The Canon EOS R3 is out in the wild

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
And to all of those people who say that buying lenses is an investment, just saw your investment value drop.
No I didn't. My lenses work as well today as they did yesterday, and will work just as well tomorrow if/when I add an RF body.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
I just keep telling myself that my 5D3 and my 10 EF L lenses are every bit as good as the day I bought them...
From the stills side, the improvements brought by mirrorless can be useful. But they're simply not going to alter the nature of photography or render you, with an 'old mirror flapper', unable to produce competitive work. Any claim that DSLRs and their lenses from the past decade are dead is hyperbole. This is especially true of your lenses which adapt seamlessly to R bodies.
 

RunAndGun

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 16, 2011
457
143
Investing in capital assets and measuring a return on investment is standard practice for all businesses. Capital appreciation is just one form of return on investment. Income is another way of generating return on investment. Even if an asset depreciates in value, in can still serve to improve efficiency, take on work that they may not have been able to get before, or simply make work more enjoyable. Regardless, if you generate income with your equipment, buying equipment is an investment.

Trucking companies invest in new trucks. Medical offices invest in medical equipment. Photography businesses invest in cameras, lighting, and other gear.

If photography is a hobby, your premise is correct and it’s just an expense. A fun one, sure. But not an investment.

When one buys a bond and holds it to maturity to generate income, it doesn’t make it not an investment just because it didn’t go up in value. The investor realized a positive return while they held the investment.

Buying a $1000 lens that increases your total income over time by say $900 without requiring more working hours, leaving you the lens to sell for $300, is a lens that made money for you. It was a good investment.

Maybe we're just getting into philosophical territory, but I don't generally consider buying a piece of gear an "investment" itself. Investing in the business? Yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jd7

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
959
535
Colorado, USA
That appears to be a $6,000 camera with a $500 lens on it in the twitter post. Nearly feels like a meme.
I see this all the time. Sometimes you work with what you have.

Back around 2003 my daughter had her senior portrait taken from a high end photog studio at a resort hotel we were visiting. Photographer showed up with a 1DS and an EF 28-135. He said the studio wanted the best cameras but only got them cheap lenses. Photos were fine - he knew how to work with what he had.

More recently a local group showed up to take video in my garden (including a drone). They had a 5D4 and EF 50/1.8 STM. It worked fine for their purposes.

Who knows - they might have slapped a cheap lens on it because they couldn't show the unannounced lens they were working with before that shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dcm

It's not the gear. But it helps.
CR Pro
Apr 18, 2013
959
535
Colorado, USA
Maybe we're just getting into philosophical territory, but I don't generally consider buying a piece of gear an "investment" itself. Investing in the business? Yes.
Agreed. If I purchase something for investment in and of itself, I'm expecting it's intrinsic value to increase like gold or property. I don't really expect cameras or lenses to increase in value on their own. They are simply tools to get the shot and an investment you make in the business as you said. Like the trips you take to capture images you can sell. The tools depreciate and have some residual value you may be able to recoup, but that's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RunAndGun

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
Echoing @privatebydesign 's comments. The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead. If you are pleased with your iPhone photos, you might as well stick with the phone. There are no cameras that can compete in terms of both size and quality and certainly none that lets you make a call from them. I would correct your impression though that this site caters to professionals. The professional market is also shrinking and most of the people on this site are not professionals, but rather enthusiasts who earn little to nothing from their hobby, but are willing to spend lots of money to capture pictures in niche categories, like birding and wildlife. Or they are simply people who like owning the best and have sufficient disposable income to do so. Camera manufacturers are following the dollars and the dollars, as PBD pointed out, are in the enthusiast market.

It's worth pointing out too that this site has always focused on rumours about higher end gear. I don't remember people dissecting the latest Rebel over dozens of threads. They just get announced with little fanfare.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,882
1,029
UK
www.flickr.com
If you can't get better pictures with your M5 than with your iPhone, you must not know how to use the M5. Are you shooting JPEGs in Auto mode? Do you have any longer glass? Do you have a RAW editor?. In a bright light, wide angle shot, the IPhone will look pretty good (if you don't mind overly processed images), but once the going gets tough (i.e. long distance, bad light, etc.), the M5 is a much better choice, but you do need some glass to go with it.

Actually the latest phones can exceed dedicated cameras in low light, at least handheld. Night Mode is nothing short of miraculous.
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
491
454
Actually the latest phones can exceed dedicated cameras in low light, at least handheld. Night Mode is nothing short of miraculous.
Night mode fixes camera motion, but doesn't work if the scene has multiple motion vectors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
The stand-alone camera market for casual users is pretty much dead.
I don't think so. Canon doesn't like to mention it, but in both the USA and Japan their best selling mirrorless camera is the M50.
The M eco system is alive but Canon has it in stasis for whatever reason.
I believe the original poster was referring to the compact camera market (and maybe the xxxD SLRs) which are practically deceased. I was shooting a very contrasty sunrise on the weekend and my iPhone handled it surprisingly well. Definitely good enough for social media with only a touch of post processing. The R5 raw image I took was slightly different with a narrow aperture for a sun star which needed extra processing due to the filters I was using. It is better but was a lot more work. If printing then it is a no-brainer if there is a choice of phone vs SLR. I shoot mostly for subjects/niches that I can't do with a phone simply because there is no point in trying to compete.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
Maybe you should try out an R5 or even an R6 before making that statement. I used to feel the same way... then I made the move. Haven't missed the OVF one time. Your image is a digital copy of reality. The only difference is with mirrorless you will see exactly what that's going to look like when you hit the shutter. Add in better AF/Tracking and its hard to beat. The DSLR is absolutely dead. Nobody is going to make another serious DSLR so unless you are happy with using what you have or what's available now until the end you'll have to go mirrorless eventually.
Agreed. The main drawbacks for mirrorless was OVF battery life and clarity of vision (even if not what the sensor is seeing. EVF refresh rate and resolution which are getting much better and with options to improve refresh rate at the expense of battery life. Lower end ML bodies will still suffer from poorer EVF refresh and quality
No prism or AF sensor needed, No microAF adjustment. The list is very long for ML benefits and quality will trickle down to lower end models over time
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
Yes, Canon provides a EF-RF adapter to prevent people from realising that EOS EF -> EOS RF is a moment that they can consider choosing Sony/Nikon.

EF lenses can be made to work on RF cameras but the equivalent RF lenses will work better - for example, faster and more reliable autofocus.
But there aren't RF versions of all EF lens and to some extent never will be... and certainly not for the same money. There wasn't a moment for me to switch systems as my EF lenses which I still use today were worth more than any switching costs.

That said, the RF24-105mm/4 is cheaper than the EF24-105mm/4 for some reason.
 

maulanawale

EOS M50
May 25, 2021
35
48
From the stills side, the improvements brought by mirrorless can be useful. But they're simply not going to alter the nature of photography or render you, with an 'old mirror flapper', unable to produce competitive work. Any claim that DSLRs and their lenses from the past decade are dead is hyperbole. This is especially true of your lenses which adapt seamlessly to R bodies.
+1

Granted I don't have data to prove it and this is just my personal opinion, but if the number of profesional wildlife photographers I follow are any indication, many pros have held on to their DSLR's for longer when compared to amateurs and "semi pros". So if it works for them, clearly it's good enough for your average shooter. I'm all in with mirrorless but still keep an eye out for good DLSR bargains. 5D's, 1D's. . .those were the cameras I dreamed of years ago and with the advent of the 'unmirrored" cameras, eventually will be able to add them to my collection for a fraction of the cost and 100% of the enjoyment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
910
759
www.flickr.com
The problem I have with OVFs is more philosphical. There is a value of seeing something with your own eyes. That's why I also to not like drone photography. The photos may look amazing, but they are "virtual" because nobody was actually up there with the drone and looking through the viewfinder. That is the basic idea of photography for me: You see something with your won eyes and capture that moment. Of course the exact moment you capture can't be seen because of the viewfinder blackout, but it is still a large difference to an EVF.
But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,428
5,654
Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member :LOL:
It was intentional. I used to respect his input but now his rants seem more appropriate to a Mike Myers character. He claims to head up the worlds biggest and best 25 sports photographers and would buy 75 R1’s, little realizing that number isn’t a drop in the ocean of 1 series sales however high profile his clients are. A decent presser will have nearly that many and a CPS supported major sports event would have way more than that as free loaners to any accredited shooter.
 
Aug 7, 2018
344
293
But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?
You might not see the difference, but the photo from a helicopter with the photographer behind it would be "real", because he was really there. Imagine in a few years from now it would be possible to rent a drone in another country without going there. You could sit in Europe and stear a drone in Australia and take photos of places you have never been to and might never go to. A photo should always capture the moment that the photographer really experienced. He has to be behind the camera or at least next to it. Otherwise only the camera saw that moment. Of course it is nice that we have cameras on Mars without going there on our own, but on earth we should always try to be close to the camera.

As I focus on skyscrapers, drone shots would be very tempting of course. The best view towards a skyscraper usually is from about half its height and some cities still allow drone shots without special permits. However I am proud that all of my photos so far are taken by me behind the camera. In Frankfurt I really was in a helicopter and looked down on the skyscrapers, even if modern drones could do even sharper images that are not spoiled by the curved and reflective helicopter front window. If I get the chance to go up on a tower that usually is not open to public, I get some of those exclusive shots of other buildings that are still real.

With an EVF you are also behind the camera, but while you are looking through your viewfinder, you do not see reality any more.

Of course what our eyes see isn't reality either. Colours to not really exist. They are just a way for our brain to visualize some wavelenghts of light. The fact that the world in reality is dark, is quite creepy. However light going directly into our eyes after getting reflected from objects is the closest we can get to "reality".
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,809
2,177
Investing in capital assets and measuring a return on investment is standard practice for all businesses. Capital appreciation is just one form of return on investment. Income is another way of generating return on investment. Even if an asset depreciates in value, in can still serve to improve efficiency, take on work that they may not have been able to get before, or simply make work more enjoyable. Regardless, if you generate income with your equipment, buying equipment is an investment.

Trucking companies invest in new trucks. Medical offices invest in medical equipment. Photography businesses invest in cameras, lighting, and other gear.

If photography is a hobby, your premise is correct and it’s just an expense. A fun one, sure. But not an investment.

When one buys a bond and holds it to maturity to generate income, it doesn’t make it not an investment just because it didn’t go up in value. The investor realized a positive return while they held the investment.

Accountants call them "Capital Expenditures", not "Capital Investments".
 
Last edited: