That appears to be a $6,000 camera with a $500 lens on it in the twitter post. Nearly feels like a meme.
Upvote
0
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.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...
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.
I see this all the time. Sometimes you work with what you have.That appears to be a $6,000 camera with a $500 lens on it in the twitter post. Nearly feels like a meme.
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.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.
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.
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.
Night mode fixes camera motion, but doesn't work if the scene has multiple motion vectors.Actually the latest phones can exceed dedicated cameras in low light, at least handheld. Night Mode is nothing short of miraculous.
The M eco system is alive but Canon has it in stasis for whatever reason.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.
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 qualityMaybe 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.
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.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.
+1From 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.
But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?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.
Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his memberDon’t tell Goldmember that He might have a fit.
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.Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member
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.But would it be okay if a still or video was taken from a helicopter or cessna etc? How would you tell the difference?
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.
Not sure if this is an intentional mixup, but last time I checked it was his wing which was gold, not his member
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.
Opinions are going to vary on faster shooting. And even I have to admit that there are likely edge cases where an extremely high fps really does help. But I've found in general higher fps rates simply create more work for me. My ability to capture peak moments did not diminish in the slightest from dropping down to 5 fps. (I basically use my 5Ds for everything now including sports, action, and wildlife.) If anything being able to zoom back a bit (100-400) knowing I can crop in helped more than faster fps on other bodies (more lead time to shutter release). Maybe 30 fps will be the rate to change that perception, but I kind of doubt it. Outside of edge cases it's just a lot of frames of the same thing.They're not dead, they're just less competitive.
Faster shooting due to the lack of a mirror?
Faster focus tracking by the lens?
No mirror blackout?
Eye focus?