs keep a continuous display after the picture is taken. Instead they pop up a view of the shot just taken. I don't know what the MILCs do. Is there some action I can take right after the shutter fires that will alter the picture in some positive manner if only I could see?
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,519
748
OK, I've been in the photography business for well over 30 years. Don't care if it sounds old fashioned or not, but I do not want to practice my still photography using a TV screen. Optical has a much more natural direct realistic feel to taking pictures. I've been waiting forever for a new high megapixel full frame DSLR to come out like a 5Ds (or sr) Mark II and now I hear junk about a mirrorless instead. I NEVER plan on buying a mirrorless. Am I the only one that feels this way????? If so, I'll stay proud of it. I feel camera manufactures are pushing us towards Mirrorless for only one reason, to sell more cameras to people falling for it. I'm sure someone responding to this question will list all the attributes to mirrorless, but let me be clear....I don't care. In my opinion Optical out weighs them all.
Camera manufacturers respond to sales. The fact is that mirrorless sales income has increased while DSLR sales income has dropped to 55% of last year. If you want to be in business, you make what sells. Right now, we are in a period where the customer can influence which products will be made and sold, but the answer is pretty clear and unless it turns around, DSLR's will be gone sooner than I thought.

Each type of camera has its pros and cons, A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark. Phase Detect AF is fast, but accuracy is a problem that costs a lot of $$ to keep tuned up. DPAF is accurate at all focal lengths and apertures. Manual focus is still the most accurate, but slow.

In the final analysis, photographers will vote with their pocketbooks, and the technical specs don't matter at all.

I think they may already have voted.

When compared to this time last year, sales quantities of DSLR's are only 64% while mirrorless are at 86%.

But when looking at sales values, DSLR's are at 55% while Mirrorless sales values are up at 104%.

As a businessman, I'd definitely go with products where my sales income is up to 104% rather than down to 55%, but for now, its possible to make and sell both at a profit. It may not be possible to make DSLR's at a profit when sales drops to 10% of 2017. At very best, just profitible models would be made.

You can follow sales of cameras at CIPA.

 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
990
484
Camera manufacturers respond to sales. The fact is that mirrorless sales income has increased while DSLR sales income has dropped to 55% of last year. If you want to be in business, you make what sells. Right now, we are in a period where the customer can influence which products will be made and sold, but the answer is pretty clear and unless it turns around, DSLR's will be gone sooner than I thought.

Each type of camera has its pros and cons, A optical viewfinder is great in bright light, usable in moderate light, but worthless in near dark. Phase Detect AF is fast, but accuracy is a problem that costs a lot of $$ to keep tuned up. DPAF is accurate at all focal lengths and apertures. Manual focus is still the most accurate, but slow.

In the final analysis, photographers will vote with their pocketbooks, and the technical specs don't matter at all.

I think they may already have voted.

When compared to this time last year, sales quantities of DSLR's are only 64% while mirrorless are at 86%.

But when looking at sales values, DSLR's are at 55% while Mirrorless sales values are up at 104%.

As a businessman, I'd definitely go with products where my sales income is up to 104% rather than down to 55%, but for now, its possible to make and sell both at a profit. It may not be possible to make DSLR's at a profit when sales drops to 10% of 2017. At very best, just profitible models would be made.

You can follow sales of cameras at CIPA.

One reason for last year's numbers were the introduction of Canon and Nikon's FF mirrorless cameras with pretty much no new DLSR bodies of any note. New products sell at a faster clip than old ones do. It will be interesting to see how the second half of 2019 goes at Canon with regard to mirrorless vs. DSLR sales with the 90D now on the market. The rollout of the 1DX Mark III and D6 next spring will also have an effect of the sales value balance, if not the sales unit numbers.
 

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
246
28
England
Reminds me of the discussions years ago when digital started. Even at several megapixels, digital was still considered to have less than half the resolution of film and lack the “feel” of film. Many said they would never switch. For me it was just a matter of when. We are now looking towards 80 megapixels, and I hear less about the “feel” these days. I still have my old film equipment but haven’t used it in the last 10 years.

The viewfinder is the next step in the digital evolution. And it’s just a matter of when again. At some point you won’t be able to tell the difference, except the digital viewfinder will be able to simulate the exposure you’ve dialed in or magnify 10X. It’s clearly not there yet, but progress is being made. I have the M/M3/M5 with an M6lI on the way. OVFs are usable and continue to improve.

I’ve worked in hi tech for the last 40 years, at a university as researcher/lecturer now. I tend to be an early adopter. I was waiting for the 5DSr II myself. The draw for me is high megapixel to complement my 1DX2. I believe Canon will provide an OVF worthy of the high megapixel sensor in the RS.
That is probably very true, but there needs to be a decisive factor that makes us go to the trouble and expense of replacing our existing DSLRs and lenses with the mirrorless equivalents. At the moment I am happy with my 5D mk4 and underwhelmed with Canon's mirrorless offerings. The choice facing many of us is either switch to Sony or wait patiently for Canon to produce a mirrorless camera that is significantly better than their existing full frame DSLRs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike27713

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
348
197
Something isn't scanning, here.

That is probably very true, but there needs to be a decisive factor that makes us go to the trouble and expense of replacing our existing DSLRs and lenses with the mirrorless equivalents. At the moment I am happy with my 5D mk4 and underwhelmed with Canon's mirrorless offerings.
So at this point there's no compelling reason to change?

The choice facing many of us is either switch to Sony or wait patiently for Canon to produce a mirrorless camera that is significantly better than their existing full frame DSLRs.
If you're happy with your 5D mk4...there's no reason to do either. Just keep using it.

You're coming across (to me at least) as someone who's feeling pressure of some kind to switch over just for the sake of being mirrorless, but underwhelmed with Canon's offerings and not wanting to switch to Sony (and I don't blame you on either score). Whence the pressure? And if there's no pressure...then don't sweat it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

JohnC

EOS M50
Sep 22, 2019
46
39
Gainesville,GA
If you're happy with your 5D mk4...there's no reason to do either. Just keep using it.
That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

SteveC

M50 & T6i
Sep 3, 2019
348
197
That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.
By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).
 

JohnC

EOS M50
Sep 22, 2019
46
39
Gainesville,GA
By contrast, I don't have ANY full frame camera right now, so I will probably just wait for a higher-res body as well, before taking the plunge. If I ever do. I do intend to get the M6 mk II as soon as I am convinced there won't be an M5 mk II...and that will be a 32MP camera. I can't quite see getting a full frame with fewer pixels than that now (though I don't necessarily want 80+ MP--40 or 50 would work out well I think).

My M6MkII will be here Monday, although probably not before I have to head to the airport lol. Looking forward to playing around with it some when I get the chance.

I don't NEED 80mp either. I would love to be in the 60mp range. If the performance is there for landscape shooting though I won't let the 80mp stop me. AF and things like that don't affect me that much. I shoot manual focus Zeiss lenses anyway. It would be nice to have it of course just in case, but not a deal breaker.
 

OneSnark

Canon Fanboy
Aug 20, 2019
29
10
The jump to mirrorless is NOTHING like the jump from film to digital. Film to digital FUNDAMENTALLY changed ones approach to photography.
With digital, I went from shooting one or two images of a scene to 20 images. Changing ISO from shot to shot! That was all revolutionary.

Going to mirrorless. . . .meh. . . switching from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? Total gamechanger. NOT.

When I went from film to digital. . . .I didn't change lenses. I just bought a new body.
Now. . . going to mirrorless- - -one is looking at buying new (and frankly slow) EF-M lenses. . . .or premium dollar RF glass. It's not just forking out for a new body.

So. . . .more money. . . .less improvement. . . .I can wait on this change.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
317
236
Hamburg, Germany
When I went from film to digital. . . .I didn't change lenses. I just bought a new body.
Now. . . going to mirrorless- - -one is looking at buying new (and frankly slow) EF-M lenses. . . .or premium dollar RF glass. It's not just forking out for a new body.
Well, EF lenses work on EF-M and RF bodies so you actually can just buy a new body and be just fine. I know, mind = blown, right? ;)

I see mirrorless as a way for manufacturers to gain more flexibility and that can lead to benefits for the consumer as well. A lens like the RF 24-240mm would never have come to market on EF mount. Same goes for a camera with the M6 line body type. It also seems like the EF-M lenses are all highly efficient designs regarding size and price. I like getting good value for my money.

Obviously not revolutionary. There's just not all that much room for improvement left for technology to tap into. We're at a point we're many things simply improve in incremental steps as we get closer to the limits set by the laws of physics and making big steps therefore becomes more challenging and expensive. In a shrinking market, who would pay for such big steps?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and JohnC

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,084
1,627
Irving, Texas
That's exactly where I am. I get great results with the 5D4, and don't see a compelling reason to do anything else at the current time. I'm very interested in this rumored high-res mirroless option if/when it becomes reality.
My 5D Mark III didn't have too many clicks. Maybe 60,000 tops. Front and back focus on subjects drove me nuts, especially missing focus on eyes, along with AFMA. So the choice was 5D mark IV (Great camera) or the R with the same sensor and no AFMA and about $900 less money. I hesitantly chose the R (Also a great camera and value) and hoped for the best. Glad I did, but fully understand making the other choice too. Sold all my EF gear to afford the switch and got the camera + 2 lenses (sold a couple of other things also.). Happy as I can be for my use. The lenses also persuaded me in a big way. This won't be my last camera, but the RF lenses I have now + one more will be my last unless something breaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

JohnC

EOS M50
Sep 22, 2019
46
39
Gainesville,GA
My 5D Mark III didn't have too many clicks. Maybe 60,000 tops. Front and back focus on subjects drove me nuts, especially missing focus on eyes, along with AFMA. So the choice was 5D mark IV (Great camera) or the R with the same sensor and no AFMA and about $900 less money. I hesitantly chose the R (Also a great camera and value) and hoped for the best. Glad I did, but fully understand making the other choice too. Sold all my EF gear to afford the switch and got the camera + 2 lenses (sold a couple of other things also.). Happy as I can be for my use. The lenses also persuaded me in a big way. This won't be my last camera, but the RF lenses I have now + one more will be my last unless something breaks.

I skipped the MkIII, but I sold a Mkii in late '16 or early '17 that had maybe 20k clicks on it. I shoot almost entirely landscape so it just doesn't get hundreds of clicks when I get out. It is very common for me to head out for a morning and come back with <40 shots. I hear you on the front/back focusing thing. I'm fortunate enough to have not dealt with that kind of thing a whole lot using manual focus lenses. I do have the 70-200 f4L and the 100-400 v1. I remember calibrating AFMA on the mk II but I"m not sure I've ever had the lens on the Mk IV. I use the 70-200 for telephoto range landscapes.

I think the R is a great body and would work great for what I do with them. I'm not sure it gives me a lot/anything over the 5d4 for the way I use the camera however. If I were still sitting with the MkII or the MkIII I would probably make the change now.