6d2 is here.

Stregone wrote in post #18421479
Its not even that. They can tell the difference, they just don't care. Same with DSLR vs smart phone. A smart phone is good enough for a lot of people. They can tell the difference, but the smart phone is more convenient.

That is the really sad part, they do not CARE about quality, they only want convenience!

mwsilver wrote in post #18421554
Lots of folks with money in their pockets buy high quality cameras because they think they're getting the best and that their pictures will look more professional simply because of the camera. I'm sure we all know or have met folks like that who have no clue about photography but think a great camera will magically make them a photographer.

I dont know why but this just bothered me a bit as if every person who picks up a dslr must learn every aspect of photography so that they can be be a great photographer. And if i am upgrading then i am most certainly doing it for the sole reason that i expect the camera to give me more professional results. Or as we would say on potn the camera would allow me more oportunities to be able to capture the moment more easily.

davesrose wrote in post #18421635
It seemed like you weren't just referring to your hearing, but the lay public as well in that post. Specifically, this sentence...which seemed to imply that hi-fi audio is snake oil:

Anyways, we're agreeing more then disagreeing: no matter popular trends, there will always be some niche of us that appreciate quality in any given discipline.

I agree ... we are agreeing ...

elitejp wrote in post #18421648
I dont know why but this just bothered me a bit as if every person who picks up a dslr must learn every aspect of photography so that they can be be a great photographer. And if i am upgrading then i am most certainly doing it for the sole reason that i expect the camera to give me more professional results. Or as we would say on potn the camera would allow me more oportunities to be able to capture the moment more easily.

Only a few will be able to capture better images because they have better equipment. Mostly, we are far more limited by our abilities than by our tools.

The aim should be to get to the point where having better kit will really make a difference.

Wilt wrote in post #18421642
That is the really sad part, they do not CARE about quality, they only want convenience!

I think most people want both. There are tradeoffs. Like you illustrated the difference between a headphone and a 10in speaker. Certainly i would love to listen to a fully setup surround sound system with the full gammut of highs and lows but i am not about to carry that around with me when im out and about.
I would also love to eat a gourmet meal everytime i eat but outside of the rare occasion i really dont plan on spending 3 plus hours cooking. But that certainly doesnt mean that i dont like good tasting healthy food.

elitejp wrote in post #18421626
I would go used a7r2 with an adapter or look into the nikon d750

From what I've read mirrorless cameras still have quite a bit of catching up to do when it comes to autofocus. I would use the camera for birds so need excellent AF.

DaviSto wrote in post #18421636
I think you know already that you are unlikely to get reliable advice asking that sort of question on an internet forum. You will get good sensible, honest, independent advice in amongst all the dross but you won't be able to tell which is what. Half of what you find on the internet is an approximation to what is possibly true. You just don't know which half.

The cameras that are candidates are reasonably clear. You should try to find a way to spend a reasonable amount of time using them to shoot what you most like to shoot. Then, make up your own mind and go your own way.

Well, I've been hanging around POTN for a good number of years now and have faith in some people's advice. Others not so much. And anyway, it can't hurt to chat about it. Especially since I know so little about other brands. Although I'm reading and learning.

elitejp wrote in post #18421648
I dont know why but this just bothered me a bit as if every person who picks up a dslr must learn every aspect of photography so that they can be be a great photographer. And if i am upgrading then i am most certainly doing it for the sole reason that i expect the camera to give me more professional results. Or as we would say on potn the camera would allow me more oportunities to be able to capture the moment more easily.

I can see both views. You're seeing it as a development in a photographer's skills: that they're upgrading to a DSLR for the better capabilities. mwsilver's post was reflective of people who have more money then sense. I remember I once hit on a fairly lengthy review of the 5D3 from an attorney who recently bought one. He basically lambasted it because it didn't take good photos "while in the green shooting mode": and he refused to shoot any other mode. He was also floored that a $3000+ camera wouldn't have wifi, when his cell phone did that.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18421662
Well, I've been hanging around POTN for a good number of years now and have faith in some people's advice. Others not so much. And anyway, it can't hurt to chat about it. Especially since I know so little about other brands. Although I'm reading and learning.

Fair enough ... and why would we be hanging around here anyway if that weren't the case.

I still think that you need to spend time with a quite different camera before you can make a judgement about how well it might work for you. I know that if you put a Nikon camera in my hands, it feels like a useless lump. I have no sense of how to make it work aside from heavily automatic modes. I just hate it. Sony cameras, I have barely tried but they are more 'horrible' again. But I know that other ordinary human beings can take pretty good photographs with both.

There is no way that I could be sure about whether I could get to like a camera that is very different from what I am used to without living with it for a little while.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18421662
From what I've read mirrorless cameras still have quite a bit of catching up to do when it comes to autofocus. I would use the camera for birds so need excellent AF.

Well, I've been hanging around POTN for a good number of years now and have faith in some people's advice. Others not so much. And anyway, it can't hurt to chat about it. Especially since I know so little about other brands. Although I'm reading and learning.

Oh, if you are mainly shooting birds then i wouldnt be recommending the 6d2 to you or any camera similar to the 6d2. Not saying the 6d or 6d2 cant do it but that their are better options.

Im not sure if mirrorless cant keep up with dslr systems or if mirrorless with adapters cant keep up with a native dslr setups. What i notice on potn alot is people saying mirrorless has slow af and they are using a canon lens on a sony body for example. But in further reading it seems some canon mount lenses work really well while others dont. My point being that you need to be careful of blanket statements made on this forum. And im sure ive said my fair share.

davesrose wrote in post #18421674
I can see both views. You're seeing it as a development in a photographer's skills: that they're upgrading to a DSLR for the better capabilities. mwsilver's post was reflective of people who have more money then sense. I remember I once hit on a fairly lengthy review of the 5D3 from an attorney who recently bought one. He basically lambasted it because it didn't take good photos "while in the green shooting mode": and he refused to shoot any other mode. He was also floored that a $3000+ camera wouldn't have wifi, when his cell phone did that.

Lol, i agree with him on the wifi part.

Stregone wrote in post #18421479
Its not even that. They can tell the difference, they just don't care. Same with DSLR vs smart phone. A smart phone is good enough for a lot of people. They can tell the difference, but the smart phone is more convenient.

It's the difference between trying to get a photograph you can print and hang on your wall, and just taking a snapshot with a smartphone, like - this is Bob and me in front of Niaagra Falls. Just little mementos of something.

elitejp wrote in post #18421678
Oh, if you are mainly shooting birds then i wouldnt be recommending the 6d2 to you or any camera similar to the 6d2. Not saying the 6d or 6d2 cant do it but that their are better options.

Yes, the consensus seem to be that the 6D is a bad camera for birds. I happen to disagree with that. The original 6D has an excellent centre AF point and is quite capable of capturing the action. A couple of years ago I've shot birds with a 5D classic for 6 months. If I could do that I'm sure I can shoot birds with a 6D! Having said that, it's obvious that my 1DIV is quite a bit better for birds. But in winter what I need is a camera that does better in low light conditions. The camera still does a good job but but it is ageing and today's cameras do have better sensors. I would buy a 5DIV or better yet, a 1DXII if I had the money but I don't. So I have to compromise. That's just the way it is.

Both. I've read too many complaints about AF and too many complaints about those adapters - even the very expensive ones - to go that route. Could be that the Sony a9 is up to the task, but that camera is way out of my price range too of course.

elitejp wrote in post #18421626
....or look into the nikon d750

No 4K, only 1/4000 shutter speed, it's crippled! The Horror! Nikon is Doooooomed!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18421693
.... Having said that, it's obvious that my 1DIV is quite a bit better for birds. ...

And yet the 6DII ironically has a very similar, yet newer AF system!
(That many seem to be poopooing before anyone has tried it)

No I would not all the 6D2 a birding camera, but I bet it would do a very good job with birds indeed!

I've actually heard the argument for the 6D2 with birding because all it's AF points support f8 (good for if you're using extenders). Since I'd rather use a crop and long lens, I haven't found that need....but it is one feature that's in the 6D2's favor. I see that my 5D3 still has a wider spread of AF points, and because of the customization, I'd still prefer it as a portrait camera.

When it comes to comparing the competition, that's always a tough call. Nikon has good features, but you have to start over again with a different system. I'm too invested in Canon glass, so the only upgrade path for me would be a 5D4 (which currently don't have the extra spending cash for).