What would it take for you to buy a ML body?

[Aussie shooter]

I don’t know about It’s been bad for your eyes, i.e. damage, but I have lamented elsewhere that with extended use it causes eye fatigue and soreness.

That is what I was referring to. Headaches as well if you did it for long enough. No different to staring at a computer screen all day. I have the feeling though that non wildlife photographers don't really understand what we mean by staring through the viewfinder for hours on end. For me it often means maybe 5min off the viewfinder for a couple hours looking through it. Hard enough without an electronic screen messing with you eyes.

 

[3kramd5]

That is what I was referring to. Headaches as well if you did it for long enough. No different to staring at a computer screen all day. I have the feeling though that non wildlife photographers don't really understand what we mean by staring through the viewfinder for hours on end. For me it often means maybe 5min off the viewfinder for a couple hours looking through it. Hard enough without an electronic screen messing with you eyes.

Yes. I used an a7rii a few times for extended use (and hour or so waiting for an owl to come out, etc), and it wasn’t not enjoyable.

 

[bokehmon22]

It's easy to state that technology will improve in future. It always does.
In terms of the present, is there a EVF that is "better" than that of the EOS R? Is 4 million dots going to let you take incredible photos, when the crappy 3.4 million dot EVF of the crummy old EOS R won't allow you to do the same? I think not. "Stupid Canon left 600,000 dots of their state of the art EOS R EVF". No wonder Canon is going bankrupt."

Just because something is the best NOW doesn't mean it's good enough for everyone need. For example the original FF mirrorless Sony A7/A7II with the "best" EVF and single card slot for professional use. If it isn't good enough, I'll stick with my DSLR until it's good enough for my need.

Your rant is STUPID. I never said 4 million would allow you to take incredible photo vs 3.4. How do you extralopolate that?

It's about practicatility. The resoluton doesn't matter as much as the quality of the EVF - sharpness, contrast, refresh rate, accurate color, and resolution.

I resist to upgrade AND switch to Sony because I know there are more to incredible photo than camera performance. Lighting, posing, editing, and creativity matters more than camera with the best features especially when it come to wedding and portraits. I resisted to upgrade from 5D IV because I want a significant upgrade not just an incremental upgrade like we get with the phone industry nowaday.

 

[Mikehit]

What good is having 15 shots if they are all blurry because your subject was moving and the AF was not tracking it?

I think it is a safe assumption that if you are trying to capture birds in flight, you have a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the bird movement. And why would AF not be tracking it? And even if it was not, then even if AF was in tracking mode most birds move too quickly for the AF to follow - and it is a bit of luck as to whether the bird is flying off in the plane of the frame. Either way, it is still better than not having it.

 

[jd7]

What would it take?

AF tracking in high speed shooting which is at least as good as on a DSLR
battery life comparable to a DSLR, and ...
an OVF!! Or at least an EVF I like using as much as an OVF, if that's possible.

Or perhaps the first two of those plus a significant improvement in IQ (ie something genuinely apparent in real photos under realistic viewing conditions) over a DSLR. (Regarding potential IQ improvement, I'm thinking of Canon's claims that the shorter flange distance on the RF system compared with the EF system can lead to IQ improvements.)

I suspect if I ever buy a mirrorless camera, it will only be despite its EVF. (Yes, I know EVF offers some functionality you cannot get with an OVF but the advantages aren't worth the downsides to me.) For a small and light system like the M system I might be willing to accept an EVF, but for a full frame system it's going to be much harder to convince me.

 

[RGF]

I used the Sony A9 and despite having one of the best EVF, I can't imagine using it on daily basis. Panasonic new camera rumoured to have around 4 million dot EVF and Sony new camera will have 5.6 million dot 240 hz EVF. Will Canon continue to use the 3.4 million dot in EOS R or will they continue to push for better quality EVF?

What's acceptable for you is different than other people just like FPS, dual card slot, etc.

Best of current lot is not good enough. Need faster tracking. Need to seem as fluid as OVF when tracking a subject

 

[Michael Clark]

I think it is a safe assumption that if you are trying to capture birds in flight, you have a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the bird movement. And why would AF not be tracking it? And even if it was not, then even if AF was in tracking mode most birds move too quickly for the AF to follow - and it is a bit of luck as to whether the bird is flying off in the plane of the frame. Either way, it is still better than not having it.

Your original comment to which I replied said:

That's where 'pre burst' on the Panasonic (Pro Capture in Olympus) comes in - half press the shutter and it records 15 shots in the buffer, continually updating that set of last 15 shots. Fully press the shutter and you have that shot plus the 15 in the previous second. It avoids the sport photographer's cliche of 'if you see it in the viewfinder you have already missed it'
Now if the Canon R got that feature, it reduces the need for rapid tracking AF....

That implies that you don't think the camera needs to be able to track a rapidly moving subject. Then you responded to my comment with "... why would AF not be tracking it?"

Which is it?

How does a 15 frame rolling buffer reduce the need for rapid tracking AF with a subject that is moving rapidly? Unless you're happy with a random lucky one frame out of many in which the bird is at the correct distance, but probably not in the best 'pose', for the constant focus distance of the entire series? What would be the point of that?

Shooters who want fast frame rates and Servo AF expect many/most frames to be in focus because the camera is actively tracking the subject. The hit rate for cameras such as the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 at 12-14 fps are remarkable. No mirrorless camera, not even the Sony α9, can come close. Cameras such as the Nikon D500 or Canon 7D Mark II aren't far behind them at considerably lower prices. When the α9 is shooting at 20 fps it can't do AF-C (or save 14-bit raw files). To get AF-C and 14-bit raw, the camera slows down considerably and is effectively no faster than a 1D X Mark II or a D5 when tracking the subject every frame, and the Sony α9 does not get near the 'hit rate' that the two mirror slappers do. The only way to get 20 fps with the α9 is to accept no AF between frames and 12-bit raw (or 8-bit JPEG).

 

[Aussie shooter]

In

Your original comment to which I replied said:



That implies that you don't think the camera needs to be able to track a rapidly moving subject. Then you responded to my comment with "... why would AF not be tracking it?"

Which is it?

How does a 15 frame rolling buffer reduce the need for rapid tracking AF with a subject that is moving rapidly? Unless you're happy with a random lucky one frame out of many in which the bird is at the correct distance, but probably not in the best 'pose', for the constant focus distance of the entire series? What would be the point of that?

Shooters who want fast frame rates and Servo AF expect many/most frames to be in focus because the camera is actively tracking the subject. The hit rate for cameras such as the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 at 12-14 fps are remarkable. No mirrorless camera, not even the Sony α9, can come close. Cameras such as the Nikon D500 or Canon 7D Mark II aren't far behind them at considerably lower prices. When the α9 is shooting at 20 fps it can't do AF-C (or save 14-bit raw files). To get AF-C and 14-bit raw, the camera slows down considerably and is effectively no faster than a 1D X Mark II or a D5 when tracking the subject every frame, and the Sony α9 does not get near the 'hit rate' that the two mirror slappers do. The only way to get 20 fps with the α9 is to accept no AF between frames and 12-bit raw (or 8-bit JPEG).

In the situation we were referring to though it was considering the inability to track certain subjects and the photographer was prefocussed on a static subject waiting for that split second where it left the perch.

 

[Viggo]

Your original comment to which I replied said:



That implies that you don't think the camera needs to be able to track a rapidly moving subject. Then you responded to my comment with "... why would AF not be tracking it?"

Which is it?

How does a 15 frame rolling buffer reduce the need for rapid tracking AF with a subject that is moving rapidly? Unless you're happy with a random lucky one frame out of many in which the bird is at the correct distance, but probably not in the best 'pose', for the constant focus distance of the entire series? What would be the point of that?

Shooters who want fast frame rates and Servo AF expect many/most frames to be in focus because the camera is actively tracking the subject. The hit rate for cameras such as the Canon EOS 1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 at 12-14 fps are remarkable. No mirrorless camera, not even the Sony α9, can come close. Cameras such as the Nikon D500 or Canon 7D Mark II aren't far behind them at considerably lower prices. When the α9 is shooting at 20 fps it can't do AF-C (or save 14-bit raw files). To get AF-C and 14-bit raw, the camera slows down considerably and is effectively no faster than a 1D X Mark II or a D5 when tracking the subject every frame, and the Sony α9 does not get near the 'hit rate' that the two mirror slappers do. The only way to get 20 fps with the α9 is to accept no AF between frames and 12-bit raw (or 8-bit JPEG).

Huh?

The a9 does AF between frames at 20 fps.

 

[koenkooi]

Huh?

The a9 does AF between frames at 20 fps.

The Sony A9 manual agrees with you, the a9 does 20FPS with AF in AF-C.

 

[Michael Clark]

In
In the situation we were referring to though it was considering the inability to track certain subjects and the photographer was prefocussed on a static subject waiting for that split second where it left the perch.

At which point it is moving and no longer stationary...

The intent was pretty clear the photographer wanted a photo of the kingfisher flying away from the perch.

 

[Michael Clark]

The Sony A9 manual agrees with you, the a9 does 20FPS with AF in AF-C.

Read footnotes *2*4*8*9 on the page you cited.

Footnote *2 immediately follows the statement: The focus continuously tracks the subjects.

Footnote *2 says: 15 images per second at maximum depending on attached lens.

 

[Aussie shooter]

At which point it is moving and no longer stationary...

The intent was pretty clear the photographer wanted a photo of the kingfisher flying away from the perch.

I wrote the initial post so I know what I meant. And i was referring to prefocussing on the bird or just a hair off it's stationary position and then trying to get a couple of shots off as it jumps and before it leaves the frame. It is a technique specifically designed to overcome the inability of a camera to track that sort of subject. As a matter of fact when the bird jumps I DO NOT FOCUS. I just hit the shutter button.

 

[eninja]

A pancake wide angle lens.

 

[dcm]

I already have 3 ML. Possibly a fourth in early 2019. All APS-C.

My next FF purchase is likely a high MP body to go with my 1DX2. Was planning on next version of 5DS/R. Might consider a high MP R if one is released. Needs to be versatile like the 5 series. Not looking for a 1DX2 replacement. ML is a don’t care for me.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I have already adopted MILC for my compact camera needs (Canon M). I think it fits well in that niche as a “bridge” between my iPhone camera and my FF 5D body.

I don’t shoot just one particular subject matter - I dabble in just about everything so I need a good all-rounder type of camera. I think the 5D series fits this need fairly well, all things considered. High-level FF image quality. Fast enough for the occasional sport shoot, good enough in low-light for dim events, quick and responsive to use and always ready to shoot. Dependable, with enough ruggedness to tolerate a few bumps or raindrops.

Is the current R there yet? I don’t think so...maybe a couple more generations are necessary first. Can it fill some of the niches I described above? I think it can, but then the question becomes a matter of is it worth it. Ultimately it may end up being the RF lens pool rather than the R bodies themselves being the driving factor on how quickly I adopt the R system, but at this point it could not be my main camera.