Adding a Mirrorless, Maybe a switch.

When mirrorless can match the look of 85 1.4 or 200 F2 on my 5D then I'll switch.

oh wait they can't. moving on now...

Talley wrote in post #18139777
When mirrorless can match the look of 85 1.4 or 200 F2 on my 5D then I'll switch.

oh wait they can't. moving on now...

sony 85mm f1.4 GM
Mount your 200 f2 on a Sony A7x, sony version wont be small (if any)
I'm sure the sony 135mm F1.8 comes close too.

Talley wrote in post #18139777
When mirrorless can match the look of 85 1.4 or 200 F2 on my 5D then I'll switch.

oh wait they can't. moving on now...

Sometimes rather than being so concentrated with gear lust/acquisition try looking at what you can do with your gear. In capable hands a Micro 4/3, Sony A6300, Fuji 16mpx or 24mpx can put you to severe shame even with your all mighty 5dmk4.

This is where gear is so specific.

My gear is just a tool. To a certain extent the tool is as good as the operator. I've eaten humble pie and I can see a M43 with fast prime put a full frame to shame as long as the photographer can paint a picture executing his/her skills.

I can hold my own with my gear but I know many other photogs are better and worst.

For me I can take a fuji with fast prime and i bet I can use it beside a canon full frame user with 200L. A photographer will dictate how the image will look....again gear obviously helps.

I don't doubt your talent, Alan, but IDK . . .

You take that Fuji with whatever lens you want and put it up against an a7rii and either a Zeiss 135 1.8 or Canikon 200/2 and I just don't know how it is a fair fight.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18139980
I don't doubt your talent, Alan, but IDK . . .

You take that Fuji with whatever lens you want and put it up against an a7rii and either a Zeiss 135 1.8 or Canikon 200/2 and I just don't know how it is a fair fight.

Mickey, honestly it's not a matter of fair fight. We can discuss gear specifications all day long. We all know different lenses have different ways of capturing images.

My "stir the pot" comments is discussing true application of the gear and the capabilities of what the operator can do.

This is where a photog can have an Sony A7mk2 with metabone adapter w/ Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2, 135L, 85L etc and put a Canon 5dmk4 with 200L IS to shame in how they use the tool. However a gifted photographer would produce mind blowing stunning images with a 5dmk4 w/ 200L.

I also must add that when high iso is not required my older 5dmk2 has virtually identical image quality as my 5dmk3. Now if we are discussing 5dmk4 with the added megpixels there are benefits with more cropping capabilities and added resolution. However on an 8x10 print the image will look incredibly close to a 5dmk2.

Gear talk these days is much different now than the 5d classic era. This is where the new mirrorless world with crop or full frame sensors are very capable. It's more of preference and ergonomics as well as the capabilities of the sensor in this day and age.

Put a Fuji x-t2 with 56 f/1.2 vs a Canon 5dmk2,3,4 with sigma 85 f/1.4 (not even discussing potential focus issues!!!!). You'd see a difference in IQ but on print and the cost difference it's a matter of analysis.

5dmk4 and sigma 85 f/1.4 is $4500 + 1600 = 6100 CDN
fuji X-T2 and 56 f/1.2 is $1900 + 999 = $2899 CDN.

My point is that we all have different size pockets. However something that cannot be purchased is a gifted eye in photography. I've seen plenty of families using extremely high end gear but this is only just a small part of the equation.

I think adding mirrorless gear and keeping traditional dslr's is a fine way to "test the waters". Being open minded opens up photographic opportunities.

Currently my 80D cannot match my Fuji 16mpx stills to a certain extent but I must say the advantages of the 80D's capabilites can also perform much better than my Canon FF or fuji.

More tools you have or the more you "Master" goes along way being open minded!!

AlanU wrote in post #18140112
Mickey, honestly it's not a matter of fair fight. We can discuss gear specifications all day long. We all know different lenses have different ways of capturing images.

My "stir the pot" comments is discussing true application of the gear and the capabilities of what the operator can do.

This is where a photog can have an Sony A7mk2 with metabone adapter w/ Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2, 135L, 85L etc and put a Canon 5dmk4 with 200L IS to shame in how they use the tool. However a gifted photographer would produce mind blowing stunning images with a 5dmk4 w/ 200L.

I also must add that when high iso is not required my older 5dmk2 has virtually identical image quality as my 5dmk3. Now if we are discussing 5dmk4 with the added megpixels there are benefits with more cropping capabilities and added resolution. However on an 8x10 print the image will look incredibly close to a 5dmk2.

Gear talk these days is much different now than the 5d classic era. This is where the new mirrorless world with crop or full frame sensors are very capable. It's more of preference and ergonomics as well as the capabilities of the sensor in this day and age.

Put a Fuji x-t2 with 56 f/1.2 vs a Canon 5dmk2,3,4 with sigma 85 f/1.4 (not even discussing potential focus issues!!!!). You'd see a difference in IQ but on print and the cost difference it's a matter of analysis.

5dmk4 and sigma 85 f/1.4 is $4500 + 1600 = 6100 CDN
fuji X-T2 and 56 f/1.2 is $1900 + 999 = $2899 CDN.

My point is that we all have different size pockets. However something that cannot be purchased is a gifted eye in photography. I've seen plenty of families using extremely high end gear but this is only just a small part of the equation.

I think adding mirrorless gear and keeping traditional dslr's is a fine way to "test the waters". Being open minded opens up photographic opportunities.

Currently my 80D cannot match my Fuji 16mpx stills to a certain extent but I must say the advantages of the 80D's capabilites can also perform much better than my Canon FF or fuji.

More tools you have or the more you "Master" goes along way being open minded!!

There is definitely nothing wrong with being open-minded. If I wasn't, I would have never switched from a Canon kit to a Sony kit. To each their own. Truth be told, most non-working photographers could shoot most of what they needed to shoot with an RX-100 series which you can get refurbished right around $300. Most casual shooters obviously does not include the group including and not excluded to wildlife/sports or working professional shooters.

But yeah, horses for courses. I wouldn't bring my A7R to shoot baseball and I wouldn't choose my A77ii to shoot high ISO portraits.

There are so many great options for photography right now, used and new. I have no desire to start yet another gear war, or a class war for that matter.

I've seen plenty of FF photogs who do nothing but dial a lens wide open and shoot stuff. The image is pure bokeh and boring. I actually years ago took some photos with my 7D and lied on here, said i bought a 5D Mark II and had people gushing over the images before telling them i was lying and conducting an experiment. Ive had people astonished i can get such "good" results and bokeh with the "crap" EOS 7D

Bokeh is lovely, i love bokeh. But sometimes you do actually need some depth of field...

For me micro 4/3 is advantageous sometimes, Macro shooting is an instant place i can think of where FF wouldnt hold a candle, the GX8 and 45mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit are small and easily maneuvered into some tough spots to get shots that would be otherwise difficult. Not to mention the 45mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit is effectively a 2:1 macro lens, NOT 1:1 and the "deeper effective DoF" works to my advantage.. I also find Diffraction oddly enough affects my GX8 less than my 7D...

I've seen the RENDERING of micro 4/3 lenses that rivals FF glass. The 42.5 f/1.2 Noctilux takes gorgeous portraits because while its "only" an f/2.4 equivalent it has a delicious bokeh profile that adds something special to the image, Check out Robin Wong, Tyler Robichaud or Steve Huff, All of whom will gladly talk about what a really good lens it is. My personal experience? The 15mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/2.8 are two of the nicest lenses I own and have a lovely, amazing draw to them the way that other lenses on my 7D have had.

I think honestly what gets me mad with people talking about micro 4/3 vs the competition is that honestly? The DoF characteristics on m4/3 isnt much different from APS-C in many cases, EF-M 22mm f/2? Actually about equal to the Summilux 15mm f/1.7. Only the A7 is really going to give you better isolation/DoF at the cost of well.. Price and to an extent weight....

Now I cant really compare IQ, I like real world working and such, but I do say that..yeah my GX8 has a nicer sensor than my 7D, the output is just sharper from it probubly because the 7D always had a super aggressive AA filter. Now look, Not knocking my 7D (Ive had one since it came out, its served me for 7 years. I obviously hate it) I've been on the fence between upgrading to an EM-1 Mark II and consolidating or just getting a 7D Mark II.. I'm probubly going to invest in the 7D Mark II instead however... Primarily the things I still want my SLR for are access to longer macros (For more shy subjects) the build quality and the AF for when im shooting birds and stuff... I really like my 150-600 despite its size for example. My poor 7D is just wearing out due to the YEARS of abuse its suffered at my hands and that last drop has borked its AF a bit.

But then when it comes to lenses, Im thinking ill replace my 15-85 with the new Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4 thats coming (DoF im not losing anything and it looks much smaller) because when i think of when id want that lens, id want small light and discrete

So right now? i have something like this in my head:

GX8
15mm f/1.7 Summilux
25mm of some kind (Debating on the Summilux or ponying up for the Olympus f/1.2)
45mm f/2.8 Macro-Elmarit
12-60 f/2.8-4 Leica (I'm guessing Vario-Elmar with that aperture)

7D Mark II
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM
Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro
180mm Macro of some kind
Sigma 8-16mm*
A 70-200 of some form
150-600 f/5-6.3 OS C


I'm actually debating on the wide between the 7D Mark II and the Sigma 8-16 and the new Leica 8-18.. the Sigma is likely cheaper

Talley wrote in post #18139777
When mirrorless can match the look of 85 1.4 or 200 F2 on my 5D then I'll switch.

oh wait they can't. moving on now...

Um, they can... the entire a7 line or use a focal reducer on an APS-C body...

mickeyb105 wrote in post #18139980
I don't doubt your talent, Alan, but IDK . . .

You take that Fuji with whatever lens you want and put it up against an a7rii and either a Zeiss 135 1.8 or Canikon 200/2 and I just don't know how it is a fair fight.

It's a very "fair fight"... There is so much more to an image than absolutely most narrow DOF.

KenjiS wrote in post #18140178
I've seen plenty of FF photogs who do nothing but dial a lens wide open and shoot stuff. The image is pure bokeh and boring. I actually years ago took some photos with my 7D and lied on here, said i bought a 5D Mark II and had people gushing over the images before telling them i was lying and conducting an experiment. Ive had people astonished i can get such "good" results and bokeh with the "crap" EOS 7D

Bokeh is lovely, i love bokeh. But sometimes you do actually need some depth of field...

Well DOF isn't the only advantage and I agree that opening up the aperture all the way is often overdone.

But the physics are what they are. Larger sensor means more photons collected, stronger signal, better SNR....more signal less noise at any given ISO. The real world significance of this varies depending on what you shoot. If you shoot at high ISO and/or push files hard in post, then the difference can be rather significant. For some APS-C is 'good enough' in this regard...hell for some a inch sensor P&S or a smartphone might be 'good enough'.

mystik610 wrote in post #18140905
Well DOF isn't the only advantage and I agree that opening up the aperture all the way is often overdone.

But the physics are what they are. Larger sensor means more photons collected, stronger signal, better SNR....more signal less noise at any given ISO. The real world significance of this varies depending on what you shoot. If you shoot at high ISO and/or push files hard in post, then the difference can be rather significant. For some APS-C is 'good enough' in this regard...hell for some a inch sensor P&S or a smartphone might be 'good enough'.

The other arguement of course is the fact that sensor tech is always improving.. there are APS-C sensors today that blow away FF sensors in terms of noise and DR just because they're better

Heck, as i said, my GX8 beats my 7D in IQ... better DR, the noise performance is nicer...

But the 7DII will be better and fix my issues

KenjiS wrote in post #18141452
The other arguement of course is the fact that sensor tech is always improving.. there are APS-C sensors today that blow away FF sensors in terms of noise and DR just because they're better

Because of better sensor designs. Comparing a Canon sensor design to a non Canon sensor design is not a fair comparison.

Better sensor designs can yield things like better DR at a given ISO, but given an equivalent sensor design but larger sensor vs smaller sensor, then the differences are definitely there noise floor is lower with a larger sensor and there is less noise overall.

mystik610 wrote in post #18141607
Because of better sensor designs. Comparing a Canon sensor design to a non Canon sensor design is not a fair comparison.

Better sensor designs can yield things like better DR at a given ISO, but given an equivalent sensor design but larger sensor vs smaller sensor, then the differences are definitely there noise floor is lower with a larger sensor and there is less noise overall.

This is where I've been in the M43 world for close to 5yrs. The sensor technology has changed but there has been no drastic change in the noise control department. Perhaps I may eat my words with the new panasonic GH5 regarding noise. My old Olympus e-m5 vs new em5mk2 isn't a drastic change in high iso performance compared to a 5dmk2 vs 5dmk4.

Sensor size is a definite limiatation.

I'd take my fuji X-T10, XE2 for noise control over Canon's latest crop sensor in my 80D. However I still have a preference to my Canon 5dmk2 IQ even though my Fuji's noise performance is amost similar in performance.

KenjiS wrote in post #18141452
The other arguement of course is the fact that sensor tech is always improving.. there are APS-C sensors today that blow away FF sensors in terms of noise and DR just because they're better

Heck, as i said, my GX8 beats my 7D in IQ... better DR, the noise performance is nicer...

But the 7DII will be better and fix my issues

Comparing other sensor brands is one thing, but to say APS-C's catching up to FF is mostly false for a few reasons.

1. Sheer size, too difficult to overcome differences due to sensor size.

2. Sensors improving on both formats, FF AND APS. Take a look at the 80D and 5DIV for instance, the sensor is similar, just different pixel pitches.

3a. What's seldomly discussed in noise debates is tonality and sharpness. With more aggressive noise control, you loose sharpness, so your images can look dull. Sure it has technically "less noise", but that dont matter if the overall image doesnt look very sharp.

3b. Lens resolution..... FF lenses work a lot less harder for the same amount of MP. A 20mp FF camera doesnt tax the lens the same way as a 20mp M43, so if you're shooting wide open, there can be a substantial difference in how sharp a photo is, and the smaller the format, the less the bite. Studio tests typically show how the camera behaves with optimum glass and settings on a tripod. Shooting handheld will yield much different results, much more than test studios.

anyhow, check out this test studio on the 7D, X-T2, GX8, and 5D classic. The sensor size is nothing to take lightly, and to say APS catching up and beating FF, maybe, be the showcase here is that the 5Dc, a 12mp, 11 year old camera, the first 5D, easily holds it's own within its ISO capabilities. 10 years into the future, the latest APS offering *might* catch up to peak performing cameras like the 5DIV, but I wouldnt bet on it.

AlanU wrote in post #18141734
This is where I've been in the M43 world for close to 5yrs. The sensor technology has changed but there has been no drastic change in the noise control department. Perhaps I may eat my words with the new panasonic GH5 regarding noise. My old Olympus e-m5 vs new em5mk2 isn't a drastic change in high iso performance compared to a 5dmk2 vs 5dmk4.

Sensor size is a definite limiatation.

I'd take my fuji X-T10, XE2 for noise control over Canon's latest crop sensor in my 80D. However I still have a preference to my Canon 5dmk2 IQ even though my Fuji's noise performance is amost similar in performance.

Yeah there have not been significant improvements in simple SNR for any given sensor size for the past 10 years....you're looking at maybe a 1 stop improvement. They keep pushing the sensitivity of cameras up on paper, but the SNR at any given ISO has not really improved.

mystik610 wrote in post #18143063
Yeah there have not been significant improvements in simple SNR for any given sensor size for the past 10 years....you're looking at maybe a 1 stop improvement. They keep pushing the sensitivity of cameras up on paper, but the SNR at any given ISO has not really improved.

Maybe not, but the color fidelity and look of the grain has improved significantly for numerous bodies/sensors.