p.9 #3 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
I may have said this earlier in this thread, or maybe it was on another thread. But I’ve had no issues with autofocus on a 5D4 and on an 80D. I haven’t tried it on any other bodies yet, but will certainly give it a try on the EOS R with adapter when it arrives.
(I am a mirrorless skeptic, but figure it’s better to try it out myself before drawing any conclusions.)
p.9 #4 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
moondigger wrote:
(I am a mirrorless skeptic, but figure it’s better to try it out myself before drawing any conclusions.)
Just curious, what aspects of mirrorless makes you a skeptic? I'm glad you are withholding judgement until you give it a try.
p.9 #5 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
My uncle is a serious hobbyist photographer, and was a working pro back in the 1970s and ‘80s. He was a Minolta shooter. Due to Sony’s aquisition in the early 2000s, and the natural evolution of his gear, he now shoots with Sony mirrorless cameras.
I have tried out his gear a few times, and assisted him with technology-related problems related to the gear, since he’s pretty old-school and still hasn’t 100% grasped the concept that modern cameras are really just computers with lens mounts.
I should make something clear before I continue: my uncle’s gear is not the very latest and greatest, so if Sony has improved their equipment in the ways that matter to me, my complaints here may well be out of date. I can’t even say for sure which models he has, but one is an APS-C body and one is full-frame.
That said, my skepticism about mirrorless is because:
1. I have seen absolutely nothing in his files that is (in any practical way) better than what I get from my Canon DSLR gear. What differences I see are minor and completely unrelated to the presence or absence of a mirror.
2. Autofocus with my Canon DSLR gear is much superior to the mirrorless bodies I’ve tried, no matter whether we’re talking about regular or live-view mode on the DSLRs. Of course, both of my main Canon bodies have dual pixel AF in live view, so maybe that’s why.
3. No matter how much time I’ve spent with my uncle’s mirrorless gear, I can’t escape the feeling that they operate like toys rather than a serious photographer’s tool. Part of it is the feeling in my hands and part is the ergonomics/human interface. Canon (and Nikon, and old Minolta) SLR bodies feel like cameras in my hands. The mirrorless bodies I’ve tried feel like toys pretending to be cameras.
So if I’m so skeptical of mirrorless, why am I getting an R? A big part of it is that Canon’s mirrorless body may address most of my concerns. I am already familiar with Canon’s dual pixel AF, and if it has been further refined in the R, it may meet my expectations. I think Canon might have a better shot at making it feel and operate like a serious photographer’s tool. Finally, the cost of entry is (relatively) low here — I don’t have to pay for a pro body just to try it out, and I can use all my existing lens collection. If I don’t end up liking it, I should be able to sell it in a month or two for not much less than I’m paying for it.
All that said, and even if Canon’s mirrorless body delivers good AF and feels right in my hands, I’m still skeptical that it will do anything for me that a DSLR can’t already do. I may come away from this with a body that suffices, but still wondering why there’s such a big push in the mirrorless direction.
p.9 #6 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
moondigger wrote:
My uncle is a serious hobbyist photographer, and was a working pro back in the 1970s and ‘80s.
Me too. I actually started in the '60s when working at the local TV station. Among other duties, I developed and cut news film and used a copy stand to prepare slides for commercials. moondigger wrote:
All that said, and even if Canon’s mirrorless body delivers good AF and feels right in my hands, I’m still skeptical that it will do anything for me that a DSLR can’t already do. I may come away from this with a body that suffices, but still wondering why there’s such a big push in the mirrorless direction.
The mirrorless SLR debate goes back long before digital. I started shooting with Leica M3s in the '60s, along with my trusty Exacta.
Rangefinder film cameras had some distinct advantages, but were definitely ill suited for a number of applications. Get them out of the 35-50-90mm range and they were pretty much a fish out of water. Focusing could be quick with the right lenses and they were oh so quiet.
Mirror box cameras were certainly a necessity in the early digital age. However, I think mirrorless advances in EVF/LCD and AF has at least evened up the playing field. Also, mirrorless doesn't require the pesky micro-adjustment required for some camera/lens combinations. I'm having a hard time thinking of any truly distinct advantages based on the technology that mirror box cameras now offer.
The Canon mirrorless looks like a great start and I hope it is successful. I understand about form factor and feeling like a "real" camera. That's why I bought a Fuji for travel. If you want to experience the handling of a "real" camera, try the X-T3, X-H1 or GF-X50s.
p.9 #7 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
I too use a 5D4/80D, and love the images I can get out of them. When it comes to IQ, ML doesn't bring anything to the table over what a DSLR can, but the one thing that I really like about my Fuji X100F is the ability to see the final exposure/look of the photo before you take it. To me, that's a pretty big benefit: no more chimping, no more guessing, faster + smoother work flow. Other than that though, I'm content with my DSLRs
Oh, and if indeed getting rid of the mirror means doing away with MFA... I'll be first in line.
p.9 #10 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
jough wrote:
I have this lens. Love the image quality. Hate the weight.
In fact, I think the weight is absurd, almost negating the lens's strong points.
After all, one can do as well with the much lighter 135 f/2 by moving back a bit.
Yes, agreed that it is as heavy as the 85 1.2, although a more pleasant shape to hold. But, and this is the rub, it has IS. I would buy in a heart-beat a 135 f:2 with IS, without it I would have blur. It could be worth trying to use the 135 on an R or RP, without the mirror movement it may be useable at slower speeds.
p.9 #12 · Canon 85mm f1.4 IS L First Images. Show us your Images.
Rivermist wrote:
Yes, agreed that it is as heavy as the 85 1.2, although a more pleasant shape to hold. But, and this is the rub, it has IS. I would buy in a heart-beat a 135 f:2 with IS, without it I would have blur. It could be worth trying to use the 135 on an R or RP, without the mirror movement it may be useable at slower speeds.
Totally agree that the 135 needs IS. I've been saying this for a decade, though. Still, I have and use the 135 because it's that good.
So is the 85 f/1.4.
Lenses have to be really special to remain in my collection (I'm a minimalist, and I no longer need to own lenses to cover every range).
The other really special lens is also one of C's cheapest: 40mm pancake.
