If You Started Again Today...

[Musicman]

This is the problem with discussing CSCs vs DSLRs, people bandy about stats from the best systems for each 'issue' being discussed.

Most CSC don't come close to a good DSLR when it comes to focus performance, we can discuss it till the cows come home, but it'll not alter that fact. When a £1200 CSC is the only one better than a £300 DSLR then the argument is ridiculous.

My A7 is way better than my 5D for focus performance for my purposes, but then I'm putting 30-40 year old manual focus lenses on the front of it and any AF [D]SLR body is horrid for using them.

I spent ten years trying to like autofocus after the 300D came out and I finally jumped from using my Canon A-1 into both AF and digital imaging. A few years later, the 5D gave me back a full frame viewfinder, but it still wasn't a patch on my film bodies and adapting Contax lenses I had to the 5D was unsatisfying as a result. I realised that I wasn't engaging with what I saw in the viewfinder the same way with auto-focus. I don't like driving cars with automatic gearboxes for similar reasons - I want to feel directly connected to what I'm doing.

There came a point when I was looking at replacing the 5D after five or six years of use, probably with a 5D3, but I wasn't feeling too enthusiastic about the prospect. A chap foray into CSCs (looking for a lighter alternative for family days out) found me adapting my old FD lenses, but with a 2x crop, and finding I was enjoying it so much that the 5D was left unused. Then I found myself more and more going back to film...

Sony came along with the A7 in the nick of time and allowed me to get back close to the manual focus experience I had with my FD bodies on full frame. I can scale focus, estimate depth of field and set aperture without the camera to my eye. EVF magnification means I can be absolutely sure that the point I want in focus is in focus.

Raw speed is rarely my priority. I don't often take photos of fast moving objects. When I do, I use the same techniques I've been using for 35+ years; it just takes a little thinking ahead.

I'm more than willing to admit that I'm out of step with most people here in this. The A7 provides me with an adaptable digital back for some of the best lenses from a variety of different systems; FD, C/Y and OM.

When I went digital what I wanted was replacements for my 35mm SLR and compacts but at the time they didn't exist but now in mirrorless they do So, if starting again now I'd go mirrorless

I think I'm saying much the same thing

 

[woof woof]

Most CSC don't come close to a good DSLR when it comes to focus performance, we can discuss it till the cows come home, but it'll not alter that fact. When a £1200 CSC is the only one better than a £300 DSLR then the argument is ridiculous.

You have to be careful with phrases like focus performance though Phil as every CSC I've owned blows the socks off any DSLR I've ever owned for focus performance. The catch is that you're probably talking about focus tracking and I'm talking about focus accuracy and consistency and although I haven't found an application for it yet... the ability to focus in almost total darkness.

 

[woof woof]

I think I'm saying much the same thing

My complaint with modern DSLR's has always been the bulk and weight and when MFT came along I jumped straight in as the quality was ok and the bulk was nearer the 35mm SLR and even compact cameras I had even if the weight was still a little more as my film cameras were really just an empty plastic box. It was only after using MFT for some time that the advantages of the EVF and in view histogram and focus aids became apparent to me and then later the joys of using manual lenses on these cameras. The Sony A7 brings better image quality and allows old lenses to be used at their original FoV.

 

[JJ!]

I would still have bought my D750 but gone straight to a set of f2.8 lenses.

Would also have the Fuji as my 2nd camera with a nice compact prime for street photography etc.

I think when it comes to sports and using a fast telephoto the size of the Fuji is no real advantage due to the size and weight of the glass. The 50-140 f2.8 is 1kg so not far off say the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. IMO this added weight and bulk of the D750 is an advantage in this situation.

If i had the money I would have both, but I haven't so have no intention to swap.

It's great we have such good choice, but for me, a DSLR is still the right choice.

Also why do people get so defensive in these kind of debates?!

 

[Phil V]

True, fair point, though I would guess someone in that position would be using a battery grip anyway?

For casual use I don't see it as a problem.

I don't use a battery grip., never have. Like I said a battery lasts all day and I've enough weight to lug around.

It's hilarious when people know little and make wild assumptions about others.

 

[Phil V]

My complaint with modern DSLR's has always been the bulk and weight and when MFT came along I jumped straight in as the quality was ok and the bulk was nearer the 35mm SLR and even compact cameras I had even if the weight was still a little more as my film cameras were really just an empty plastic box. It was only after using MFT for some time that the advantages of the EVF and in view histogram and focus aids became apparent to me and then later the joys of using manual lenses on these cameras. The Sony A7 brings better image quality and allows old lenses to be used at their original FoV.

This^
I'm right behind you, but they're not quite there yet for my use.

 

[DG Phototraining]

Back to the OP's question - the only thing I'd have done differently really is to not bother with zooms

They seemed like a good idea as a means of gaining the most focal lengths per £ spent, but they are too big, heavy, costly, slower and rarely as optically good as decent primes

Everything else I'm pretty happy with

Dave

 

[dkh]

I really wanted to use an XT2 from next year so went along to Park Cameras in London for a personal demo. I tried using the camera with what the salesperson said was a good, fast lens which had a reputation to lock focus quick (35f2). I followed a person walking around in not too bad light and tried pressing the shutter as I do with all my personally used dslr cameras (at one point or another) 5D / 5D2/ 6D / 5D3 / D90 / D700 / D3s / D750.

I left thinking that I need to wait for the XT3 / 4.

I have a X-E2 with the 18-55 lens and I only use it at weddings once I've got the 'important' shots. I can't rely on it to get / lock focus on anything that moves in less than bright light. At a recent bright church wedding, I got a roughly 40% hit rate! (any CSC better than any DSLR???)

On one of the D750s I have the slow 85 1.4G which I'd estimate has a hit rate of 70-80%.

Would I have changed anything IF I knew what I do now - would have stuck with the Canon 5D3 combo as I don't think the Nikon D750s have added anything that I can sell better except months of waiting for repairs / denials.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

I don't use a battery grip., never have. Like I said a battery lasts all day and I've enough weight to lug around.

It's hilarious when people know little and make wild assumptions about others.

Ha, have you not done exactly the same though, assuming that everyone needs a massive battery?

 

[Phil V]

Ha, have you not done exactly the same though, assuming that everyone needs a massive battery?

No
I said the battery performance wasn't on a par.
I also said repeatedly that CSCs weren't there yet 'for me'.

But you're free to be outraged and miss the detail.

ETA see the post above from DKH, some of us have requirements beyond the capability of cameras that in other ways offer great options.

I bought a 6d for the weight saving (compared to 5d/1d), if I could move to Fuji it'd be a serious consideration.

 

[jerry12953]

When i moved over to digital from using superb Contax film cameras (with Zeiss lenses), the only manufacturer that did a mid-range digital body was Canon - the 20D. So that was it; I became a Canon user, and have since upgraded several times to a 5D3, and now have several Canon fit lenses.

If I knew then what I know now, I might have gone Nikon, as the concensus seems to be (and continues to be , even with the Canon 5D4) that Nikon still has the edge technically in several important aspects.

But I still believe the following is true, whatever your system, and whichever accessories you use:

Get to know your kit intimately so that it almost becomes an extension of your mind. It's no use seeing a photo opportunity and then having to fiddle with a menu or a tripod head to get the results that you want.

 

[Nod]

Can I ask @Nod why you like to use the two systems - Fuji and Nikon - and how they complement each other or what they do that the other doesn't? Do you just feel like using a certain camera on a certain day or does each have it so own job/speciality?

There are some things that the Nikons do better than the Fujis. At the moment, that's mainly low light (the D750 is a high ISO monster but the X-T2 is reputed to be almost up there with it...) and the lack of black out between frames when taking a burst while panning (again, the X-T2 might reduce the gap.) The Fuji system is smaller and covers a greater focal length range so is ideal for travel, although I'll be taking the D750 and a fast, wide prime for Milky Way shots next September since we'll be revisiting a place where I've pretty much taken all the shots I want to so won't be carrying much during the days other than a compact for snaps.

 

[NDevon]

Back to the OP's question - the only thing I'd have done differently really is to not bother with zooms

They seemed like a good idea as a means of gaining the most focal lengths per £ spent, but they are too big, heavy, costly, slower and rarely as optically good as decent primes

Everything else I'm pretty happy with

Dave

That's something I read a lot Dave. Do you not miss them ever? Do you not find times when you wish you could zoom in and out rather than physically move closer and back again? I'm thinking about with what I plan to do in a studio situation with busy littluns rushing about and trying to capture their best smiles, I thought a zoom would be needed. However I obviously wouldn't have the weight and size issues in a studio, although I may find the speed frustrating.

I really wanted to use an XT2 from next year so went along to Park Cameras in London for a personal demo. I tried using the camera with what the salesperson said was a good, fast lens which had a reputation to lock focus quick (35f2). I followed a person walking around in not too bad light and tried pressing the shutter as I do with all my personally used dslr cameras (at one point or another) 5D / 5D2/ 6D / 5D3 / D90 / D700 / D3s / D750.

I left thinking that I need to wait for the XT3 / 4.

Is that because it didn't get the shots? It's always interesting hearing 'the other side' when all ive been reading is the positive of the X-T2, it's good to hear the full story

Would I have changed anything IF I knew what I do now - would have stuck with the Canon 5D3 combo as I don't think the Nikon D750s have added anything that I can sell better except months of waiting for repairs / denials.

Is that because of the general build quality or have you been unlucky?

I bought a 6d for the weight saving (compared to 5d/1d)....

How much do you use the 6D Phil? Are there times and situations you use it over the other bodies? Always the same situations or just when you feel like it?

.... , if I could move to Fuji it'd be a serious consideration.

'If'? Is this back to your comments above that the camera isn't fast enough and the batteries don't last long enough, or could you cope with that if there wasn't something else stopping you? As for the battery grip I don't think I'd want an X-T2 withoutnone, I think it feels too small without, and the grip doesn't make it huge like a grip on a DSLR does to those bodies. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes of course, part of the problem for me is my grip strength, I need to make sure it's big enough in my hands and feels right or I'm liable to drop the thing. Happened to tooooo many expensive items in the past year unfortunately.

But I still believe the following is true, whatever your system, and whichever accessories you use:

Get to know your kit intimately so that it almost becomes an extension of your mind. It's no use seeing a photo opportunity and then having to fiddle with a menu or a tripod head to get the results that you want.

I totally believe in this Jerry. My partner laughs at me as I'm often wandering round the house holding the camera taking pictures of the most pointless things, I'm trying to make it feel second nature, so I don't have to think where a button is or how I change a setting. I have a long way to go, but I'm a lot closer than I was a few weeks back.

It's good that manufacturers tend to keep to the same form when developing the next generation of camera bodies so we don't have to learn it all again. Although I'd guess most cameras follow a similar design format, if not exactly the same. Obviously a big part of it is knowing what the buttons do and how to make use of them, not just knowing where they are!

 

[Kiwi Paul]

I've got the kit I want, I bought my Sony E system kit this year then sold my m4/3 gear.
I've no regrets, I really like the kit I have, a FF body (A7R2) and FE lenses and also an A6300 crop sensor body with crop sensor lenses but all the lenses are compatible on either body so I can can mix and match depending on what I want to do. The kit is reasonably compact, I like the ergonomics and handling and general performance is fine for my needs.
So the answer the OP's post is if I started again I'd buy what I have now.

 

[Andrew Moore]

Personally I believe I should have gone Fuji from the get go with an XT1, upgraded to an XT2 and picked up a nice m-mount voigtlander Bessa R or even an Leica M2 for my film related kit. I'd probably have saved a couple of grand in the process too which is gut sinker but I've had the experience of many other systems and gotten joy from much of it so the only regret falls on the cash and not of the decisions made in the process. A hobbie has to be fun otherwise what's the point!

 

[woof woof]

This^
I'm right behind you, but they're not quite there yet for my use.

At some point I expect CSC's to equal the focus tracking speed of even the best DSLR's and exceed DSLR's in accuracy and consistency while doing it but the other CSC shortcomings of battery life and weight v a 35mm SLR or compact may be more difficult. I remember the battery life of my old Nikon SLR (which weighed next to nothing) being measured in years rather than days so batteries would need a great leap forward in technology to give that sort of life to a CSC. Ditto with the electronics, we're going to need something radical to enable some future A7 series camera to slim down to the weight of an old plastic SLR but perhaps this doesn't matter too much as an A7 with a 28, 35 or 50mm prime is already a compact and relatively light weight camera and lens combination and not significantly bigger or heavier than the average MFT SLR style camera and lens combination.

All in all though if any kids in my family show an interest I'll be explaining DSLR's but pointing them at CSC's as I think that stills and video integration is the future and best exemplified in the CSC even if they're not there for all uses yet.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

No
I said the battery performance wasn't on a par.
I also said repeatedly that CSCs weren't there yet 'for me'.

But you're free to be outraged and miss the detail.

ETA see the post above from DKH, some of us have requirements beyond the capability of cameras that in other ways offer great options.

I bought a 6d for the weight saving (compared to 5d/1d), if I could move to Fuji it'd be a serious consideration.

No, you said battery life was appalling, which I didn't agree with, and I'm certainly not outraged

BTW IMO the 6D is a great camera, I just found it too chunky to handle with ff lenses while trying to grapple with two toddlers, hence I swapped.

 

[woof woof]

Personally I believe I should have gone Fuji from the get go with an XT1, upgraded to an XT2 and picked up a nice m-mount voigtlander Bessa R or even an Leica M2 for my film related kit. I'd probably have saved a couple of grand in the process too which is gut sinker but I've had the experience of many other systems and gotten joy from much of it so the only regret falls on the cash and not of the decisions made in the process. A hobbie has to be fun otherwise what's the point!

I had a Bessa, really nice

 

[Phil V]

No, you said battery life was appalling, which I didn't agree with, and I'm certainly not outraged

BTW IMO the 6D is a great camera, I just found it too chunky to handle with ff lenses while trying to grapple with two toddlers, hence I swapped.

It is appalling in comparison (context is everything) 25% the usability is appalling.

The 6d is tiny compared to the alternatives.

The other issue is when we need fast lenses, the size of the camera body becomes less of an issue. A 1.4 APSC portrait lens is not much smaller than the f2 FF equivalent.

But to get to the important point, as above, the gear is less important than study and practice.

 

[DG Phototraining]

Do you not miss them ever? Do you not find times when you wish you could zoom in and out rather than physically move closer and back again? I'm thinking about with what I plan to do in a studio situation with busy littluns rushing about and trying to capture their best smiles, I thought a zoom would be needed. However I obviously wouldn't have the weight and size issues in a studio, although I may find the speed frustrating.

Coming from my position in Wedding Photography - no, I don't miss zooms at all. I find the 'look' from primes to be consistent as (of course) I'm no longer zooming in & out a bit with framing, so the distortion & compression remains the same. When I need extra length I find that a simple crop is sufficient as we don't really need 24mp anyway for photos in Wedding Albums

The 'zooming' of running forwards and backwards a bit I make a joke of at Weddings too

The only time I miss them at all is with Landscape Photography and when you simply cannot move, so a zoom could be more useful; but then I remind myself that even my £1,200 mid range zoom I had was much softer at the edges than my far cheaper primes are, and again a bit of a crop isn't that bad a thing really. I used to win club comps with A3 prints from my 6mp camera so again 24mp is more than we need usually

Shooting little ones zooms clearly seem to make more sense as, as you say, they will move around a lot, but zooms tend to be slower to focus so you may miss more than you would with a prime. You may also find the weight an issue meaning you miss shots too, the 85 f1.8 weighs 350g whereas the 70-200 f2.8 is 1,540g and that's a big difference

Dave

 

[The23rdman]

Coming from my position in Wedding Photography - no, I don't miss zooms at all. I find the 'look' from primes to be consistent as (of course) I'm no longer zooming in & out a bit with framing, so the distortion & compression remains the same. When I need extra length I find that a simple crop is sufficient as we don't really need 24mp anyway for photos in Wedding Albums

The 'zooming' of running forwards and backwards a bit I make a joke of at Weddings too

The only time I miss them at all is with Landscape Photography and when you simply cannot move, so a zoom could be more useful; but then I remind myself that even my £1,200 mid range zoom I had was much softer at the edges than my far cheaper primes are, and again a bit of a crop isn't that bad a thing really. I used to win club comps with A3 prints from my 6mp camera so again 24mp is more than we need usually

Shooting little ones zooms clearly seem to make more sense as, as you say, they will move around a lot, but zooms tend to be slower to focus so you may miss more than you would with a prime. You may also find the weight an issue meaning you miss shots too, the 85 f1.8 weighs 350g whereas the 70-200 f2.8 is 1,540g and that's a big difference

Dave

I'm pretty sure that it's exactly the opposite as a rule - assuming the zoom is an f/2.8, of course.

 

[DG Phototraining]

I'm pretty sure that it's exactly the opposite as a rule - assuming the zoom is an f/2.8, of course.

Really? My 35mm is defo faster than the 17-55 I had

Dave

 

[The23rdman]

Really? My 35mm is defo faster than the 17-55 I had

Dave

There are obviously exceptions, but it's usually the case.

 

[Phil V]

How much do you use the 6D Phil? Are there times and situations you use it over the other bodies? Always the same situations or just when you feel like it?

QUOTE="Phil V, post: 7578065, member: 24798"].... , if I could move to Fuji it'd be a serious consideration.

'If'? Is this back to your comments above that the camera isn't fast enough and the batteries don't last long enough, or could you cope with that if there wasn't something else stopping you? As for the battery grip I don't think I'd want an X-T2 withoutnone, I think it feels too small without, and the grip doesn't make it huge like a grip on a DSLR does to those bodies. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes of course, part of the problem for me is my grip strength, I need to make sure it's big enough in my hands and feels right or I'm liable to drop the thing. Happened to tooooo many expensive items in the past year unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

The 6d is my first choice body (s) I'll opt for the 7d for sports, and the others are just backups.

I thought I'd more than explained my position on CSC's.

The Fuji series really appeal to me aesthetically, they produce lovely files, the 'modern' features are brilliant.

The downside is that the lenses cost as much as the alternative FF equivalents making it an expensive '2nd system'.

And the AF and batteries make it a frustrating primary system.

Now if I was starting out and I didn't already have those DSLR benchmarks, would I feel differently?

What you really ought to take as the lesson from this thread though...

There's no 'perfect system', some will fit your expectations better than others. And you're highly unlikely to be able to 'learn from our mistakes ' and short cut to your ideal system. We learn and grow through the gear we use.

And even then, they're just tools, they're such a tiny part of the equation.

If you want to be great at shooting people; study people, build a personality that'll get you the shots you want, learn about posing and lighting.

I could shoot you an almost identicsl image with a choice of dozens of cameras and lens combos.

To paraphrase our resident lecturer: cameras don't take pictures, people do.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

It is appalling in comparison (context is everything) 25% the usability is appalling.

The 6d is tiny compared to the alternatives.

The other issue is when we need fast lenses, the size of the camera body becomes less of an issue. A 1.4 APSC portrait lens is not much smaller than the f2 FF equivalent.

But to get to the important point, as above, the gear is less important than study and practice.

Just for clarity, I'd get around 1200 shots on the 6D and at least 500 on the X-T1 so not that bad Your last point is the most important of course!

 

[NDevon]

Sony came along with the A7 in the nick of time and allowed me to get back close to the manual focus experience I had with my FD bodies on full frame. I can scale focus, estimate depth of field and set aperture without the camera to my eye. EVF magnification means I can be absolutely sure that the point I want in focus is in focus.

Raw speed is rarely my priority. I don't often take photos of fast moving objects. When I do, I use the same techniques I've been using for 35+ years; it just takes a little thinking ahead.

I'm more than willing to admit that I'm out of step with most people here in this. The A7 provides me with an adaptable digital back for some of the best lenses from a variety of different systems; FD, C/Y and OM.

You call it out of step, but I'm impressed and envious at your skills and ability to know what the settings should be so easily. That's the benefit of learning your skills in the days of film where you couldn't fire off shots and check if the exposure was correct. I'm hoping it gets easier and becomes more obvious with practice, I guess I'm getting a little better at working it out, but I still feel that I'm such a total beginner.

I would still have bought my D750 but gone straight to a set of f2.8 lenses.

Would also have the Fuji as my 2nd camera with a nice compact prime for street photography etc.

I think when it comes to sports and using a fast telephoto the size of the Fuji is no real advantage due to the size and weight of the glass. The 50-140 f2.8 is 1kg so not far off say the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. IMO this added weight and bulk of the D750 is an advantage in this situation.

If i had the money I would have both, but I haven't so have no intention to swap.

It's great we have such good choice, but for me, a DSLR is still the right choice.

Also why do people get so defensive in these kind of debates?!

It's interesting to see how a lot of these choices come down to the type of photography you prefer. The size and weight differences matter if you are enjoying street photography for example.

As for the defensive stuff I guess that's the nature of forums, it's never really personal, just words on the screen. I guess people just don't like their choices or decisions questioned. I'm just asking all this because I want to learn stuff and learn as much as I can.

There are some things that the Nikons do better than the Fujis. At the moment, that's mainly low light (the D750 is a high ISO monster but the X-T2 is reputed to be almost up there with it...) and the lack of black out between frames when taking a burst while panning (again, the X-T2 might reduce the gap.) The Fuji system is smaller and covers a greater focal length range so is ideal for travel, although I'll be taking the D750 and a fast, wide prime for Milky Way shots next September since we'll be revisiting a place where I've pretty much taken all the shots I want to so won't be carrying much during the days other than a compact for snaps.

What do you consider low light? Nighttime for example? I've not even considered a night photograph, a dimly lit room is a challenge for me!

 

[Jelster]

If I was starting again I'd like to think I would just go with Fuji. I currently have 3 Canon bodies (7D, 7D2 & 6D) with a range of lenses, plus an X-T1 and yesterday I ordered an X-T2.

Before I give up all of my investment in the Canon system completely I need to be sure that the Fuji will cater for my wildlife addiction. If it does then I suspect I will sell on all my Canon gear (The 7D Mk1 will be going anyway...)

Like I said...

I'm not knocking CSC's I've said from the beginning that they're the future of photography.

But that's still true, it'll be a while before the average CSC is equal to the average DSLR.

If the reports are true, then the focusing system of the T2 will match that of the 7D2, but it will be smaller & lighter. The problem is that Fuji just don't have the range of lenses to match the Canon or Nikon systems, but it's still early days.

 

[Sassafras]

I'm pretty happy with what I have and I'd buy the same again (Leica M9, M6, 35 Summarit and Ricoh GR). The only thing I'd change is an aesthetic choice to have a chrome M9P rather than a black M9.

The only thing I regret getting was a zoom lens for the Canon 350D I had before I got Leicas. It was way too big for me and I prefer framing with a prime.

 

[Nod]

What do you consider low light? Nighttime for example? I've not even considered a night photograph, a dimly lit room is a challenge for me!

As Nikon put it when the (IIRC) D700 and D3 were released - "UNavailable light"! TBH, it's not so much the actual results as the ease with which they can be obtained. I find it easier to focus on stars by using AF to lock on to a very bright one (or even the Moon - that's close enough to infinity for practical purposes) then switch to MF before recomposing on (say) the Milky Way. In my experience, this is a lot easier with the Nikons than the X-T1. I find that in dark situations (like a moonlit garden) the Nikons will achieve AF far better than the Fujis but both do it better than I used to be able to in MF and film days, not to mention the ISOs available to us now compared with the rather grainy results we used to get when pushing HP5 or Tri-X to 1600 and beyond.

 

[woof woof]

When shooting in really low light beyond the low light of what is in reality a low to normally lit room I'd go for manual focus.

Just out of interest, my Panasonic CSC's will achieve a focus lock in almost total darkness but they do take several second to do it. I don't know if there's a DSLR which can match this, is there?

 

[wibbly]

If I was starting again I'd dump my Fuji kit and go with the 6D or 5D3. I've got an X-Pro1, X-E2, X-T1 and X100T along with a whole bunch of primes but still don't think they're anywhere near as good as a decent DSLR. I don't think the focus is anywhere near as good and personally I'm not that keen on the files they produce (either JPG or RAW).

If I could actually realise anywhere near the value of them I'd swap them tomorrow, Sadly at present I'm a bit stuck with them as I can't really afford to swap so onwards I go.

 

[HoppyUK]

Threads like this are like opinion polls - not very accurate.

I'm as guilty as anyone, day-dreaming about this and that, but when it actually comes to the cash what would I do? Sony A7 series is temping in some ways, but not in others so realistically it's between Canon and Nikon. Always has been, and they've been six of one half dozen of the other for decades. While Nikon seem to have had the edge on sensor development in recent years (made by Sony) Canon probably has the better lens range overall and on the sensor front, if Canon didn't believe it could match (and beat?) them, then they'd have bought-in Sony too. Right now, it looks like Canon has pretty much made up the lost ground and leads with on-sensor AF (IMHO the key to major success for CSCs).

In opinion polls, the only ones that really matter are exit polls - not 'who do think you'll vote for', but 'who did you actually vote for'? And in actual volume sales terms of interchangeable-lens cameras, the pecking order hasn't changed much for a very long time. Canon has close to 50% market share, comfortably ahead of Nikon, with Sony a distant third. All the others are basically nowhere in total market share terms. That doesn't mean they don't make very good products, but it does mean that overwhelmingly enthusiasts either buy Canon or Nikon, or perhaps a Sony.

Thom Hogan is the guru on all this with regular updates at www.bythom.com Here's a recent overview article he wrote for PetaPixel http://petapixel.com/2016/06/15/different-goals-different-camera-companies/

 

[JJ!]

I do think maybe soon Fuji will release a real game changer. Although the XT2 is a great camera, I think the way they are evolving will soon lead them to be as good as their full frame counterparts on all fronts.

I still don't think it will get them a much bigger market share but their constant innovation can only be a good thing.

I do find my D750 with 24-70 quite bulky but it does balance well and feels good in the hand.

I intend to get a 70-200 f2.8 soon and this is where a DSLR has an advantage IMO.

A fast telephoto for Fuji is still about 1kg, and this makes it a little unbalanced and takes away the point of the body being smaller and lighter.

I'm not sure if this will ever change though, 2.8 glass is heavy no matter what the system!

 

[woof woof]

I like the analogy to voting but sadly people sometimes vote for reasons of tradition regardless of policies or competence.

We've seen changes recently in both politics and the buying of photo gear but whilst there may well be a hint of change in the air the Canikon duopoly still has the sales volume and still arguably at least in part sell because of the badge. Badges are something I've never really bought into but there seem to be plenty who'd rather buy a Canikon as long as it's somewhere in the ballpark rather than something else from someone else that (arguably) hits the bullseye. That may change in the longer term, there are plenty of names from the past that mean nothing to the younger generations today.

 

[HoppyUK]

I do think maybe soon Fuji will release a real game changer. Although the XT2 is a great camera, I think the way they are evolving will soon lead them to be as good as their full frame counterparts on all fronts. <snip>

They just did, but it's the medium-format GFX 50S https://www.dpreview.com/news/97424...with-the-gfx-50s-here-s-what-you-need-to-know

Cool camera, and quite a shrewd move by Fuji IMHO. They know that APS-C will never match full-frame (basic physics) and taking on Canikon in the FF sector would not be easy at all, but it's a very niche product.

 

[LouiseTopp]

I would have chosen Nikon, and not wasted my time with Pentax....

 

[Jelster]

Interestingly, the other reason I run 2 systems is that I have a problem with my back, and carrying a 7D2 with the Sigma 150-600 does it no favours whatsoever. Even the 6D with the 24-105 is heavy by comparison to the T1 & a similar Fuji lens. I'm just hoping they can fill the void that giving up the Canons will leave.

 

[NDevon]

At some point I expect CSC's to equal the focus tracking speed of even the best DSLR's and exceed DSLR's in accuracy and consistency while doing it but the other CSC shortcomings of battery life and weight v a 35mm SLR or compact may be more difficult.

There is some amazing battery technology being developed. For too long it's just advanced at a slow steady pace, but recently so much more technology relies on batteries that the pace needs to change. Anything from drones, to cars, to storage of power from solar panels to make consumer panels a more attractive proposition. Mobile phones are a big part of the pace development too obviously. The Formula-E cars can't last a race and drivers have to switch to a 2nd car, but that's going to be changing very soon as the technology has advanced enough to allow a car to make it through the race. From there, road cars, and storing the suns rays rather than selling them back to the grid for not a lot of money it doesn't seem much of a stretch to realise they should be able to double or even quadruple a cameras battery power within the same amount of space.

Shooting little ones zooms clearly seem to make more sense as, as you say, they will move around a lot, but zooms tend to be slower to focus so you may miss more than you would with a prime. You may also find the weight an issue meaning you miss shots too, the 85 f1.8 weighs 350g whereas the 70-200 f2.8 is 1,540g and that's a big difference

Dave

I think I'll just tie the kids down, then I won't have to worry about the weight of a lens and it will be easier to focus on them!

Threads like this are like opinion polls - not very accurate.

I'm as guilty as anyone, day-dreaming about this and that, but when it actually comes to the cash what would I do? Sony A7 series is temping in some ways, but not in others so realistically it's between Canon and Nikon. Always has been, and they've been six of one half dozen of the other for decades. While Nikon seem to have had the edge on sensor development in recent years (made by Sony) Canon probably has the better lens range overall and on the sensor front, if Canon didn't believe it could match (and beat?) them, then they'd have bought-in Sony too. Right now, it looks like Canon has pretty much made up the lost ground and leads with on-sensor AF (IMHO the key to major success for CSCs).

In opinion polls, the only ones that really matter are exit polls - not 'who do think you'll vote for', but 'who did you actually vote for'? And in actual volume sales terms of interchangeable-lens cameras, the pecking order hasn't changed much for a very long time. Canon has close to 50% market share, comfortably ahead of Nikon, with Sony a distant third. All the others are basically nowhere in total market share terms. That doesn't mean they don't make very good products, but it does mean that overwhelmingly enthusiasts either buy Canon or Nikon, or perhaps a Sony.

Thom Hogan is the guru on all this with regular updates at www.bythom.com Here's a recent overview article he wrote for PetaPixel http://petapixel.com/2016/06/15/different-goals-different-camera-companies/

Totally agree with your opening statement - as I said in my reply to Phil it's like asking people what car they have and why, only you'd get a wider range of responses of course.

I'm not planning on taking any of the advice as my direction of travel, I'm just genuinely curious as to what people have purchased and why, and there are. A lot of people switching recently, not just on here where, lets be honest, it's a relatively small percentage of the membership of the forum saying they are switching, but read any other forum, blog, magazine etc and you will see articles about people 'jumping to mirrorless'. I wanted to know if people are glad they started where they did, or if they would have started somewhere else etc.

I'm also really interested that nobody picked up on or mentioned my comment on the Pentax K1. With my very limited knowledge it looks like a good camera, and it's got some really good reviews, you get a lot of camera for your money. I just wonder why nobody round here is even mildly interested. @LouiseTopp below mentions Pentax of course...

I would have chosen Nikon, and not wasted my time with Pentax....

I'm interested to know why you think you wasted your time with it Louise. I have read a bit about the recent history of the system, the loyal followers who were patiently waiting for Pentax to catch up with everyone else. I wonder if the K1 is the camera you were waiting for, or would it not have been of any interest to you?

 

[NDevon]

I thought I'd more than explained my position on CSC's.

.

There was a lot of discussion with others but not specific comments about the cameras. You said 'if you could move' you would, I wondered why you can't. I wasn't sure if it was the issues you mentioned with speed and battery capacity that stopped you, or the cost, the amount you have invested in Canon, or other reasons. As so many full time professionals are using Fuji cameras it doesn't make obvious sense to me that the product simply isn't up to the job, otherwise people wouldn't be using the product. Therefore I wondered what the 'if' was - I wasn't asking to annoy you!

What you really ought to take as the lesson from this thread though...

There's no 'perfect system', some will fit your expectations better than others. And you're highly unlikely to be able to 'learn from our mistakes ' and short cut to your ideal system. We learn and grow through the gear we use.

And even then, they're just tools, they're such a tiny part of the equation.

If you want to be great at shooting people; study people, build a personality that'll get you the shots you want, learn about posing and lighting.

I could shoot you an almost identicsl image with a choice of dozens of cameras and lens combos.

To paraphrase our resident lecturer: cameras don't take pictures, people do.

You misunderstand my reasons for asking I guess Phil, this is just conversation and helping me with my thoughts and learning. I have enough experiences of life to realise there are no perfect systems for anything really, its a bit like asking a load of people what car they have and why, I would get plenty of different responses and it wouldn't give me a specific answer. And it would lead to a lot more arguments!! It would however give me some useful tidbits of information I can take away. It's very easy to just be a maverick and go it alone, get on with it and make all the mistakes without even attempting to learn, but I prefer to do all I can to make the best decisions for my needs.

You may think asking questions is the wrong way to go about it, but as it's not dictating my decisions it isn't harming them, it's improving my knowledge - that's not a bad thing. The worst thing it's doing is wasting my time, but I've spent much of the day stuck watching my poorly son and being unable to leave his room, I couldn't have done much more with my time other than read or sit on my iPad.

I believe I can learn from people's mistakes, if enough people said a certain camera, lens, light, tripod etc was a waste of money or didn't do work as they thought I could save money. You yourself want to switch brand but there are reasons you haven't yet, that's interesting for a number of reasons - both the desire to switch and the reasons you can't yet. People absolutely can learn from that. If all the Fuji switchers suddenly found an issue and went back to Canon I bet you would want to know why.

I of course agree 'people take pictures', but you have to admit it's a lot easier to do so with a camera in your hand than a sketch pad and pencil! If it didn't matter what you used you may we'll have switched to Fuji by now, but it does matter to you, don't you think your reasons for not being able to use one system over another may also apply to someone else? I thought sharing knowledge was the way it worked round here, you've argued that the Fuji system isn't of the right quality for you personally so obviously for certain situations it wouldn't be the best tool. On one hand you are stating you can shoot the same image with any camera and lens, on the other you are arguing the Fuji system is frustrating and doesn't perform as well as your Canon system. As far as I'm concerned that's learning. My needs are different to yours, once my own wedding is over I don't plan on going within 100m of a wedding ever again, I certainly won't be filming any!

It's really easy to say study people, learn etc, I'm really trying my best, I find myself watching people in a totally different way, I'm reading about and playing with light, I'm not sure what else I can do if I'm honest. I'd love to know, I get given the. Ames of books to read so I buy them, websites to visit so I visit, skills to research so I look them up and start to try to understand them. If I ask questions I get told I should be learning, but as far as I'm concerned I am learning, every day I know more about this stuff than I did the day before, I know there isn't a magic bullet and I know I'm just going to have to get on with it and learn how it works. I just like to know how others learnt, if there's anything extra I can do, I want to make sense of it all. I had people telling me several different ways to do things, stuff I read didn't make sense, stuff I watched didn't make sense, I couldn't explain why. Then a local photographer visited and we discussed what I was struggling with, he talked me through it and suddenly it clicked, I understood. I wasn't being awkward, I'm not thick, it just didn't make sense and I had good reason to be questioning.

So I think it's important to try to learn in every way I can, I respect you all and take in all the advice and information, I'm genuinely grateful for any advice any of you share. Any tips, advice or support is very much appreciated, if anyone wants to help me learn I'm keen to get on - I have real reasons to want to get 'good at this stuff' as quickly as I can I still have the same equipment I had yesterday and the day before and the day before that, I'm not rushing out to buy stuff I don't need, I just like to have an idea of what I will need to buy to take things to the next level. At some point everybody invested in some equipment, I don't think it's a bad thing to talk about it a bit in advance.

But ultimately what I've REALLY learnt from this thread is that most people bought stuff they didn't need at some point, and as the stuff is flippin expensive that's a big lesson to take away. I don't want to waste money, so before I buy something I want I have to make sure I actually need it, finding out if other people needed it is helpful. I don't want 34 lenses, I thought I'd need a couple of decent prime lenses and one nice zoom, I'd also like a nice small prime as a walkabout lens. Ultimately as I said in my first post I didn't want to invest in Canon if something like Fuji would be a good option for me, I like the smaller Fuji body and the tilt up screen, with a small lens I could be more discrete with street photography. Or I could buy a better Canon body. No rush as I keep saying, but I won't stick with my current camera and one lens for the next 5 years!

Thanks for the discussion, it's really interesting

 

[jj_glos]

To answer the OP, I'd just have the Fuji kit I have now. The balance of ease of use, size and performance is great. I still also have a Canon setup which I really need to sell as it just doesn't get used. A 1D4 and 1Ds2 are great bits of kit (with a 7D backup), they really sing with lenses that the Fuji system doesn't have yet which is the main drawback of the system. However in the main the lenses available meet my needs. I do miss the Canon 70-200f2.8 II, and really that is what I still use occasionally when I bring out the DSLR. AF is far more accurate on the Fuji, AF tracking isn't quite there in some particular circumstances. In some uses it is far better, I can track with the 56f1.2 and hit every single shot with a subject coming towards me in good light no problem, I'd be dumping a significant amount of shots with the same use on DSLR. Battery life has never been an issue, but I don't chimp. I bought 5 extra batteries going in because of all the horror stories, but have never needed them all. Shot 2k+ shots on two batteries at RIAT this year easily enough, with IS enabled for a fair chunk as well. That's for the day with high fps used as shooting low shutter speed for props a lot.