chez wrote:
You sure sound like a cheerful guy. If I were you, I’d get off the internet, far away from your computer just in case it spontaneously catches fire. Better safe than sorry.
chez wrote:
I wouldn’t say guaranteed. Who knows what technology can do in the future. Maybe freezing people until a solution to their problem is found can keep people living. That’s the beauty of technology…you never know.
We'll all be gone long before that ever becomes a possibility, at least with humans.
jgoetz4 wrote:
We'll all be gone long before that ever becomes a possibility, at least with humans.
Personally I think I’d be gone today if it wasn’t for technology that let doctors enter my heart through a vein and cauterize 71 locations within my heart.
chez wrote:
Personally I think I’d be gone today if it wasn’t for technology that let doctors enter my heart through a vein and cauterize 71 locations within my heart.
My mother had that done back in the late 60's. It determined whether or not she needed a valve. She did, and a pig's valve was used. A friend had one done sometime in the early 90's, and the Dr loused up. Unfortunately, she died on the table.
I still use my 6D and 50 1.8 & Tamron 100-400 2.8 VC lens even though I bought in the R system a few yrs ago. Mainly because of the lighter weight, the 600 & 800 F/11 lenses & I can use my FD lenses with ease.
I really don't want local lakes and bayous drained or lowered so someone can cool off their stupid computer.
Take a look at lakes not having much water anymore (like Lake Travis probably others), apparently much or all of the time if you think I am paranoid. And AI data centers exacerbate the problem. Dallas etc already here trying, and unfortunately now a big push to get more AI data centers in TX
And I dont have ti buy a camera having AI features, if I dont feel like it. Plenty of people liked Fuji instax, old Canon p&s very expensive, and film reasonably popular. Not all about the tech
jgoetz4 wrote:
I still use my 6D and 50 1.8 & Tamron 100-400 2.8 VC lens even though I bought in the R system a few yrs ago. Mainly because of the lighter weight, the 600 & 800 F/11 lenses & I can use my FD lenses with ease.
Nothing wrong with a 6D or the 50/1.8
My 6D is still my go to camera. It delivers… what else is needed??
That appears to be a fake AI generated moon. And you thought we wouldn't notice
However, if it is a genuine shot from your ancient but expensive Canon P&S film camera it does appear that all the lakes and bayous are drained so the inhabitants from a billion or so years ago must have perished in the AI stage of their existence. Probably died of unquenched thirst
I believe it's the person behind the camera, and not the camera in front of the person that have the skills to create. My wedding photographer back in 1984 had a Mamiya with 2 lenses and 6 rolls of film. My wife and I still had a hard decision to make choosing 40 of the (approximately 90) pictures. He knew his camera well even though he shot weddings part time.
No question about that. A talented guitar player can make a $500 guitar sound like a $5000 guitar. Its all in the fingers if the instrument is decent, has reasonable action and is in tune. I suspect there is an equivalent analogy for photography.
And that moon shot is also, as are Mikes, a fantastic shot.
John Power wrote:
No question about that. A talented guitar player can make a $500 guitar sound like a $5000 guitar. Its all in the fingers if the instrument is decent, has reasonable action and is in tune. I suspect there is an equivalent analogy for photography.
And that moon shot is also, as are Mikes, a fantastic shot.
Thanks John, but honestly, I know I couldn't have taken that shot handheld without IS. It definitely makes a world of difference, as does the light weight of the lens.
Those of you still shooting DSLR’s
Why haven’t you gone R?
What would canon need to do for you to make the change?
I finally bought a used R5 and gave away my 5D2 earlier this year. The major reason was cost: A new R5 is $4500 CAD in the store, which is double what I paid for my 5D2. The hollowing out of the point and shoot market to smartphones (despite a recent novelty resurgence for compact cameras) means "serious" system cameras will be much more expensive, plus differences in the yen vs Canadian dollar. I had an RP since 2019.
Lens wise, I still don't own any RF lenses--my EF70-200mm f2.8L IS v2 is as sharp as the RF 70-200mm and works great for example.
You'd be surprised how many people haven't moved to R series bodies just due to cost and their existing DSLRs working just fine--not everybody subscribes to a need to upgrade constantly. I bought a 5D2 in 2011 and it worked great in 2011 when I got it and was fine in 2024. Certainly the R5 is better in low light and focus, but that's why photographers learn to use flashes and techniques to prefocus.
To answer the original question, the cost to buy into the RF system is so expensive and the system is heavy for this retired, old man's aging body. Owned an R5 and a RF 24-105 f/4 and adapted my EF superteles but sold it all because of the weight when comparing it to Fujifilm.
Right now, I'm happy when I want to slow down I pick up the 5DsR for landscape, portraits, macro, and astro.
I'm long on Fuji despite the autofocus issues. Been with Fujifilm since the X-T1 and saw the huge weight difference, film sims, etc.
When I get the itch for a mirrorless full-frame, I pick up my Leica Q3 43 which is fast becoming my go to travel camera.
tsangc wrote:
I finally bought a used R5 and gave away my 5D2 earlier this year. The major reason was cost: A new R5 is $4500 CAD in the store, which is double what I paid for my 5D2. The hollowing out of the point and shoot market to smartphones (despite a recent novelty resurgence for compact cameras) means "serious" system cameras will be much more expensive, plus differences in the yen vs Canadian dollar. I had an RP since 2019.
Lens wise, I still don't own any RF lenses--my EF70-200mm f2.8L IS v2 is as sharp as the RF 70-200mm and works great for example.
You'd be surprised how many people haven't moved to R series bodies just due to cost and their existing DSLRs working just fine--not everybody subscribes to a need to upgrade constantly. I bought a 5D2 in 2011 and it worked great in 2011 when I got it and was fine in 2024. Certainly the R5 is better in low light and focus, but that's why photographers learn to use flashes and techniques to prefocus.
I have a number of photos I have taken hanging in my house with any number of Canon DSRs. My favorite by far is a shot I took of a bird perched on a branch with my 5D and version 1 of the 24-70.
John Power wrote:
I have a number of photos I have taken hanging in my house with any number of Canon DSRs. My favorite by far is a shot I took of a bird perched on a branch with my 5D and version 1 of the 24-70.
Just imagine how much better it could have looked if you used an R5M2
I did look at your 7 assignment winning photos and they are fantastic photos. 
