The jitters are mostly caused by lens-mount, not megapixels. Lens purchases on hold until the mount issue is "resolved."
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:slclick said:Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Virtually all the images that I have shot for work have gone into reports (with most of them printed at 4 or 5 inches across), or are viewed on computer monitors. Very few of them require more than a 8Mpixel camera.....
Etienne said:Don Haines said:slclick said:Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Virtually all the images that I have shot for work have gone into reports (with most of them printed at 4 or 5 inches across), or are viewed on computer monitors. Very few of them require more than a 8Mpixel camera.....
High megapixels has great benefits: more room to crop, reduced noise by downsizing, larger prints, reduced moire and aliasing issues. But this requires faster processors in both camera body and computer, and more storage space. These disadvantages shrink every year as tech improves, so high megapixels will deliver better results as the years roll by. Bring it on
slclick said:tmroper said:slclick said:Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?
Not everyone's needs are the same. For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal). People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.
So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards? Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"
sdz said:FUD, FUD, everywhere I look there is FUD.
nchoh said:sdz said:FUD, FUD, everywhere I look there is FUD.
Totally, Trolls everywhere sowing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) on Canon products!!!
Cali Capture said:It's been very interesting seeing the amount of responses to the Mirrorless rumor trail. It turely amazes me the amount of energy put into what I feel (and many others have stated) is an insignificant product evolution. Beyond a silent shot/ shutterless capture, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Smaller form factor? Have you seen the reviews of the new Sony 400mm 2.8? It's literally comical IMHO to see those guys with a huge lense and that tiny body! Pehaps because I'm a larger person that it just doesn't make sense to think you can effectively work with a square little box and Good Canon glass. The trend is NOT smaller glass. All this fuss reminds me of the pre 5d mark IV rumors, the forum created so much chaos, that nothing would have been good enough. Yet the Mark 4 is a great camera, that any EF lens professional or prosumer would want. I'm 100 times more curious as to what the new glass announcements are than what the next box is going toe, sepecially if it comes in to small of a form factor for my hands or lens balance.
Yes I agree, but that Sony 400mm F2.8 would look great on my 5D mk4. It is smaller and lighter than the Canon equivalent and it has lots of interesting features.Cali Capture said:It's been very interesting seeing the amount of responses to the Mirrorless rumor trail. It turely amazes me the amount of energy put into what I feel (and many others have stated) is an insignificant product evolution. Beyond a silent shot/ shutterless capture, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Smaller form factor? Have you seen the reviews of the new Sony 400mm 2.8? It's literally comical IMHO to see those guys with a huge lense and that tiny body! Pehaps because I'm a larger person that it just doesn't make sense to think you can effectively work with a square little box and Good Canon glass. The trend is NOT smaller glass. All this fuss reminds me of the pre 5d mark IV rumors, the forum created so much chaos, that nothing would have been good enough. Yet the Mark 4 is a great camera, that any EF lens professional or prosumer would want. I'm 100 times more curious as to what the new glass announcements are than what the next box is going toe, sepecially if it comes in to small of a form factor for my hands or lens balance.
bdbender4 said:I am mostly curious about the mount. Don't want EF. I see no point in getting into Canon full frame mirrorless if it is saddled with 44mm of pointless EF backspace. We don't need everything to be huge distagon lenses like, say, some of the Sigma Arts or Zeiss Milvuses. Without that backspace more options open up at some focal lengths.
...
And I guess I would offer this thought for those who just don't see the point of mirrorless: IMHO the mirror box is already an expensive anachronism, and it's going away. Why focus someplace else besides on the sensor? I would guess that complex DSLR mechanisms with mirrors and prisms and mechanical shutters and fiddly plus/minus focus adjustments on individual lenses and so forth will go away surprisingly quickly, too. Expensive top-end DSLRs, for telephoto sports and wildlife, will be the about the only holdouts.
bdbender4 said:I am mostly curious about the mount. Don't want EF. I see no point in getting into Canon full frame mirrorless if it is saddled with 44mm of pointless EF backspace.
Not a problem. If you are not buying big whites, Canon will be happy if you stay with EOS M.bdbender4 said:I am mostly curious about the mount. Don't want EF. I see no point in getting into Canon full frame mirrorless if it is saddled with 44mm of pointless EF backspace.
Everyone has a different perspective on this topic depending on how long you are in photography and how much gear your have acquired so far. If you have a XXD or XD camera you are probably less interested in the new mirrorless camera. You would also be less interested if you are not pushing gear to its absolute maximum. For ordinary run of the mill shooting the existing gear is just fine. A EOS M series camera may be all you need. There are others who have the best equipement already. The members here would be (compared to the average Canon user) pretty well equipped with high end gear. If you have a 1DX II or a 5DIV and you are hitting limitations then of course you are very interested in what Canon are going to do with Mirrorless because this will be the next technological advance. There isn't much left for Canon to do on mirrored cameras. If you want more FPS and EVF and truely silent shooting you want a good mirrorless camera from Canon. The mount matters alot to people heavily invested in Canon glass. If you only have one or two lens a new mount would be a great thing. If you have lots of glass a new mount would be an inconvenience as adapters are usually not as good as native EF. On camera size If you have small slow lens a smaller body would be ideal. If you have fast heavy glass you need at least a 5D IV body to comfortably grip it or your'll have wrist issues.Cali Capture said:It's been very interesting seeing the amount of responses to the Mirrorless rumor trail. It turely amazes me the amount of energy put into what I feel (and many others have stated) is an insignificant product evolution. Beyond a silent shot/ shutterless capture, I just don't see what all the fuss is about. Smaller form factor? Have you seen the reviews of the new Sony 400mm 2.8? It's literally comical IMHO to see those guys with a huge lense and that tiny body! Pehaps because I'm a larger person that it just doesn't make sense to think you can effectively work with a square little box and Good Canon glass. The trend is NOT smaller glass. All this fuss reminds me of the pre 5d mark IV rumors, the forum created so much chaos, that nothing would have been good enough. Yet the Mark 4 is a great camera, that any EF lens professional or prosumer would want. I'm 100 times more curious as to what the new glass announcements are than what the next box is going toe, sepecially if it comes in to small of a form factor for my hands or lens balance.
It's not true. There is not much to do in "mirrorless" that couldn't be done in "mirror-up". Of course, that may require a hybrid viewfinder.Hector1970 said:If you have a 1DX II or a 5DIV and you are hitting limitations then of course you are very interested in what Canon are going to do with Mirrorless because this will be the next technological advance. There isn't much left for Canon to do on mirrored cameras. If you want more FPS and EVF and truely silent shooting you want a good mirrorless camera from Canon.
Because having a separate body for when you need to do it mirror down is inconvenient and more expensive.Hector1970 said:If you need to do it mirror up why have a mirror
Hector1970 said:I've all the Canon glass I need. I think Canon is running out of road there too. The new 70-200mm III is an example. Canon couldn't upgrade it much. The big whites are so good only making them lighter would be an improvement. Sigma are now a very substantial competitor in glass. Before they were a cheaper less quality brand but they are very good now. That's why the mirrorless is so important at this moment in time. Its the most significant improvement Canon can make and it indicates their ability or not to make a relevant mirrorless full frame camera.