goldenhusky said:
That's why there is the used camera market. World imaging leader do not have to rush to the bottom of the stack to address that issue. Don't you think a used 70d or a 60d is superior to this 4000d?
You should participate on the thread about the 4000d. As stated by a few people there, owning something new is special for a variety of reasons.
By your logic, nobody should buy three quarters of the new cameras out there, because you can get something superior in the used market at that price. But for a variety of reasons, many people want a new device, especially when it's a major purchase.
In addition, also stated in that thread, getting good used parts in some places in the world just isn't like it is in developed countries. There's no eBay or craigslist.
goldenhusky said:
I have tried that with a slightly different set up with my A9 and M5 the result is both failed in low light. Unless M6 has so much superior auto focus than M5 (I am almost certain there is no difference in auto focus between M5 and M6) no mirror less can win that race till this date. My 5D4 and 80d were able to focus but none of the mirroless.
I couldn't agree more that a 5D4 or 80D are a zillion times better at focusing in low light than any mirrorless, and I have stated so many times. In addition, they have access to AF illuminators, which work reliably and amazingly well.
That said I was specifically comparing M6 to A7R3. DPAF is simply superior to Sony's Hybrid Phase Detect + Contrast Detect Autofocus. I did not say a room with very little light (like a concert), did I? I said, compare them in a room lit with a 60W bulb. That's not outrageous -- there's lots of times when you might want to autofocus in this situation. Like a photo of your family or your pets at home, in the evening. You might have a flash,
but you still need to autofocus.
While I agree that DSLRs are
better for autofocus in this situation, it's still important to assess which mirrorless is superior, because, hey, some people might own a mirrorless (and no DSLR) and want to take a photo with less available light. Unless you're saying everyone should own both a mirrorless and DSLR.
Finally, I'm not saying that M6 is ALWAYS better at autofocus than A7R3. Obviously, A7R3 has some very advanced AF options, like subject tracing, Eye AF, expanding focus points, and all the goodies that you would expect from a camera priced to compete with a 5D4. But most of those features work poorly, if at all, in lower light (not really
low light). Of course DPAF is affected too, but less so.
goldenhusky said:
So I give no credibility to your statement. Have you ever used an a7r3? I bet you have not. I am not saying a7r3 will focus. I am saying when it comes to low light auto focus DSLRs still outshines the best of the best mirrorless cameras. After using A9 I believe canon dual pixel auto focus has only one advantage that is smooth focus transition besides that Sony's auto focus is way ahead of any Canon mirror less auto focusing system so far. Needless to say I got rid of M5 in less than a month.
I would take that wager and double it (since I know that I would win). I refer you to this thread, which I speak at length as to my pain points on the A7R3:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34654.0
I think you are in the minority of objective users if you believe that dual pixel is not superior to Sony's Hybrid AF. I mean, it's just provably better in every situation I've encountered, whether it's bright light or dim light. Again, I'm not talking about fancy autofocus features which the M6 can't compete against the A7R3 with, but just plain, give-me-focus-here.
Since you have an 80D, mount an 18-135 nano usm to it, put it in live view, and see how quickly and assuredly it autofocuses. Now show me a Sony that can do that. Sony AF, even when it works well, often hunts just a little (goes too far, then backs up). Dual pixel doesn't do that, pretty much
ever, unless it can't find something to focus on. That makes it not only faster, but it provides a superior and more enjoyable shooting experience.
goldenhusky said:
I am not in the crowd asking for all the 1dx2 and A9 features combined at the price of M50. What I am looking for is a kick ass hybrid camera that matches the features of Sony A7r3 or even A7iii. I am willing to pay even $4000 or even $4500 for it. To me the math is simple I do not have to run two systems in parallel. I can completely get rid of my Sonys and stick with one system. I have been waiting for years like many other hybrid shooters but Canon keep on disappointing and lately the race to the bottom is really disgusting. As usual Canon defense forces on the forums repeat the same non sense saying look at the data Canon is the global leader. I give no dam S____ about Canon being #1 or not.I need a tool that serves my purpose.
So, to you, what's the deficiency in a 5D4, or 1DXII?
I mean, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. Is it the EVF that you want? Or the smaller size? Or the techno gizmo features?
Personally, the only feature of the EVF that is of value to me is focus magnification. I don't really care about zebras and focus peaking and all that jazz. Or, even in-viewfinder image review. I thought it would be cool, but in fact, I barely use it. WYSIWYG is a potentially useful, but I think it's more useful for people with less experience.
The two greatest pain points for me on A7R3 are: no mechanical manual focus ring (I take affront to focus by wire on a $2000+ lens, plus, I don't even like Sony's focus by wire system); and no AF illuminator support (the type that just flashes a pattern and allows PDAF to lock.
Again, personally, for me, there is ZERO size or weight savings. Adding a grip + any pro lens, and you're at the size and weight of a DSLR. And without a grip large enough for 4 fingers of an average-sized hand to wrap around and a pro lens, one should not bother with a $3,000 camera.
