Cameras are now vastly too expensive

[Derek Smith]

C n C said:

Smaller/lighter isn't a consideration really, especially as I want to continue using the full-frame format and have several top quality lenses that I'm in no rush to change, so would be using them with a Canon RF/EF converter:
Sigma 120-300 f2.8 + 1.4x converter
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L
Canon 100mm Macro f2.8 IS L
Canon 24-105 f4 IS L
Samyang 14mm f2.8
It's also the reason I'll be staying with Canon and not looking to change to Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic etc.. - particularly also having other Canon kit - 2 x pro flashguns, auto extension tubes etc..

Reasons for considering mirrorless (EOS R5)
Firstly I would like better video than the 5Dmk3 produces - especially accurate auto-focus whilst shooting, and changing focus points smoothly.

Secondly, I'm looking for further improved high ISO performance - especially for use in low light.

Thirdly, intelligent AF. I'm certainly interested in the EOS R5 with both human and animal recognition and tracking. As I understand it, the only Canon DSLR with any intelligent AF is the 1DXmk3, which is a little out of my budget at £7k.

Fourth - again linked to low light stuff, is the in-body image stabilisation, which works for any lens (obviously), but also apparently further enhances image stabilisation when used in conjunction with a lens with in-built IS.

The main reason for looking at mirrorless, though, is the electronic viewfinder. I like shooting in low light, and find that sometimes with an optical viewfinder, it can be difficult seeing what you're taking photos of exactly. As I understand it, in these conditions, the EVF enables a much clearer view.

Finally, I also understand that Canon are not looking to futher develop their 5D range of full frame DSLRs, so it does look like mirrorless will be the way ahead.

As an additional camera to a full frame, there's a lot going for mirrorless. Should have thought of that.

I'm pleased with my decision to go mirrorless. However, I used to be stopped when out and asked about changine, especially by those with backpacks and weighty cameras. It used to be because it was something new, and although they liked the feel, weight and size, the thought of how much they'd lose when selling their current gear frightened them a bit. If you're keeping it then the major hurdle from those who stopped me has gone.

I often spend a whole day at shows and such, and I would often dump gear at home that I found I needed. Now. I take one extra lens, a couple of flashguns and, apart from some minor bits, that's it. Aching shoulders are a thing of the past. I still have a backpack but I keep my sarnies and water in it.

[Matt..]

C n C said:

Are you sure that you really think that Sony's lenses are "much smaller and lighter" than Canon's (they are not) or is there some other reason that you are unhappy with Canon's mirrorless (RF) offerings?

The point is that I can get smaller and lighter lenses with Sony because they exist. Yes they are not the exact replacements of what I currently have, but that's not necessarily an issue.

For example, Sony have a 24-70 F4 that is significantly lighter and smaller. This lens is 430g. The closest RF is the 24-105 F4 that is 700g.

I am not someone that needs a vast array on lenses. What I do need is the right lens (or perhaps a couple of lenses) that suit my needs.

My needs are clearly not the same as everyone, and I am well aware that chasing small weight and size savings might not seem sensible to most people.

With all this though I would still far rather have the Canon R6, but for me the bulk and weight is a problem.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.21,852.788,826...

[TheAlgarveCyclist]

The Sony is nice, it is indeed small and light. I nearly switched to that but tried the Canon R instead and liked it, the RP is obviously in the Sony ballpark for size and weight and a great camera too.

The R6 / R5 have moved the game on for me and so I don't mind the size at all; they are still smaller and lighter than the DSLR's I was using. The animal / person eye autofocus is superb and a real game-changer for me - I've never been great at getting the eyes in focus, especially BiF and missed most of the time, now I succeed most of the time.

Plus I prefer the Canon colours and menu and the in-body plus lens IS is also great. These trump the size and weight advantages that the smaller Sony's have for me.

[Disastrous]

Simpo Two said:

Matt.. said:

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

This, 100%.

[Derek Smith]

Disastrous said:

Simpo Two said:

Matt.. said:

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

This, 100%.

It's a hobby. Don't you think it might be better to allow people to do what they want with it? If it increases their enjoyment of the hobby, it's great to my mind. Isn't the defining matter the end photo? How they get there is irrelevant.

I’ve got my own presents on my camera. Saves time and I’m unlikely to miss the image I’m after. Fiddling with manual set-ups takes time.

[Simpo Two]

Derek Smith said:

Disastrous said:

Simpo Two said:

Matt.. said:

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

This, 100%.

It's a hobby. Don't you think it might be better to allow people to do what they want with it? If it increases their enjoyment of the hobby, it's great to my mind. Isn't the defining matter the end photo? How they get there is irrelevant.

I’ve got my own presents on my camera. Saves time and I’m unlikely to miss the image I’m after. Fiddling with manual set-ups takes time.

That's camera firmware, not automatic image enhancement software.

[mikeveal]

Matt.. said:

The point is that I can get smaller and lighter lenses with Sony because they exist. Yes they are not the exact replacements of what I currently have, but that's not necessarily an issue.

For example, Sony have a 24-70 F4 that is significantly lighter and smaller. This lens is 430g. The closest RF is the 24-105 F4 that is 700g.

I am not someone that needs a vast array on lenses. What I do need is the right lens (or perhaps a couple of lenses) that suit my needs.

My needs are clearly not the same as everyone, and I am well aware that chasing small weight and size savings might not seem sensible to most people.

With all this though I would still far rather have the Canon R6, but for me the bulk and weight is a problem.

https://camerasize.com/compact/#192.21,852.788,826...

You're fighting physics. The parameters you have to play with are focal length, aperture, and sensor size. These factors will determine the physical size of the glass. The stuff around the glass, focussing, stabilisation, the lens case isn't going to vary massively between manufacturers.

To reduce weight, you have to sacrifice something. I think micro 4/3 is a sensible option. But I would, I'm a G9 user. There's a great range of glass available, it's much lighter than full frame and the camera is excellent. The image quality won't match a top of the range full frame camera in low light, but shooting landscapes on a tripod, the G9 is very capable.

Panasonic's and Oly's flagship cameras added to your comparison with a 14-140 (equivalent to 24-280).
https://camerasize.com/compact/#840.931,725.931,82...

[C n C]

Derek Smith said:

Disastrous said:

Simpo Two said:

Matt.. said:

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

This, 100%.

It's a hobby. Don't you think it might be better to allow people to do what they want with it? If it increases their enjoyment of the hobby, it's great to my mind. Isn't the defining matter the end photo? How they get there is irrelevant.

I’ve got my own presents on my camera. Saves time and I’m unlikely to miss the image I’m after. Fiddling with manual set-ups takes time.

I think that there is an element of truth in all of the above views, despite them seeming to be somewhat contrary.

Regarding the software innovation, comparing the software developments in DSLR/mirrorless cameras with those in mobile phones isn't really a fair comparison. The development in phones is to a large extent focussed on getting acceptable results from a tiny lens with a tiny sensor. This is no easy task, and a lot of the developments (such as fake bokeh, simulated shallow depth of field etc..) which often contribute to a photo looking good, are actually simulating aspects of photos which DSLR/mirrorless produce already with quality lenses and wide apertures. So in this area, I'd agree that there haven't been such software developments in DSLR/mirrorless, but perhaps that's because there is no need for them?

On the other hand, there have been significant software (and hardware) developments in DSLR/mirrorless where these further push the boundaries of what is possible - improved image processing - noise reduction, high ISO, more accurate and faster AF, increased AF points - the Canon 5Dmk2 has 9, the R5 has 1053, faster burst shooting, use of electronic shutters (20fps in the R5), higher definition video at faster frame rates allowing great slow motion etc..

Regarding Simpo's view, yes, photography is definitely about optics and skill - the optics being the key factor in delivering high quality images - images which would clearly be impossible using an old milk bottle as a lens. The skill part, though is two-fold. Mainly it's about seeing the image you want to create - visualising a great image. The second skill part is about knowing how to use the equipment you have to the best effect in striving to capture the image you are trying to capture/create. This applies whether using the most basic totally manual 10x8 inch large format camera, or the most advanced DSLR/mirrorless equipment. Clearly, the latter (using some pretty advanced software) is the one to be using if you're trying to capture fast moving birds in flight. Yes, you could do it potentially with an old DSLR and manual focussed lens, but your hit rate is going to be way, way down on something with AF and animal eye detect tracking.

It's also hard to disagree with Derek - it is a hobby (and to some a job), but as a hobby, surely it is about people getting enjoyment out of it, and ultimately producing images that they are happy with - whether the aim is to print them up to poster size and mount them on the wall, or simply to apply some in-phone filters and post them on Instagram/Facebook with the aim of getting a bunch of "likes". For some, this will be simply pointing and shooting using full auto perhaps with an advanced DSLR, perhaps with a phone. For others, it will be using a whole bunch of tuned presets that they have carefully set up to best utilise the facilities of their camera. For others, it may be using an ancient large format camera, then developing the film themselves.

Going back to Matt's requirements as an example, he's after something to produce high quality full frame images, but with kit which is as small and light to carry as possible (and also not at what he considers an exorbitant price). This may well involve lenses with slightly smaller maximum apertures - but in his case, surely better to have a potential compromise on max aperture if it means the camera goes more places with him and actually gets used. On the other hand, I'm looking for certain features of mirrorless, but am less concerned about the weight and size - in fact one concern I have about the R5 is that it may be physically too small - I love the 5Dmk3 as it's easy and comfortable for me to hold. In fact I quite often add a battery grip!

I think that this thread has shown that there are many different people with vastly varying requirements, all loosely linked by an interest in making images, and there is a wide variety of kit available to enable this. In terms of kit selection, it's really just about finding what works for you, and possibly having fun trying out different options.

[Matt..]

C n C said:

...

This thread seems to have generated quite a lot of interaction which is good to see. The whole innovation side in photography is definitely an interesting topic and one which can be very hard to get a perspective on. Firstly some of us (definitely me) aren't very current with newer devices so don't know all the innovations, but also for others innovation and change isn't one where we'll know what we want/expect, that's what the companies and their R&D should be coming up with.


With regards you later points CnC about physical size of the device. One factor that adds to my confusion is I'm tall with big hands, and use gloves often. One significant issue that's held me back from Sony and makes me want to go Canon is ergonomics of the camera itself. My hands don't really fit the older A7 bodies as my fingers can barely get between the grip and lens without gloves (I believe it's better in the A7R IV and newer).

[Disastrous]

Derek Smith said:

Disastrous said:

Simpo Two said:

Matt.. said:

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Maybe because their expertise is making cameras not writing software?

Photography should be about optics and skill, not software (which is what you use to make up for lack of the first two).

This, 100%.

It's a hobby. Don't you think it might be better to allow people to do what they want with it? If it increases their enjoyment of the hobby, it's great to my mind. Isn't the defining matter the end photo? How they get there is irrelevant.

I’ve got my own presents on my camera. Saves time and I’m unlikely to miss the image I’m after. Fiddling with manual set-ups takes time.

I completely agree. But I think Simpo's point was that no amount of in-iPhone software jiggery pokery will make up for the fact that it's a pretty average lens on a tiny sensor.

I've got an iPhone and an Olympus compact action camera and they have some great tricks built in for stacking exposures, HDR and so on, but if I need to produce something for print or so, there's no real substitute for light and optics.

I think people should do whatever makes them happy. For me this is a simple camera with minimal settings and decent IQ.

[singlecoil]

Photography is about the artist's intent. How he or she gets there doesn't get there doesn't really matter

On the other hand, if the intention is to achieve a large, high quality print then the quality of the camera and the lenses is going to become an issue.

[Mr Whippy]

Matt.. said:

Mr Whippy said:

Canon and Nikon etc will have no issues with this as they still sell products across the whole range.

And software is cheap. Imamate stacking for instance isn’t mystical... nor was video in the 5D.2 days... it’s just laziness or marketing based nerfing.

Nikon are small, they’re unlikely to be investing hugely into R&D to make any significant leaps.

It is interesting how little software innovation comes from these camera companies. If it’s so cheap and easy then where are the results?

Just as an example, you can stack exposures from bracketing to get a HDR with an optimised tone map to give difficult lighting situations a better result.
You can then still push shadows back in or blow stuff out in post, if you want that.

Iirc back a decade ago 4-5 stops for stills cameras was normal, but film were always lots wider.
Having really wide dynamic ranges these days is useful.

Ie, I shoot a lot for photogrammetry and do some technical stuff to capture specular info (polarised illumination and on lens), and having all these tools to get data how you need it are useful.


And really a vast amount of all these things are open source libraries and/or openly documented.
There is little reason you can’t just implement these features.

Software for these features isn’t any harder than the software already integrated in the fundamental digital sensors and signal processing and all the colour management etc, in an existing high end digital SLR etc.

The base cost of just running Nikon must be vast.
To say they can’t afford £100,000 a year for a decent engineer and a graduate to develop these trinkets is silly in my view.

The reason Nikon don’t do it is anyone’s guess but probably marketing a branding... and wanting to not look too trendy and modern, stepping on the toes of their other gear.

[C n C]

Partly due to this thread, I've been reading/watching a fair bit of stuff on DPReview and similar sites/YouTube.

One article which reminded me of the thread title was:

Why have cameras and lenses become so expensive?

It's interesting that adjusted for inflation, some cameras/lenses have increased, others haven't, and also there are other factors such as new lens mounts meaning less old stock bargains are available. Also the budget end of the market has massively shrunk (probably due to increased smartphone camera usage), so there is more focus on professionals and serious/commited amateurs.

I'm not quoting the article to make any point (as it doesn't really), only that I found it interesting and fairly relevant.

[Andy M]

Joe Cornish still uses an a7r2.

David Ward uses an a7r4 with manual lenses (which I don’t believe are weather sealed to any great extent).

For landscapes I would be more than happy with an a7r3 and Tamron 28-200. Both offer excellent image quality and good weather sealing. Add a Sony 20mm f1.8 and you’re all set IMO.