Canon and future of DSLR's

umphotography wrote in post #19325911
Yes just re read your comment. I missed the word doesnt so I misinterpreted what you said

And thats exactly my point

What I read teamspeed saying , and others, is that mirrorless is better because you can get 30 shots on an electric shutter and pick out the best shot...wth...how is that or the equipment making you a better photographer.....it is not....its basically automatic eye focus and automatic spray and prey. The only skill set you need is a credit card and to open and read an owners manual......My 1Dx2 does 14fps....I have never done a 14 frame burst when Im in the field shooting. I get pretty good shots. Why do I need a mirrorless that does 30......I reading posts from guys that fill a 64mb card in about 2-3 hours..1500 images ...thats insane. Its darn sure not controlled thought out photography........May​be im showing my age

There appears to be a fundamental shooting technique difference between those raised in the day of 1fps on a camera with a motor drive and those who wear out the 200k shutter on the digital camera!
I have experimented in shooting a grandson's lacrosse game on highest fps that my 7DII can provide, and then when I have to sort thru all the frames to find 'the best' frame in a given series, I rapidly grow tired from that effort to select one from many, when there are so very tiny differences in pose/position between the frames. "The X is better here, but the Y is worse in the same shot." The misery in postprocessing is so accentuated by more frames to choose from.

umphotography wrote in post #19325911
Yes just re read your comment. I missed the word doesnt so I misinterpreted what you said

And thats exactly my point

What I read teamspeed saying , and others, is that mirrorless is better because you can get 30 shots on an electric shutter and pick out the best shot...wth...how is that or the equipment making you a better photographer.....it is not....its basically automatic eye focus and automatic spray and prey. The only skill set you need is a credit card and to open and read an owners manual......My 1Dx2 does 14fps....I have never done a 14 frame burst when Im in the field shooting. I get pretty good shots. Why do I need a mirrorless that does 30......I reading posts from guys that fill a 64mb card in about 2-3 hours..1500 images ...thats insane. Its darn sure not controlled thought out photography........May​be im showing my age

Tom can add his thoughts here but there is a definite need for faster bursts, especially for sports and wildlife. Between getting that perfect shot and also have more unique files that you can sell the rights to adds up to more revenue.

I have yet to use the ES on my R6, 12 fps is plenty for me. I will try it just to see how it works but as far as actually using it, I have not done so and my R6 is 10 months old.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19325944
.
Tom can add his thoughts here but there is a definite need for faster bursts, especially for sports and wildlife. Between getting that perfect shot and also have more unique files that you can sell the rights to adds up to more revenue.
.

.
Cary, I am sure that you can relate to this with your basketball photography. . I mean, if you are shooting a player taking a 3-point shot, there would probably be times when you would like to be able to pick just exactly how far the ball is from his hand, just after he released the ball. . I mean, in some instances maybe the shot would look its very best if the ball is 5 or 6 inches from his fingertips, but in other instances of shots taken from different angles, maybe 7 or 8 inches from the fingertips would be a wee bit more compelling, or perhaps there are times when you want the shot to show the ball just 2 or 3 inches from his fingertips. . It is nice to have technology that allows us to be this precise and this picky with exactly what our images look like.

It really depends on just how picky one is about the precise position of things like wings and legs and the ultra-precise angle at which things like antlers are taken from.

To me, the first shot (below) is a total waste, and the 2nd shot is a success.

Why?

Because the way the buck's head is turned in the first photo means that some of the antler tines on his left antler overlap other tines. . Meanwhile, in the 2nd shot, he had turned his head a wee bit more, so that every one of the antler tines is separated from every other tine, and there is no overlapping at all. . This is so immensely important in deer photography! . And yet when one is shooting, one has no idea if the buck is going to turn his head, and no idea which way, or to what extent, he will turn his head, if indeed he does turn it.

Plus I'm doing everything I can to keep the stupid little red square (focus point) on the buck's face/eye, and just doing that takes all of my physical and mental resources, so no way I could be worried about antler tine alignment at the time when I am actually shooting him. . And yet that tine alignment is the difference between an image that I am very happy with and one that is just throw-it-away junk (in my opinion).

I will be so massively relieved when I can finally afford a high end mirrorless camera with animal eye autofocus. . Then I will be able to frame the shots more appealingly and know that the Deer's eye will still be in sharper focus than any other part of him. . No more having to center the subject (which looks bad to my eye). . I will finally be able to compose the Deer off-center where it makes for a much better looking photo.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19325944
Tom can add his thoughts here but there is a definite need for faster bursts, especially for sports and wildlife. Between getting that perfect shot and also have more unique files that you can sell the rights to adds up to more revenue.

We will have to agree to disagree. What you have with a mirrorless electric shutter is basically a video clip with 30 second bursts....and now go pick your best shot.....sure you are going to get good shots....You should....you have 60 shots of the same subject

2 points

1-Anticipation and knowing when to push the shutter goes a long way

2- How many unique files do you have that you have sold the rights to publishing companies or sold on the market with all the umteen billion stock photographers trying to do the same thing ?.....sounds good in a photography forum....But in real life, with pro photographers who do this day in and day out....im calling BS on this point

Tom,
I will differ...I find the first shot, in which both eyes of the buck are at least partially visible to be the compelling selection criteria, rather than a more full view of both antlers.

Goes to show why what we as photographers like might not be what the art director chooses.

Whatever your view, it didn’t really matter, the camera gear is heading into the current direction regardless. The move has been happening for a decade now, it shouldn’t be a surprise nor something to be afraid of.

There is more capabilities with mirrorless, quantifiable and proven. You have to decide when and for what reasons you will adopt it, because obsolescence of the DSLR has already started to happen, and years from now if you want new gear, there won’t be much of a choice.

I have both, appreciate both, but use my DSLR less and less. I don't have emotional ties to my gear, they are electronic objects/tools and I can leverage the strengths of each.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326022
Whatever your view, it didn’t really matter, the camera gear is heading into the current direction regardless. The move has been happening for a decade now, it shouldn’t be a surprise nor something to be afraid of.

There is more capabilities with mirrorless, quantifiable and proven. You have to decide when and for what reasons you will adopt it, because obsolescence of the DSLR has already started to happen, and years from now if you want new gear, there won’t be much of a choice.

I have both, appreciate both, but use my DSLR less and less. I don't have emotional ties to my gear, they are electronic objects/tools and I can leverage the strengths of each.

Same statements can be made in the context of film vs. digital...if you wanted new, you could choose digital. And, if you are willing to shoot used, you can still get it in analog. Some photographers still use film; I own film and digital, but most of my shooting is digital (primarily because so many emulsions are gone, and reliable pro color labs with excellent process controls are hard to find). One can continue to shoot film, or one can continue to shoot digital...but if you want the super high ISO you have to use digital.
Similarly, if you want eye focus, you have to use mirrorless. But if you shoot most medical images, you are not tracking eyes.
...But if you want something that shoots up on Mt. Everest dependably you probably need to shoot film with mechanical timed shutter because it is hard to keep batteries functional in the extreme cold. All have benefits, all have tradeoffs, and sometimes the 'advantage' of one is neutralized by its disadvantages in certain circumstances. And with inherent electricity draw for the EVF, one will need to carry more batteries than if carrying the dSLR to Everest.
All of my film gear is fully functional...I need only buy film and find a lab (since I sold off most of my darkroom stuff). It does not matter that it was 'obsoleted' two decades ago. All my dSLR stuff will remain functional, as long as I can buy batteries as the capacity goes to h*ll, and will continue to fully satisfy my needs-- until the point where mirrorless will do something not possible on the dSLR, which I need to do. So far that point has not been reached, at an affordable enough price point.

I sold my 5D4 and got the R. While my 7D2 was better using the VF (bad blackout using the R) and more FPS the it never came out if the bag again. I can’t explain why but I just liked using the R more.

digital paradise wrote in post #19326039
I sold my 5D4 and got the R. While my 7D2 was better using the VF (bad blackout using the R) and more FPS the it never came out if the bag again. I can’t explain why but I just liked using the R more.

Yeah, similar with me. My 90D is a great camera, but doesn't get much use now since going mirrorless.

I think Mike is concerned about high entry costs and the learning curve - plus the obsoleting of some of his skills. I can see that. But once you have the gear and experience with it, there is no going back.

umphotography wrote in post #19325954
1-Anticipation and knowing when to push the shutter goes a long way

...but not anymore lol

I'm sincerely not taking jabs at you or anyone else, but this is the type of comment I've recently heard from some of the "old school" photographers who are maybe unconsciously resistant to the latest tech advancements.

I imagine the film photographers had similar sentiments when people started editing RAW files. Likewise, when auto-focus was first introduced it must have been a kick in the teeth to those who had spent years mastering manual focus for moving objects. These still don't account for the creative aspect that a "real" photographer brings to the table. It just helps the amateur achieve a more technically correct image that they would otherwise have to work much harder to achieve.

Wilt wrote in post #19326026
...But if you want something that shoots up on Mt. Everest dependably you probably need to shoot film with mechanical timed shutter because it is hard to keep batteries functional in the extreme cold. All have benefits, all have tradeoffs, and sometimes the 'advantage' of one is neutralized by its disadvantages in certain circumstances. And with inherent electricity draw for the EVF, one will need to carry more batteries than if carrying the dSLR to Everest.

You have to be kidding. I just watched the movie 14 Peaks on Netflix yesterday evening. That crew climbed 14 Peaks that are over 8,000 meters high in 7 months. I'm confident saying not one frame of film was shot making that movie.

I have both a 5DIV and a R6. I need to sell my 5D, it very rarely gets used anymore. I find it funny that people using a $6,000 camera are arguing that $2,500 and $3,500 mirrorless bodies that do almost everything better, are a bad thing. I got rid of my $6,000 body to buy my R6 and am very happy with the decision.

bpalermini wrote in post #19326050
I have both a 5DIV and a R6. I need to sell my 5D, it very rarely gets used anymore. I find it funny that people using a $6,000 camera are arguing that $2,500 and $3,500 mirrorless bodies that do almost everything better, are a bad thing. I got rid of my $6,000 body to buy my R6 and am very happy with the decision.

I don't own a single digital that ever had a value over $2500 (not to say I ever spent $2500 on a digital body). And that statement was true when I was not living off retirement savings and Social Security. So even harder for me to spend that much today, because more justification is needed when discretionary income is less.

I did not say shooting on Everest with mirrorless or dSLR was not possible, I simply meant that one can do so with less planning and preparation with a mechanically timed film camera. "How many batteries to last n days, and how do we keep them warm enough for use?"

EOS R and RP are both very accessible and low cost these days, comparable to 7d2 and 5d3 prices, so the cost of entry to mirrorless isn’t steep.

Also the M50 and M6II are very good crop mirrorless bodies as well and at even lower prices.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19326075
EOS R and RP are both very accessible and low cost these days, comparable to 7d2 and 5d3 prices, so the cost of entry to mirrorless isn’t steep.

Also the M50 and M6II are very good crop mirrorless bodies as well and at even lower prices.

Some time in the past couple of days, somebody posted that he would not ever take a step backward in order to have mirrorless, which is what he considered purchase of 1st generation R, or the mass market-priced RP to be. He echoes my feelings on the topic...similarly I would not step back from 7DII to a 90D either, just for more pixels. The R6 is certainly good enough, if I needed mirrorless features, but still more than I wish to spend on a body.