The EOS M5 Is Here

On 17/09/2016 19:19, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Me says...

On 17/09/2016 11:21, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 16 September 2016 10:18:19 UTC-4, android wrote:
In article , Noons
wrote:

On 16/09/2016 10:43 @wiz, David Taylor wrote:

Well, mFT sucks so it's irrelevant...

Might for you, but it's capable of very good results, and has a much
wider range of lenses available than the Canon.


Indeed. And it can do some amazing astro-photography as well!
And when it comes to video, all others suck a lot more!
The Panasonic mFT cameras are second to none when it comes to video.
I'm in awe at what the EM5M2 can do. Looking forward to the EM1M2,
should be out very soon.

You guys are beyond help... ;-PPP
--
teleportation kills

I honestly think the people who are beyond help buy FF cameras in the mistaken belief that it somehow brings their efforts more in-line with the work of "pros." They don't.

I think that the opinions to be least trusted are those from zealots.
Plenty of those in the MFT and particularly Fuji half-frame camps.
Nothing "wrong" with those cameras - they are what they are, if that's
adequate then be happy.

And there are no zealots in the FF or DSLR camps?

Sure there are, as well as MF, cellphone camera, etc. A few years back
we had "the P&S troll" in this forum, expressing his opinion zealously
that anything larger format or more expensive than a P&S camera was a
waste of money.
The way it always seems to go is that zealous users of smaller formats
harp on about how inconvenient any larger format system is because of
size, but how any decrease in image quality from the reduced sensor size
doesn't matter, doesn't apply to them, or doesn't exist.

On 18/09/2016 5:19 @wiz, Me wrote:

The way it always seems to go is that zealous users of smaller formats
harp on about how inconvenient any larger format system is because of
size, but how any decrease in image quality from the reduced sensor size
doesn't matter, doesn't apply to them, or doesn't exist.

And if all else fails, double the megapixels.
Any probs? Just downrez. Easy peasy!

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:14:11 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
: In article , says...
:
: I have many educated friends who are happy with blurred, crooked, dark
: photos that are really terrible. It is the McDonald's of photography,
: and so many people are absolutely amazed when I give them a sharp 8x10"
: paper print.
:
: I think that there will always be a small number of people like us who
: enjoy photography at a moderate or high level of skill. Similarly, you
: have Chevrolets and Ferraris.
:
: You also have drivers and operators. Take a ride in some cheap econobox
: with a competitive Formula 1 driver sometime. It won't be like you
: expect.

I would expect that driver, of all people, to clearly understand the
difference between a cheap econobox and a Formula 1 car. Would I be
disappointed?

Bob

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:36:09 +1000, Noons wrote:
:
: The DSLR is based on a design that is 50+ years old.
: It is incredibly backwards and amazing how folks are clinging to it in
: desperation, because "pros" use them.
: They mostly don't, anymore. The only ones that still do are the "sports
: photography" ones and even those are starting to change their minds.
: About time, too!

Are you serious or just sounding off for effect? For at least the past twelve
years, I can't remember seeing any professional photographer use anything but
a DSLR. Most of the pros I've seen at work during that period have been
photojournalists or event photographers, but I don't doubt that the rest are
pretty similar in their habits. Certainly the assertion that only sports
photographers still use DSLRs is nonsense.

I don't doubt that mirrorless cameras are the wave of the future for most
types of serious photography. But we're not there yet.

Bob