CCC Forum

As those who follow the forum will know, for a while now I have been using m43 cameras for general purpose work as I find them more convenient to carry around than a DSLR. I am not alone in wanting to use lighter cameras and Joe Cornish, for one, now shoots on Sony A7Rs in place of the medium format gear he used to carry; he reckons it results in a weight saving of 10 kg. Mirrorless does have an achilles heel when it comes to continuous AF and quite simply most systems are not up to the job. This was one of the issues I had with the Olympus E-M1 when I tried it over a weekend recently. It has both contrast and phase AF systems, with the latter being used to improve continuous AF performance, but I did not find that it worked well, especially with subjects moving quickly across the frame. Imaging Resource found the same when it tried out the new Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 lens, which is a pity since the reviews I have seen indicate that this is a first class optic whose use will be limited by the cameras on which it will be currently mounted.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/20 ... er-a-pro-q

Here is another convert to mirrorless with his reasoning behind his decision. Very informative.

http://www.diyphotography.net/going-mir ... on-lanier/

I saw that video - let's hope he sticks to stills as the quality of that video is shocking! How much random zooming in/out and moving? If you suffer from motion sickness then do not watch

Interesting video, although much of what he states is not particularly new. Thom Hogan has been saying much the same thing for quite a while. It is true that both Canon and Nikon are both sticking to the more traditional aspects of photography and ignoring some techical advances. The 7DII spec omitting Wi-Fi, which is only available with a £600 accessory is a case in point. Some of the things he mentions are best implemented with mirrorless technology, where neither Canon nor Nikon have competitive offerings. Something he mentions is the lack of pop up flashes on pros spec cameras. These cameras are built like tanks to withstand hard knocks, which is not really compatible with a flimsy on camera flash. Neither was I particularly convinced by his argument that Sony will fire other manufacturers' flash guns. My Olympus E-M10 triggers my Canon flash without any problems, but I as you would expect the automated E-TTL adjustment I get on a Canon camera is lacking.

I have heard that the continuous AF on the Sony 6000 works well, which makes the slow operation of the AF on the various Sony A7 models all the more puzzling. That, the abandon with which Sony introduces new mounts and the lack of native lenses are all negatives for Sony at present. When I went to a Sony presentation held in conjunction with Amateur Photographer recently, they were encouraging people to mount their Canon and Nikon lenses on the A7 using adapters, which reportedly slows the AF even more. There were supposed to be adapters which we could try, but Sony did not bring any along. They had forgotten them, allegedly.

Canon & Nikon are without doubt lagging behind on the innovation of new technology and it's application to cameras - but they are doing this because they've invested in other parts of the process, like an extensive range of quality lenses and weather sealing (targetted to their pro market). Some of their decisions are mystifying at first, like why the 7d2 doesn't have wifi, but then when you consider who it's targetted at, the pro looking to take advantage of the 1.6x crop factor with the burst & AF facilities of the 1dx who is likely to be "in the field" a lot then it makes more sense. The 6D which DOES have wifi and gps has a less sturdy case so they can send signals through the body but the 7d2 is much tougher and doesn't have that. It's a trade off, and because they know a pro who wants wifi will buy a 600GBP add-on, they still make money.

The on camera flash is something I care about much less though. I was a little worried before getting the 6D that I'd be losing something but I have never once wanted the flash and found myself missing it, even for fill-in purposes. If I need a flash, I'll take a proper one I can control rather than the crappy built in ones.

Videos like this are all too common and even ignoring the possibility of shill presentations, it's all massive bandwagoning by people who have decided to switch and make a video so it gets them hits. It's marketing

Besides, you'll never see a video of someone who switches from Canon to Sony who then says "actually, I miss having a camera I can drop and will still work afterwards, that can actually AF accurately, that has more than 4 lenses available to me and has enough battery efficiency to last a day of shooting. You know what, I made a mistake, I bought a new toy when either camera would let me take the same picture"... because who is going to admit that?

There are rumours that both Canon and Nikon will enter the mirrorless market in a more serious way early in 2015. It is a difficult balancing act for both due to the legacy of their existing systems, with the need to protect traditional income streams during the transition and not lose customers to other brands. Camera sales are declining overall and while DSLRs remain in the majority, mirrorless sales are rising. It's that which probably makes the time right to commence the switch before other manufacturers get more than a toehold. Some aspects of mirrorless performance still lag behind DSLRs as I mentioned in my original post, but that situation will only be temporary. The first manufacturer(s) who can nail the technical issues and produce a big enough supporting system will prevail. Producing roadmaps, which has been the strategy for Fuji and Sony, will not convince many until they can get the actual gear in their hands.

I understand what you say about the problems with implementing Wi-Fi in the 7DII, but the cost of the accessory is out of proportion compared to the price of the camera. As you say, pros who need the facility will pay if they do not already have one and the 7DII is unlikely to be purchased by those who are more interested in immediate posting of their results to social media. Why a pro such as Jason Lanier would want to allow their unprocessed and unedited shots to be seen is something of a mystery. Where I do think Wi-Fi has a value is in allowing remote operation of the camera and providing a live view display on a mobile device. I have that on the Olympus E-M10, but a lack of a compatible device means that I have not tried it - in that regard buying a Windows 8 phone was a mistake and I have yet to invest in a tablet. The feature might be of limited use, but I can see situations where even a pro could benefit from such a facility.

LIke you, I have not used on camera flash that much. It's useful if you do not have a flashgun and can be used to trigger slaves, but wireless does that as well and the triggers are cheap to buy.

In terms of image quality, there is little to differentiate consumer models from more expensive cameras and Jason Lanier is not the only person to use the former professionally. I can see that clients could get nervous if a pro does not turn up with the "proper" kit, which might or might not be justified. A few years ago, I saw a couple of "pros" who had apparently been recommended by a well known fashion magazine shoot my nephew's wedding with Canon 20Ds which had long been superseded. I never did see the results, which I was told were disappointing, although having seen the way that they worked I was not surprised. The equipment had merely been the warning sign which made me look more closely at what they were doing.

I must admit that I do not normally look at videos such as this and would not have bothered this time if it had not been linked on the forum. In fact, I did not really watch it and mainly listened to the audio as I did something else, so some of the poor video techniques bypassed me. Sometimes, though, Jason Lanier did seem to border on hysteria and I doubt whether I will again bother with similar productions. A camera is only a means to an end and surely it is the image which is more important. What you use to get there is often irrelevant and down to personal choice in matching the capabilities of the equipment to the circumstances of what you are shooting.