Today i officially felt left behind with being a Canon shooter

[3kramd5]

I mentioned "potentially quieter shooting", but also pointed out that this hasn't been fully realized. There's not a huge gap between MILC and, say, a Canon DSLR in silent shooting mode.

I didn't mention IBIS and that is a nice positive in the z7. But it's also not truly a "mirrorless" advantage. It has been done in SLRs.

If fairness, neither is silent shooting a mirrorless advantage, nor IBIS, nor EVF. Those things can all be done in an SLR, if the manufacturer so wishes. The only thing that a mirrorless camera can do that an SLR can not is: not have a mirror (and therefore reduce the thickness).

 

[Don Haines]

I'm a Cannon shooter, and I feel like my Cannon is primitive and outdated..... View attachment 179852

and here's my Cannon from 50+ years ago...… no innovation! Cannon is DOOMED!

 

[hmatthes]

I don't want to change but please Canon respond quickly and do it right in terms of features and price. Please. Give us a great FF mirrorless that has 2 card slots and eye-AF , a great sensor and a good EF adapater and a nice line up of original lenses at the beginning , 10fps, good grip/handling/weather sealed - even steal from z6/z7 body if required ;-) like the battery compatibility between Dslr and mirrorless camera

+1
I did place a preorder for a Z6 but I will undoubtedly cancel it before November. It is single slot for a very expensive card -- and no EYE focus.
A ML5D will be my goal!

 

[3kramd5]

+1
I did place a preorder for a Z6 but I will undoubtedly cancel it before November. It is single slot for a very expensive card -- and no EYE focus.
A ML5D will be my goal!

May I ask: why order something you have no doubt you’ll cancel?

 

[scottkinfw]

Hi There
I'm a Canon shooter since ages and no - Canon is not doomed ;-) I have a number of professional bodies from Canon and a lot of L lenses and also recently purchased a m50.
I also have to say i still love the Canon lenses, the ergonomics of the bodies, DPAF (well i don't do a lot of video other than just for fun) the wifi implementation - the last 2 sucks on Nikon or are just not existent.
Also for various reasons until very lately i would never consider to move on to Sony (ergonomics,lenses,....) and thanks to Nikon with the z6/z7 i now dont need to think about switching to Sony anyway. ( i would rather switch to NIkon but i dont want to)
BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind. Why ?
In the DSLR line of products i think Nikons current models really are ahead compared to the Canon models, the D850 is better than my 5DM4/5DsR (i love my 5Dsr but still ...) , the D500 ist better than the 7DMII (which i owned and i tested the D500) even the D7500 (with some "issues like only 1 card and not grip option) is better than the 80D (i've tested them both - except video AF and Wifi as said before). Only the D5/1DX MII are probably on par.

If i had nothing and wanted a DSLR - i would go for a D850, a APS-C affordable sports camera - i would pick the D500 and a small carry around every day Dslr - the D7500 or even D5600.
And instead i would like to go mirrorless - i would pick the Z6 and a D850 as a combo.

I don't want to change but please Canon respond quickly and do it right in terms of features and price. Please. Give us a great FF mirrorless that has 2 card slots and eye-AF , a great sensor and a good EF adapater and a nice line up of original lenses at the beginning , 10fps, good grip/handling/weather sealed - even steal from z6/z7 body if required ;-) like the battery compatibility between Dslr and mirrorless camera. Also give us a 90D that is better than the rest of the market (and make it without AA filter please) and give us a 5DM5 that is on par or better than the D850. Please. At least tell us when we will get it so i don't have to switch early in 2019. Please.

I looked at the new Nikon mirrorless cameras you refer to above. For a moment, I got excited and got the urge to purchase...something. Then I thought, what the heck, I don't NEED anything presently. I would LIKE a 5DSR type body, and a mirrorless body with good specs and natively accepts my L lenses I would love to at least try if not buy!

Do I feel left behind? Nah. Since there isn't new camera or lens that will make me a better photographer, and my current gear doesn't limit me (I admit, my own limitiations limit me), I can calm down, and wait until Canon puts out something that I MUST have. It isn't personal, it's rational.

Don't mean to rain on your post, but as an old fart, I am well aware of the difference between a want and a need.

Scott

 

[tron]

That's odd. I find f/5.6 well-behaved with Reiken but not f/8 (400mm + 2xTC or 100-400mm II + 2xTC). I wonder if you have a bum 1.4xTC? I had 2 and found my first one was weak, OK at the centre but poor outside. I find at 400mm, the 100-400mm II and DO II are pretty similar but put on the (good) 1.4xTC, the DO leaps ahead.

I have thought of that but then the 1.4XIII was excellent with a 5D3 + 100-400 II combination I had needed once. So I do not know if I can accuse it. And I had some really good 7D2+400DOII+1.4XIII photos in far away small birds. But 7D2 is not my best choice for birds any more and even then I had some failures. I guess I have to make some tests with live view. But I trust its quality (although not with detailed tests just the small bird in the center). It's focusing accuracy I am a little afraid of. Regarding Reikan the issue is that I barely have the space to put the target enough meters away. I barely manage the minimum acceptable distance (20x). Somehow the 500II+2XIII combination although giving lower contrast (sometimes) has proven quite valuable to me. Its resolution remains very good. But this is a non hand-holdable combination. I use it only when I have a car (resting it on the window). Anyway I have time before the next trip so I will try again. I wonder if I can use random targets with Reikan (for example the opposite building ) instead of the targets it comes with...

 

[stevelee]

The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.

Yes, when I first encountered the term here, I assumed it mean what Mt. Spokane said. That sounded like a neat feature. Automatically focusing on the eyes could be helpful, too. But I don't take portraits with that shallow depth of field so that I want the eyes in focus and the nose and chin blurry, so I don't see any advantage for me over just regular face tracking. It is rare that I wouldn't want the ears to be included, too, in the in-focus zone. So am I missing something about why focusing on just eyes would be desirable for me?

 

[3kramd5]

Yes, when I first encountered the term here, I assumed it mean what Mt. Spokane said. That sounded like a neat feature. Automatically focusing on the eyes could be helpful, too. But I don't take portraits with that shallow depth of field so that I want the eyes in focus and the nose and chin blurry, so I don't see any advantage for me over just regular face tracking. It is rare that I wouldn't want the ears to be included, too, in the in-focus zone. So am I missing something about why focusing on just eyes would be desirable for me?

What heresy is this? Did you not read the scrolls from the holy mount (fuji)? If more than a subject’s closest pupil is in focus, it’s a terrible photo!

A serious answer: no, not really. EyeAF is predicated on finding the face, so it doesn’t work better or add anything for your use case.

 

[hmatthes]

May I ask: why order something you have no doubt you’ll cancel?

Pleased to answer... I am going full frame EVF which is not available from our Canon!
In the last three years, half my images have been shot on a mirrorless full frame 28mm Leica Q. A properly developed EVF partnered with proper direct controls allows me to get better images than my 6D can create.
Aperature on lens is lovely but EOS Av mode front dial is just as good. Shutter speed dial is great but EOS M mode gives me that on back dial but removes exposure compensation. Both systems give me ISO with only one button press. The Q provides me exposure compensation directly on its own dial while shutter speed and aperature are also available. If I shoot EOS in M mode, where is exposure? And why do I need it!
We are balancing aperature, shutter and ISO — EOS requires button presses, Q does not. Aperature, Shutter, & exposure compensation (hence ISO) all have dedicated dials.
The EVF shows me the prefixed final image dynamically, OVF does not. End of story. EVF has won my mind.
I move a dial, I see the result!

 

[3kramd5]

Pleased to answer... I am going full frame EVF which is not available from our Canon!
In the last three years, half my images have been shot on a mirrorless full frame 28mm Leica Q. A properly developed EVF partnered with proper direct controls allows me to get better images than my 6D can create.
Aperature on lens is lovely but EOS Av mode front dial is just as good. Shutter speed dial is great but EOS M mode gives me that on back dial but removes exposure compensation. Both systems give me ISO with only one button press. The Q provides me exposure compensation directly on its own dial while shutter speed and aperature are also available. If I shoot EOS in M mode, where is exposure? And why do I need it!
We are balancing aperature, shutter and ISO — EOS requires button presses, Q does not. Aperature, Shutter, & exposure compensation (hence ISO) all have dedicated dials.
The EVF shows me the prefixed final image dynamically, OVF does not. End of story. EVF has won my mind.
I move a dial, I see the result!

That’s all great, but still: why order something you don’t intend to buy? Are you hoping canon announces before your order is filled, but hedging your bets?

 

[hmatthes]

That’s all great, but still: why order something you don’t intend to buy? Are you hoping canon announces before your order is filled, but hedging your bets?

Yes

 

[bhf3737]

As a Cannon shooter I should focus on what, where, how and when to shoot rather than what to shoot with.
The last is definitely the least to worry about!

 

[Aglet]

Hmmm. Your old and newer ones both seem to suffer a rather small aperture compared to overall barrel length.
I supposed they can provide good depth of field when shooting them but do not look to be hand-holdable even with a very advanced IBIS body. (I Big! Incredible Strong!)

Do you use a self-timer mode with that too? I can see adjusting the timer would be quite easily done with scissors.

and here's my Cannon from 50+ years ago...… no innovation! Cannon is DOOMED!View attachment 179864

 

[fullstop]

View attachment 179871

As a Cannon shooter I should focus on what, where, how and when to shoot rather than what to shoot ...

hmmm ... not so sure about that! in your image it looks as if the rightmost soldier is what will be shot by that cannon ...

 

[AlanF]

What heresy is this? Did you not read the scrolls from the holy mount (fuji)? If more than a subject’s closest pupil is in focus, it’s a terrible photo!

A serious answer: no, not really. EyeAF is predicated on finding the face, so it doesn’t work better or add anything for your use case.

That’s an an anthropocentric view - there are other subjects other than humans. For bird portraits, the eye is the most important to be in focus and so eye-focus is useful. For human faces, as the eye is set back behind the nose and in front of the ear, you are more likely to have depth of field give you a sharp overall portrait than if you randomly focus on a nose for example in face recognition.

 

[bhf3737]

hmmm ... not so sure about that! in your image it looks as if the rightmost soldier is what will be shot by that cannon ...

I guess he was a snitch pretending to be a Cannon shooter in the Cannon land! Got what he deserved.

 

[AlanF]

And here is a shot showing me doing eye-focus (via a 5DSR).

 

[3kramd5]

That’s an an anthropocentric view - there are other subjects other than humans. For bird portraits, the eye is the most important to be in focus and so eye-focus is useful. For human faces, as the eye is set back behind the nose and in front of the ear, you are more likely to have depth of field give you a sharp overall portrait than if you randomly focus on a nose for example in face recognition.

It wasn’t inspired by an anthropogenic perspective, but rather how I understand the technology works: It doesn’t find any old eye, it finds a human-like face and then-and-only-then locates the human-like face’s eye.

Maybe I’m mistaken about how it works, but I know that with my a7rii (and the iii I rented) the camera would often lose the eye but then default back to the face.

Ultimately it may be possible to teach a camera non-human faces, but currently I don’t know of any which can. Does the canon find a bird’s eye? That would be really neat.

 

[3kramd5]

And here is a shot showing me doing eye-focus (via a 5DSR).
View attachment 179872

Well that’s cool! I didn’t know the 5DS cameras had that function.

Can it do it when the whole bird is in the frame? If so, I’m entirely wrong.

 

[fullstop]

it is a major flaw on Nikon's part to NOT put Eye-AF into Z6/Z7. in that price class of cameras it should be the clear standard in 2018. when even conservative canon can do it well in an entry level priced camera like EOS M50.

actually i would expect far more advanced AF systems in new cameras like Z6/Z7 ... high time we would finally get AF systems truly worthy of the "artificial intelligence" moniker. eg, there should be no more need for a one-shot/servo-af switch. AI-AF mode should reliably take care if this and detect mition in frame in real time in mirrorfree ("live view") cameras.
rather than fanbois apologizing camera makers shortcomkngs, se all should push them hard and demand "state of the art" tech from them.