Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[jolyonralph]

I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.

Curious to know why you feel mirrorless technology is less than DSLR? I was under different impression...

Seems like an odd way to do business. I would expect someone would employ you due to the quality of your portfolio, and the equipment you use to do this is something you are the expert on, not them.

I never had a problem first time I took my M3 on a professional shoot. Mind you, did help that I was, at least for part of the time, using the EF 100mm f/2.8L on it.

And I have never, ever, felt inferior shooting with my Sony A7RII vs my Canon 5DSR.

I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.

 

[fullstop]

EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some, eg more advanced AF system (no front-/backfocus - no AFMA needed, face/eye recognition + tracking AF mode) and (hobbled) 4k video capture. ;D

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The 80D is one of the more advanced Canon APSC DSLRs whereas the M50 is in the middle of canon's mirrorless range. It is difficult to find an exact match but in my opinion the M50 is more like an 800D than an 80D.
The basic point though was that one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras was supposed to be that they used a simpler mechanism and therefore they would be cheaper to make. However we don't see that and mirrorless cameras are often more expensive than the equivalent DSLR - eg in the UK the entry level mirrorless (the M100) costs around £320. The entry level DSLR (the 1300D) costs £280.

while I agree that prices for many mirrorless cameras are at an (unwarranted) premium over similarly capable DSLRs, in case M50/80D I find it a fair comparison. Same sensor, same IQ. Nothing the 80D can do the M50 cannot. A few more hardware control points on 80D. More advanced AF system [face/eye tracking] on M50, etc. Neither one is wheathersealed or more "pro" than the other.

Personally I don't care whether a camera is marketing-positioned as "middle of range, hi-end or entry level". I only look at functionality and price/value relative to my needs.

 

[unfocused]

EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some...

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The 80D is one of the more advanced Canon APSC DSLRs whereas the M50 is in the middle of canon's mirrorless range. It is difficult to find an exact match but in my opinion the M50 is more like an 800D than an 80D...

while I agree that prices for many mirrorless cameras are at an (unwarranted) premium over similarly capable DSLRs, in case M50/80D I find it a fair comparison. Same sensor, same IQ. Nothing the 80D can do the M50 cannot...

One could argue that the SL2 offers comparable features at less than the M50 and does it in a very compact package.

 

[jayphotoworks]

I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.

Curious to know why you feel mirrorless technology is less than DSLR? I was under different impression...

Seems like an odd way to do business. I would expect someone would employ you due to the quality of your portfolio, and the equipment you use to do this is something you are the expert on, not them.

I never had a problem first time I took my M3 on a professional shoot. Mind you, did help that I was, at least for part of the time, using the EF 100mm f/2.8L on it.

And I have never, ever, felt inferior shooting with my Sony A7RII vs my Canon 5DSR.

I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?

Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)

Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?

Do you have redundant back-up equipment if you are on location?

Do you have insurance?

If you got sick, do you have a network of people you trust that can fill in for you?

Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people?

Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply or you would try to mitigate whatever risks that may possibly come up. That is what defines you as a pro.

 

[3kramd5]

I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.

Curious to know why you feel mirrorless technology is less than DSLR? I was under different impression...

Seems like an odd way to do business. I would expect someone would employ you due to the quality of your portfolio, and the equipment you use to do this is something you are the expert on, not them.

I never had a problem first time I took my M3 on a professional shoot. Mind you, did help that I was, at least for part of the time, using the EF 100mm f/2.8L on it.

And I have never, ever, felt inferior shooting with my Sony A7RII vs my Canon 5DSR.

I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?

Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)

Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?

Do you have redundant back-up equipment if you are on location?

Do you have insurance?

If you got sick, do you have a network of people you trust that can fill in for you?

Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people?

Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply or you would try to mitigate whatever risks that may possibly come up. That is what defines you as a pro.

I disagree. The only characteristic defining one as a pro photographer is whether photography is one’s main profession. Those things merely talk to how successful one may be.

 

[fullstop]

EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some...

I don't think this is a fair comparison. The 80D is one of the more advanced Canon APSC DSLRs whereas the M50 is in the middle of canon's mirrorless range. It is difficult to find an exact match but in my opinion the M50 is more like an 800D than an 80D...

while I agree that prices for many mirrorless cameras are at an (unwarranted) premium over similarly capable DSLRs, in case M50/80D I find it a fair comparison. Same sensor, same IQ. Nothing the 80D can do the M50 cannot...

One could argue that the SL2 offers comparable features at less than the M50 and does it in a very compact package.

not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D

 

[[email protected]]

This focus on video is really confusing, I'm thinking something like the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera.

What I'm waiting for is the day I can replace my 6D with something smaller. I don't use the video function at all. I'd also be happy with moving to a smaller and lighter lens form factor than my current EF L series lens. The key features I'm after are: geotagging, zoom lenses and great image quality. The quality of smartphone photos (even my iphone X) is not good enough for me. If it was I would have ditched my weighty camera long ago.

 

[Don Haines]

I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.

I agree.... the image that you present is a very important part of the package.... People expect to see big tripods, flashes, multiple lenses, and a second camera is icing on the cake..... A full sized DSLR looks professional, while a P/S camera or M sized camera (even if it is the right tool for the particular job) does not

I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.

Agreed! A pro uses the right (and affordable) tool for the job. Yes, I shoot 5 and 7 series bodies with L glass, but I have also used GoPro cameras and even bolted waterproof P/S cameras to the "package".... and then there are inspection cameras and thermal imaging.... You have to be ready for whatever the job entails. Not all of us shoot weddings and fashion models some of us ply our craft in a research institute.

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?
"let me go back to my desk and get the right gear"

Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)
not since this afternoon…..

Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?
Some cameras can, some do not, but I have luxury of most of my subjects are inanimate objects and will still be there tomorrow....

Do you have redundant back-up equipment if you are on location?
depends on the shoot... I have multiple DSLRs, but only one inspection camera and only one thermal imager...

Do you have insurance?
No. It's the government.... if all else fails, we have tanks

If you got sick, do you have a network of people you trust that can fill in for you?
Yes, but the jobs can usually wait for me to get back....

Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people?
With the exception of a propensity to tell Newfie jokes, yes....

Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply or you would try to mitigate whatever risks that may possibly come up.
Have not done that since 2:00PM....

That is what defines you as a pro.
That is very simplistic. As said above, we do not all shoot weddings and models. Some of us are staff photographers and some of us are on our own. Some of us shoot products. Some are scientific. Some shoot documentation. Some shoot headshots. Some earn part of their living from photography and others all of their living from photography, and part time from some people will be greater than full time from others. Some shoot things that the rest of us could never imagine... There is no easy answer to the definition of pro, and any attempt to do so is fraught with peril.

and finally, for those who still think that gear defines us, remember that the enthusiasts usually have better gear than the working pros....

 

[unfocused]

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different...Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people...Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply... That is what defines you as a pro.

I dislike posts like this. They are condescending, take the discussion out of context and simply repeat points that are plainly obvious to anyone.

 

[jayphotoworks]

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different...Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people...Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply... That is what defines you as a pro.

I dislike posts like this. They are condescending, take the discussion out of context and simply repeat points that are plainly obvious to anyone.

While my post was intended for customer service oriented pros, I felt that the overall thought process of a pro contributes a large part to why one might call themselves a pro. Some of these points may seem obvious to you, but to someone starting out, they might have a different view. When I started out, this industry had a much higher barrier for entry than it does today. It is possible today to get legitimately great images without the same passion or drive because the tech today can allow you "wing it." As I got more experience and got into larger projects and larger clients, I realized they were interested in my time and project management skills and workflow over and above just what I was delivering to them at the end of the day. What I wrote encapsulates some of what I was trying to convey.

 

[unfocused]

not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D

Curious statement. How is the SL2 sensor inferior to the M50? What about the articulated display of the M50 is superior to the articulated display of the SL2? Also, the SL2 has an optical viewfinder, which is superior to a electronic viewfinder. ;D

 

[unfocused]

I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different...Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people...Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply... That is what defines you as a pro.

I dislike posts like this. They are condescending, take the discussion out of context and simply repeat points that are plainly obvious to anyone.

While my post was intended for customer service oriented pros, I felt that the overall thought process of a pro contributes a large part to why one might call themselves a pro. Some of these points may seem obvious to you, but to someone starting out, they might have a different view. When I started out, this industry had a much higher barrier for entry than it does today. It is possible today to get legitimately great images without the same passion or drive because the tech today can allow you "wing it." As I got more experience and got into larger projects and larger clients, I realized they were interested in my time and project management skills and workflow over and above just what I was delivering to them at the end of the day. What I wrote encapsulates some of what I was trying to convey.

I was unnecessarily harsh and I apologize for the tone. My criticism was not specific but more broad-based, focused on this general class of posts that can take on the tone of lecturing others about what constitutes professionalism.

In fact, the post equates professional and professionalism, which are two different things. One can be one without being the other.

The exchange which prompted your post involved the observation by others that customers can be influenced by how "professional" an individual's equipment may look. Right or wrong, that is often the case in any field.

The character traits you refer to can be desirable and can contribute to one's professionalism. But, they are not universal, are not exhaustive and they do not in and of themselves define a professional.

I felt your post seemed to be almost self-congratulatory, in effect stating "Look at me. I'm more professional than others because I do these things." Anyone who has had a reasonable amount of success in any career could produce a similar list of what they believe constitutes professionalism. And, in my experience, the underlying personality traits that foster professionalism can't be easily taught to others.

 

[ahsanford]

I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.

(I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?)

- A

 

[zim]

I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.

(I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?)

- A

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for the best laugh of the day

 

[Durf]

I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.

(I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?)

- A

....and to think I was beginning to see this thread start to spin off topic and going no where

 

[zim]

not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D

Curious statement. How is the SL2 sensor inferior to the M50? What about the articulated display of the M50 is superior to the articulated display of the SL2? Also, the SL2 has an optical viewfinder, which is superior to a electronic viewfinder. ;D

I have no axe to grind here I like the look of the M5 and am very interested in the mk2 although for me lack of a battery grip and concerns over EVF blackout and EVF keeping up with fps are the show stoppers.
I doubt though that they will ever put a grip on the M5 series, saving that feature for a higher end APSC and FF even though they make them available for low end DSLRs that arguably don't need them for either battery life or ergonomics.

 

[unfocused]

...learn more about salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Please share this with your family, friends, and colleagues. May God bless and care for you all.

No interest in getting into a theological discussion. I'm sure you would be appalled at my personal beliefs. But, I would point out that this is an international forum and there are many people here who I am sure have sincere and genuine faith traditions that do not rely on belief in a resurrected man/god. Please respect the beliefs of others and refrain from proselytizing.

 

[fullstop]

not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D

Curious statement. How is the SL2 sensor inferior to the M50? What about the articulated display of the M50 is superior to the articulated display of the SL2? Also, the SL2 has an optical viewfinder, which is superior to a electronic viewfinder. ;D

M50 viewfinder: 100% coverage, WYSIWIG.
SL-2: dim tunnel-vision cheapo pentamirror (no prism), only 95% coverage, no WYSIWIG

SL-2: no AF selector joystick, no use of touchscreen to select/move AF field.
EOS M50: touchscreen AF field control (as in much more expensive M5)

SL-2: 5fps
M50: 10 fps (and 4k video, although personally not interested)

only real and significant advantage of SL-2 vs. M50 is battery charge. unfortunately Canon skimped on M50 battery - weak, old LP-E12/875mAh instead of current, better LP-E17/1040mAh. i would have gladly paid 20 € more for the (slightly) stronger battery or 50 € more for a new "LP-E18" with 1400mAh / 10Whrs charge. but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating", product-nerfing, stu... Canon!

 

[3kramd5]

but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!

You make it seem like marketing is a bad thing, when in reality it is how companies strategize products (I.E. survive).

 

[fullstop]

but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!

You make it seem like marketing is a bad thing, when in reality it is how companies strategize products (I.E. survive).

it is an entirely bad thing from customer's perspective. I am more focused on my wallet than having pity with poor Canon if they manage to make only 15% EBITDA instead of 25%.

Nerfing a mirrorless camera in one of its most VITAL capacities - number of shots on a battery charge - is something I consider very bad and stupid marketing differentiation. It will not save Canon's M5 from "cannibalization". But it weaken's their brand image and sales potential when Canon mirrorless is associated with "whimpy battery life".

Also, as I have indicated, I am willing to pay more for more functionality. I'd be happy to pay MORE for HIGHER capacity LiIon (rechargable) batteries.

On a related topic - "power for cameras" - I also find it "unwanted marketing differentiation" that Sony does not include separate chargers with their cameras but only sells them at high price as accessories. Turning around, I find it equally ridiculous, that Canon still does not enable in-camera charging via the USB connector - in addition to providing separate chargers with each camera.

From a consumer's rights and environmental protection perspective, I'm rallying for much more stringent, MANDATORY EU regulations on batteries for all CE products. Manufacturers should be allowed to sell only products with batteries in about 3 or 4 physical sizes and designs [external dimensions, connector layout/pin-out, charging procedure, etc.] to end the current consumer-unfriendly rip-off policies of 50-100 € different proprietary batteries for each and every single product.

Also, from an environmental perspective, a "cradle to cradle" approach should be compulsory (at least) for consumer product rechargable batteries. Should also be compulsory for e-car batteries, before it really takes off. Maximum standardization. Innovation more than welcome, but not "marketing differentiation" at the expense [literally!] of consumers.