Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?

[Dan Wells]

Keith Cooper just posted some interesting reflections on the S1r here... He's on Luminous - I got the link from another thread here - and he's a thoughtful photographer and reviewer.  If I got any of this wrong, I hope he'll jump in and correct me

The high-res mode is real, but it requires some pretty specific conditions many of us may not be able to meet much of the time (it would make no difference to my photography). Specifically, it requires an exceptional lens and a very good tripod. It also requires a motionless subject to make any difference.

The camera will substitute a blown-up piece of a single image for the composite image anywhere where it detects motion, so it can handle some limited motion without artifacts. in a test in front of my local camera shop, even steady hand-holding at a shutter speed where I had no problem getting critically sharp shots every time with high-res turned off was too much for this to work, so I'm not sure how much it can handle. Even when the motion compensation works, it gets no benefit unless the subject is completely motionless.

The blown-up single image is equivalent to doing what is probably a simple nearest neighbor resize on a Z7/D850/A7rII/A7rIII image. The advantage is that it can do this to part of the frame, so a rock formation can be rendered at 187MP even if the tree in front of it is at 47MP.

Keith didn't specify exactly what an exceptional lens and a very good tripod are, but, where he lists the lens he used, it's generally a Canon TS-E on an adapter (there's one shot in his review with the Panasonic 24-105). I'm guessing that the very good tripod and head requirement might be met by something like a Gitzo or RRS Series 3 with appropriate head?

For my use, those requirements are too heavy, and too many of my images contain motion. If I lived in Utah and generally photographed in Arches or similar places where most of the subjects are rock and most of the walks are less than a mile, I would be seriously looking at it. Many of my images are from long hikes (up to 20 miles in a day, hundreds in a trip), and my heaviest tripod is a Gitzo Series 1, while I also have a little Feisol tabletop. I'm actually looking at the new Peak as a possible replacement for the Series 1, since it packs so much smaller.

In that kind of use (handheld and very light tripod landscape), the S1r offers no benefit over high-resolution Nikon and Sony offerings, and the same in places like New England and the Pacific Northwest where subject motion is inevitable. You pay a little extra, end up with a system that's much heavier, and get little benefit. The calculus is quite different for architecture, still life, or relatively close to the car in places like the Desert Southwest where the landscape can largely be taken for granite.

[BernardLanguillier]

There is little doubt that multi-shot is a valuable addition.

I find puzzling that Nikon has not yet released a plan to add the feature on the Z7 although it obviously has the hardware needed to make it happen. Now, when we see how long Nikon needs to release new features though firmware upgrade, it would probably take them a year to make that actually available anyway but...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dan Wells]

The always interesting Thom Hogan has posted an interesting conundrum for the crop sensor camera manufacturers as an aside to an article that is largely about the new Mac Pro.

He says that crop sensor cameras are trapped in a narrow window...

First, they have to significantly outperform smartphones to interest anyone - and, he argues, they have to be as easy to share images from as phones are.

The latest generation of SnapBridge has gotten pretty good in that regard, because it uses Bluetooth to automatically reconnect to the camera - it then has to switch to WiFi to actually download the images, but it does that pretty much automatically (and it switches back when it's done). The most recent version of Fuji's software I have doesn't do that - you have to manually switch the WiFi in settings. Since I own Nikons and Fujis, I don't know what other manufacturers' software does. I find texting or emailing a Z7 image immediately after taking it, while it's still on the camera, to be little different from texting or e-mailing an iPhone image (except that no iPhone has a 14mm lens or 12+ stops of dynamic range). E-mailing images from Lightroom is not bad (Nikon or Fuji doesn't matter at all there, since it's an exported JPEG in either case), but I don't have a good way to text an image from Lightroom.

From a sensor standpoint, crop sensor cameras have a huge lead over smartphones, and diffraction keeps the phones from catching up, at least without using something like Light's 16-sensor camera... The wild card is phones' computational prowess and the poor quality of some kit lenses. Casual snapshots may not need to be better than phones can do (they're comparable to good 110 film, bad 35mm film (Gold 800 in a SuperDuperZoom 35mm compact), and compact digicams from a few years ago - all of which were largely considered OK for snapshots).

 For images that won't be printed or viewed on 4K or better displays, the real weakness to phones is dynamic range (which computational HDR can alleviate in some circumstances). The worst kit lenses may be able to reduce the effective resolution of a DSLR or mirrorless camera into the range of a really good phone - for whatever it's worth, DxOMark claims that some pancake kit lenses and low-end travel zooms can resolve only 4-6 of their "perceptual megapixels" - They don't do that test for phone lenses (unfortunately) - I wonder how the best of them would compare to that.

Second, crop cameras have to undercut the bottom end of full-frame - I'm not so sure I agree with him here. Obviously, full-frame is a constraint, but can't a crop camera with some distinguishing features sell for more than a stripped down FF camera? I'd pay more for an X-T3 or X-H1, with its excellent glass, durability and superb user interface, than for an EOS-RP, a D610 or an original A7.

While it's not for my style of photography, I'd say the E-M1 mkII also has a good argument to sell for more than a low-end full-frame camera. Its autofocus, speed and durability make it a "baby D5 (or baby 1Dx II if you prefer)" that can get shots that would be impossible with a camera that has very low-end features apart from the sensor. The same for the GH5 and all its video codecs.

Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to be viewing crop sensors as a value-only market, where a crop camera is almost always cheaper than full-frame, and the crop lenses are cheap zooms with a few pancake primes (and the occasional higher-end lens) thrown in. The occasional aberration (D500, 7D mkII, a6500) is rarely updated and has lens issues. Their cheap crop cameras are at direct risk from phones, too. All three of these companies are saying "full-frame is the future of serious photography".

Fuji (general photography with excellent lenses), Olympus (sports and action) and Panasonic (video) are taking a different approach. Their crop bodies can offer things full-frame doesn't, and it's there that I disagree with Thom. Who knows how big those niche markets are, but they're not trying to compete directly with either phones or the very low end of the full-frame market. They have full-frame competitors, but they're not the bottom of the FF barrel.

[chez]

Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?

[Martin Kristiansen]

There have been persistent rumors, understandably, about the A9ii. I most likely lack imagination on this but I can’t think of anything that would tempt me to upgrade. Since I bought the A9 it has become my favorite camera. I hardly use the A7riii. The A7riii is no slouch with auto focus but the A9 is in another league.

[BernardLanguillier]

Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?

Great news for photographers! The 600mm f4 seems very nice. But it’s quite telling they haven’t managed to make it lighter than the 3 years old Canon. We are probably near the limit of what can be done with metal based designs. The main news ends up being that Sony continues to aggressively fill the gaps in their line up, which in itself is important but I am not sure it will convince many additional photographers to lose thousands of US$ in a switch from D5 or 1DXII.

The fight btw the a9II and the D6 for best tracking AF will be interesting to watch. Right now I would still pick a D5 over the a9 for sports where eye AF isn’t that useful overall (it can be in some limited situations though), but it’s a close call. And who knows, Canon may be able to catch up in AF performance too.

The real unknown is Nikon and Canon’s move in terms of:
- mirrorless action bodies
- dedicated mirrorless super teles. I expect Nikon to start by releasing next gen 200mm f2.0 and 300mm f2.8 as mirrorless lenses since those are higher volume items that are well overdue for an upgrade anyways. A 200mm close to the 2kg limit would open some creative opportunities since it would become hand holdable.

We will see.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

Great news for photographers! The 600mm f4 seems very nice. But it’s quite telling they haven’t managed to make it lighter than the 3 years old Canon. We are probably near the limit of what can be done with metal based designs. The main news ends up being that Sony continues to aggressively fill the gaps in their line up, which in itself is important but I am not sure it will convince many additional photographers to lose thousands of US$ in a switch from D5 or 1DXII.

The fight btw the a9II and the D6 for best tracking AF will be interesting to watch. Right now I would still pick a D5 over the a9 for sports where eye AF isn’t that useful overall (it can be in some limited situations though), but it’s a close call. And who knows, Canon may be able to catch up in AF performance too.

The real unknown is Nikon and Canon’s move in terms of:
- mirrorless action bodies
- dedicated mirrorless super teles. I expect Nikon to start by releasing next gen 200mm f2.0 and 300mm f2.8 as mirrorless lenses since those are higher volume items that are well overdue for an upgrade anyways. A 200mm close to the 2kg limit would open some creative opportunities since it would become hand holdable.

We will see.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, it isn’t just eye AF on the A9 that separates it from the rest, it’s the ability to consistently track the subject anywhere in the viewfinder right to the edges and to pick up the subject if it gets obscured by some foreground objects. I’ve seen enough tests with the D5 and 1DX2 to convince me that the tracking of the A9 is already superior to the D5. Time will tell how much improvements the D6 has ( is there any announcements of a D6 ) and where the A92 will take us.

[Martin Kristiansen]

The A9 sticks like glue to whatever it identifies when you set it up right. It’s a long way from merely eye af as chez says. Also as Chez says the edge to edge focus points are very useful.  If you choose to compose and frame with a fast moving object near the edge of a frame it’s simply no problem. Eye AF is very useful but it’s jusr a part of the story with this camera. No distortion using the electronic shutter is another thing, the silent shooting is super useful.

[jeremyrh]

Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?

From reviews, the 200-600 looks awesome, especially for the money. It's the one I wish Nikon would make; 600 prime I can live without - at that price!

[BernardLanguillier]

The A9 sticks like glue to whatever it identifies when you set it up right. It’s a long way from merely eye af as chez says. Also as Chez says the edge to edge focus points are very useful.  If you choose to compose and frame with a fast moving object near the edge of a frame it’s simply no problem. Eye AF is very useful but it’s jusr a part of the story with this camera. No distortion using the electronic shutter is another thing, the silent shooting is super useful.

The AF of the a9 is excellent, but don’t underestimate the D5. Its tracking abilities sometimes feels like black magic.

It is true though that full frame coverage is a nice bonus, but I have seen only very rare cases when the D5 AF coverage isn’t sufficient for actual applications.

Anyways, I’ll stop here.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

On Thom Hogan’s pessimism about the currently dominant smaller ILC formats—APSC and 4/3”—I disagree, and put his mistake down to a familiar elitist “very serious photographer” attitude that most people who settle for less than the midsized ILC format of 36x24mm are dilettantes, more concerned with quick, easy online sharing of images than with the huge advantages in versatility (real zoom and telephoto reach for example) and light gathering speed that any current ILC format has over the far smaller sensors and aperture sizes of phone cameras. And maybe the fallacy of comparing prices for higher level kit in the smaller ILC formats to entry level kit in the larger format, ignoring all the advantages that such gear (e.g. most Fujifilm X or Olympus EM-1 or the very video capable Panasonic models) have to balance against a larger sensor’s potential advantages in other respects.

Even if you believe that people will mostly start with lower priced gear in the smaller ILC formats (with its big price advantage over any 36x24 format gear), there will be a clear advantage to then upgrading incrementally and backward compatibly within the same system and format rather than starting over in a larger format.

BTW, to the idea of segueing from APSC to 36x24 via cross-compatible lenses, both Canon and Nikon have effectively said that it is a low priority, by in different ways offering no good path between those formats in their MILC systems. The only cross format compatibility they have ever cared about was using 35mm film format lenses on smaller format DSLRs, not migrating in the other direction

[Martin Kristiansen]

The AF of the a9 is excellent, but don’t underestimate the D5. Its tracking abilities sometimes feels like black magic.

It is true though that full frame coverage is a nice bonus, but I have seen only very rare cases when the D5 AF coverage isn’t sufficient for actual applications.

Anyways, I’ll stop here.

Cheers,
Bernard

I’m sure the D5 is great but this sub forum is about mirrorless cameras and this thread is about the current mirrorless war. I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.

[kers]

... I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.

sounds very old fashion indeed

[BernardLanguillier]

I’m sure the D5 is great but this sub forum is about mirrorless cameras and this thread is about the current mirrorless war. I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.

OP priviledge? 

I find it reasonable to compare the performance of mirrorless cameras to DSLRs, certainly when claims are made that may not be 100% supported by the facts at hand, and certainly in a thread that is dedicated to the success factor in succeeding with mirrorless. Since let's not forget that the biggest competitors of mirrorless bodies remain DSLRs, even if we all agree that the trend is clearly towards mirrorless.

We sometimes collectively forget that today 90+% of interchangeable cameras in use are still DSLRs (and the real number may be 98%, who knows). Only a handful of very privileged photographers have had the luxury of migrating to mirrorless with the high costs associated. LL is totally unrepresentative of the world out there.

Cheers,
Bernard

[chez]

OP priviledge? 

I find it reasonable to compare the performance of mirrorless cameras to DSLRs, certainly when claims are made that may not be 100% supported by the facts at hand, and certainly in a thread that is dedicated to the success factor in succeeding with mirrorless. Since let's not forget that the biggest competitors of mirrorless bodies remain DSLRs, even if we all agree that the trend is clearly towards mirrorless.

We sometimes collectively forget that today 90+% of interchangeable cameras in use are still DSLRs (and the real number may be 98%, who knows). Only a handful of very privileged photographers have had the luxury of migrating to mirrorless with the high costs associated. LL is totally unrepresentative of the world out there.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sure...but the title of this thread is "Mirrorless war", not "Interchangable lens camera war". If we stick to mirrorless cameras...the A9's AF is heads and shoulders above anything else out there and with the introduction of the 600 f4 and 400 2.8...you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market. They need to add a 300 2.8 to this mix before the Tokyo Olympics and they'll be set.

[BernardLanguillier]

Sure...but the title of this thread is "Mirrorless war", not "Interchangable lens camera war". If we stick to mirrorless cameras...the A9's AF is heads and shoulders above anything else out there and with the introduction of the 600 f4 and 400 2.8...you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market. They need to add a 300 2.8 to this mix before the Tokyo Olympics and they'll be set.

Yes, this is very clear indeed. I would do the same if I were them and I am very happy to see them pushing then enveloppe. As I said, it's a great time to be a photographer.

Cheers,
Bernard

[32BT]

you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market.

^ This.

it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...

With the exception of celebrity birds, of course, but I'm sure that market isn't exactly cupcakes either.

[BernardLanguillier]

it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...

I’d be really surprised if pro photographers had much to do with the business success or failure of camera companies. To me it is 90% driven by amateurs.

But this is just a perception, I could be wrong obviously.

Cheers,
Bernard

[32BT]

I’d be really surprised if pro photographers had much to do with the business success or failure of camera companies. To me it is 90% driven by amateurs.

But this is just a perception, I could be wrong obviously.

Cheers,
Bernard

No, you're probably right, but I don't think that applies to a $13k lens with an A9 beast attached to it.

[Martin Kristiansen]

^ This.

it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...

With the exception of celebrity birds, of course, but I'm sure that market isn't exactly cupcakes either.

Not sure about that. I am able to keep body and soul together and in my market a sports photographer will get paid about $200 to shoot an international sporting event. How many of those would they have to shoot to pay for the Sony glass? I can’t shoot at those rates. I’m sure people shooting for the olympics get more than that but how big is that market?