It looks like 2021 will be the last year for the EOS M lineup [CR2]

[Stu_bert]

Image stacking to reduce noise, to remove people etc - been in photoshop since at least cs5 extended.

super high resolution techniques which image shift pictures leverage, again, pre smartphones

what smartphones have done with computational is because they have had to else they couldn’t have taken away the market share. Don’t get me wrong, they have done it very well, it is seamless (in the most) and easy to use. But, and I’m happy to be corrected, I don’t think they’ve done anything new.

putting it into traditional cameras would require a mindset change - battery life, compute, heat and interface - although I think the manufacturers could basically assume most users of their equipment have a smartphone and they should leverage that for the rich interface it affords.

and yes, I personally am all for it. Computational is what I’ve been doing with digital imaging software so moving some of that into the camera may make sense. Or just a way to move stuff quickly into your smartphone and then back onto your camera....

 

[koenkooi]

Image stacking to reduce noise, to remove people etc - been in photoshop since at least cs5 extended.
[..]

I think the original poster meant that phones capture the exposure stack automatically and in a fraction of the time a 'proper' camera would. With the pictures closer together processing is a lot easier.

putting it into traditional cameras would require a mindset change - battery life, compute, heat and interface [..]

I like 'burst' feature on the M6II, where it activates on half press and starts taking pictures so it can save pictures from before you fully press the shutter. But the R6/R5 lack that mode, which fills up my cards really fast in e-shutter mode. I hope that Canon adds it before the dragonflies start flying again Although I did learn that here in the Netherlands we have a species of winter hardened damselflies, but I don't expect much flying from those.

 

[Stu_bert]

I think the original poster meant that phones capture the exposure stack automatically and in a fraction of the time a 'proper' camera would. With the pictures closer together processing is a lot easier.



I like 'burst' feature on the M6II, where it activates on half press and starts taking pictures so it can save pictures from before you fully press the shutter. But the R6/R5 lack that mode, which fills up my cards really fast in e-shutter mode. I hope that Canon adds it before the dragonflies start flying again Although I did learn that here in the Netherlands we have a species of winter hardened damselflies, but I don't expect much flying from those.

I too like the M6II feature and was very disappointed my r5 didn’t have it!!

what is interesting is that said feature is very similar to what the smartphones do - a continuous buffer of images which they can image process in memory.... agreed they do it quicker, and easier....

whether the camera makers will leverage CP I think is more around the economics of phone volumes / revenues vs cameras even at their height. Still, Canon are part way their with that tech, and I am sure it will re-appear. My guess it will come in the R1 - but an improved version.

 

[Michael Clark]

I started using the M system when the very first EOS-M was still up-to-date. It was a great backup camera for my DSLRs. Now I've somehow switched completely to the EOS-M, for bodies and lenses, not knowing that it's not for enthusiasts. I think, the users like me are those who are complaining about the dead end situation. M system is very capable and it attracted many enthusiasts.

M is the first and exciting mirrorless system by Canon, it supports EF and EF-S and was a perfect transition from canon DLSRs. Nobody thought that canon would ever fall into the trap of developing a "dead system".

Many enthusiasts are in the M-system, but they're not who Canon created the M-system to sell cameras to. They're not anywhere near the majority of total M-system buyers, either. They're just the ones who post on forums like this one.

 

[Michael Clark]

That's fair enough.

I must be in the minority with my 700D, I started out with the 18-55mm and the 55-250mm EF-S and now I've got a range of EF lenses, I actively use both EF-S and EF and I'm happy that the Crop DSLRs have the flexibility to use both.

The 700D isn't an EOS M system camera, though.

 

[Michael Clark]

There are a plethora of techniques that can be grouped under the term "computational photography." Image stacking for greater dynamic range or noise reduction, for example, that cannot be achieved in post-production. The other category of techniques can be achieved in post-production and is similar to human "developing" and retouching of images. For enthusiasts, editing your own image is part of the hobby. For professionals, any automation that gives better results faster is essential. As a professional, being able to deliver perfect results fast is important. There are virtually no customers who want to get RAW images of their wedding or other event. Out of camera JPGs are considered inferior and tinkering with every single RAW is not profitable in most cases. So presets are made, which are a form of automation already. But why are the out of camera JPGs need to be so inferior?

Several years ago, articles like these would be totally unthinkable: Shooting an Entire Wedding Day with the iPhone 11 Pro (petapixel.com), Pro Wedding Photographers Compare iPhone 11 Pro to Canon 5D Mark IV (petapixel.com). The fact that we can now seriously compare a phone (!) and a pro-class camera is completely out of this world by my photographic standards. Still, phones will always be very limited in terms of sensor and lens size. Imagine what can be achieved with modern smartphone technology combined with large camera sensors. As a professional, you could get perfect pictures and deliver each one without any editing.

Today, the two worlds are very separate. There is a professional workflow that, although camera JPGs are getting better, requires expertise and time for post-processing. And there is an automated workflow in a phone that is able to deliver a perfect result in the same second a photographer takes a picture. I think professionals would also like to benefit from the level of automation that smartphone computational photography enables today.

So it could be that not only the M system dies out, but the entire market of classic digital cameras, if someone figures out how to integrate a performance of computational photography into "real" cameras, which in some cases are even inferior to today's phones. What a huge shame, actually.

Those "perfect" computational results look really good on a 6-8" screen. Not so much on a 16x20 or larger wall mount frame. Whether there's a need for larger than 6-8" display sizes is a whole other topic, though.

 

[Michael Clark]

Absolutely. It's not a good thing for photographers. Still, photographers and their tools need to evolve with progress.

Many professions have become extinct because of automation, and that's not necessarily an exclusively good thing. But it's also well known that you can't stop automation. If the process of carefully "developing" RAWs by hand is replaced by automation, then this slower kind of work associated with classical tools will be pushed out into and become exclusive to the hobby and luxury markets.

If the level of images produced by a professional photographer can be achieved more easily and quickly by anyone, the benefit of hiring a professional diminishes even more. If the hired professional is using hardware and processes that are inferior to modern standards, then it's a tragedy. That's why especially the devices used by professionals urgently need to evolve.

The M system is partly aimed at hobby photographers who have time to tinker with RAWs and edit their images manually. Consumers, who are also the target group of the M system, are more critical because they might want a good JPG image straight from the camera and are not willing to accept that their dedicated camera takes worse pictures than their phone. The "consumer" group of users may indeed be disappointed by their brand new canon M or R.

The R system is aimed at professionals who have their workflows. But I think that professionals today, in 2021, may still need more modern technologies and automation to stay competitive. What they get is the same hardware as always, but with improved specifications. It's like developing better and better gasoline cars in a world that is moving to EVs. Sooner or later, gasoline cars will become a niche market. Just like classic photography tools as opposed to intelligent tools. Today, there is no known highly intelligent camera with a large sensor, good optics, and a high degree of AI and automation. The need for such system will become clearer in the years to come.

So I conclude that neither the M nor the R series nor anything else from Sony, Nikon, etc. can be considered a truly modern tool for photography. All these shiny new cameras like R5, R6, etc. are the culmination of classic camera design that will probably come to an end in the future. On the other hand, the dynamic range of sensors may eventually become so good that some computational techniques are no longer necessary. But even then, if smartphones continue to produce more appealing images through some kind of computation, people will prefer these modern tools.

You've talked a lot about automated processes in smartphones in the hands of non-photographers replacing wedding photographers. But what you haven't said a single word about in several lengthy posts here is anything about external flashes.

The contraction of the professional wedding photographer market is largely already over in the space once occupied by "natural light" photographers that didn't bring lights and the know-how to use them to the portrait and reception portions of the wedding. Those folks were basically amateur photographers who were only half a step ahead of the guests in that they had a nicer camera and nicer lenses. Those jobs are, for the most part, already gone.

The "high end" photographers shooting weddings with iPhones for magazine articles are doing so because the tech is now available to control external flash systems with a smartphone. But that aspect of it is far from automated. One day it will be more automated, I'm sure, but most guests who show up at a wedding with their smartphone don't bring along several flashes, modifiers, stands, etc. in their other pockets. People willing to pay for the type of images one can only get by orchestrating the lighting will continue to pay pros to light them and make images that look like "they belong in a magazine." The pros may be using iPhones, or they will most likely still be using better sensors and better lenses. But they will be getting paid to light their subjects, just as pretty much anyone still making a living at photography these days is getting paid to light their subjects.

Even shooting sports as a way to make a living is dying in many places because well-heeled amateurs can buy some very nice kit, shoot lower level sports for a couple of years and learn enough to get results close enough to what the seasoned pros can get to make customers happy. Then they go to a pro team and agree to shoot as their in-house photographer from the sidelines practically for free, which is still cheaper than they can buy seat licenses and season tickets and have to sit in the stands!

 

[koenkooi]

Many enthusiasts are in the M-system, but they're not who Canon created the M-system to sell cameras to. They're not anywhere near the majority of total M-system buyers, either. They're just the ones who post on forums like this one.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with created, the original pricepoint was waaaay too high for that, I think Canon continued the M system for the current majority. Either way, that doesn't make a difference for the future, or lack thereof, of the M system.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The "high end" photographers shooting weddings with iPhones for magazine articles are doing so because the tech is now available to control external flash systems with a smartphone.

People generally hire professionals to do things they either can't or do not want to do themselves.
People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else.
Sometimes professional equipment is needed in order to get clients even if it is not needed to actually do the job.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm not sure I entirely agree with created, the original pricepoint was waaaay too high for that, I think Canon continued the M system for the current majority. Either way, that doesn't make a difference for the future, or lack thereof, of the M system.

Pricing in North America and Western Europe is rarely the same as pricing in Asia and other markets. Even pricing between Europe and North America is disparate enough that the Europeans complain every time Canon rolls out another big camera launch! And don't even start about what the list price is for an R5 in Australia!

Asia is where the M-series sold the vast majority of the *early* units and the solid majority of *all* units to date. Evidently the price in that market was not too high for that market.

 

[Michael Clark]

People generally hire professionals to do things they either can't or do not want to do themselves.
People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else.
Sometimes professional equipment is needed in order to get clients even if it is not needed to actually do the job.

Those people have already stopped hiring pros to shoot weddings. There's no "probably going to be..." about it. Those jobs are already gone.

 

[dolina]

Those people have already stopped hiring pros to shoot weddings. There's no "probably going to be..." about it. Those jobs are already gone.

There's still a market for wedding/events photographers. The issue is are there enough weddings/events to making a living off from?

 

[Michael Clark]

There's still a market for wedding/events photographers. The issue is are there enough weddings/events to making a living off from?

Please read what I wrote and responded to above carefully. I didn't say the market for wedding/event photographers has disappeared.

"Those people" referred to "people with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures..."

I said the market for "natural light" wedding/event photographers whose only advantage over average attendees with iPhones (or Android phones with good cameras) is a slightly better camera and lenses has disappeared.

In a previous comment in that discussion I laid it out in greater detail. Those who are still being paid to photograph weddings as a full-time occupation are being paid what they are being paid to light their subjects so that the results "look like they should be in a magazine."

 

[dolina]

Please read what I wrote above carefully. I didn't say the market for wedding/event photographers has disappeared.

I said the market for "natural light" wedding/event photographers whose only advantage over average attendees with iPhones (or Android phones with good cameras) is a slightly better camera and lenses has disappeared.

In a previous comment in that discussion I laid it out in greater detail. Those who are still being paid to photograph weddings as a full-time occupation are being paid what they are being paid to light their subjects so that the results "look like they should be in a magazine."

I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as Those jobs are already gone.

 

[Michael Clark]

I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as Those jobs are already gone.

The jobs I was referring to in that comment are already gone.

Specifically, the comment to which I was replying said: " People with iPhones who are satisfied with the quality of the pictures are probably going to be hesitant to pay somebody else."

My response was they're not "going to be hesitant to pay " in the future, those folks (i.e. people who are happy with the quality of iPhone/smartphone photos) are already not paying a photographer to shoot their weddings.

 

[Michael Clark]

I suggest editing the post I quoted you on to clarify your point. It came across as Those jobs are already gone.

Is this not how the post appeared when you read it? The comment to which I was responding appears above my response with the applicable part highlighted in red.

 

[stevelee]

Many, perhaps most, churches and clergy have a rule of no flash photography during the ceremony. I never had a photographer act in the least bit surprised when I told them the policy. As far as I was concerned, it was fine for them to use flash as the bride enters and as the couple exit, and I told them so. I don't even recall an instance where Aunt Jane or Uncle Herb took a flash shot from the congregation during the service. That may be a regional/cultural thing. With cell phones instead of Instamatics, that might make it even less common.

 

[Michael Clark]

Many, perhaps most, churches and clergy have a rule of no flash photography during the ceremony. I never had a photographer act in the least bit surprised when I told them the policy. As far as I was concerned, it was fine for them to use flash as the bride enters and as the couple exit, and I told them so. I don't even recall an instance where Aunt Jane or Uncle Herb took a flash shot from the congregation during the service. That may be a regional/cultural thing. With cell phones instead of Instamatics, that might make it even less common.

Folks getting paid to shoot weddings these days aren't just concerned with the ceremony. As far as that goes, those who actually get married inside a church sanctuary are becoming fewer and fewer. "Destination" weddings in scenic outdoor settings or at event hosting facilities that cater to weddings are much more popular, especially for those who plan large weddings.

It's more about the pre-ceremony "getting ready" shots, the post-ceremony formal portraits, both family/wedding party sessions and very often now a short "private" session for the bride and groom, and then the reception which is the "main event" as far as many are concerned in terms of photos.

 

[stevelee]

Folks getting paid to shoot weddings these days aren't just concerned with the ceremony. As far as that goes, those who actually get married inside a church sanctuary are becoming fewer and fewer. "Destination" weddings in scenic outdoor settings or at event hosting facilities that cater to weddings are much more popular, especially for those who plan large weddings.

It's more about the pre-ceremony "getting ready" shots, the post-ceremony formal portraits, both family/wedding party sessions and very often now a short "private" session for the bride and groom, and then the reception which is the "main event" as far as many are concerned in terms of photos.

All very true. As a pastor, I was not involved with that sort of wedding for the most part, just a few occasions where someone referred the couple to me. Those kinds of weddings would be the ones to hire real professional photographers with lighting, etc., and maybe even assistants. People spending those kinds of bucks would be stupid to do otherwise, though it does happen. People do stupid things.

I have done outdoor weddings in nice settings that were of different scales and budgets. I'm doing a wedding late this summer that was postponed from last summer because of the virus. The couple have bought a house together and want to start a family once they are married. They don't have a lot of money, so it probably won't be expensive, just beautiful. (The bride's mom and grandmother will probably kick in, but that is none of my business. They are good friends and neighbors, so they might mention something anyway, not that it matters to me.) The park canceled all weddings after March last year.

In my part of the South until recently, the ceremony was the bulk of the activities. Wedding photography consisted mostly of group shots right after the ceremony and a few shots of cutting the wedding cake and the bride smearing cake on the groom's face. Receptions had mints and peanuts and punch to hold you until you got a piece of cake. That was in the church fellowship hall. Then the couple left in their decorated car, and everybody went home. Even for these weddings the bride wanted something better than what Uncle Herb took with the Instamatic or cell phone.

That all may be changing faster than I realize. I have performed only one wedding since I retired. It was at a small rural church, and the groom's uncle really is an excellent photographer, a serious amateur, and I'm sure he did a great job. Sadly, I was back at that church in July to speak at the funeral for the groom's grandmother, a good friend of mine who died from the virus. I had last seen her at a basketball game in March, right before everything shut down.

 

[Michael Clark]

In my part of the South until recently, the ceremony was the bulk of the activities. Wedding photography consisted mostly of group shots right after the ceremony and a few shots of cutting the wedding cake and the bride smearing cake on the groom's face. Receptions had mints and peanuts and punch to hold you until you got a piece of cake. That was in the church fellowship hall. Then the couple left in their decorated car, and everybody went home. Even for these weddings the bride wanted something better than what Uncle Herb took with the Instamatic or cell phone.

You're describing my parents' wedding in 1960 and both of my sisters' weddings in 1985 and 1993, respectively. My brother's wedding in 1994 was so small that everyone who attended the ceremony, except maybe the preacher (sorry, Rev. - but if he wasn't there I'm sure he had been invited but had somewhere else he needed to be) went to the same restaurant after and sat at the same large table. Those days are long gone from a full-time professional photographer's point of view. Not very many weddings today look like those, and the few that do are not the ones to hire a full-time professional photographer at the rates they need to charge to not starve to death.