RoamingScott wrote: trippalhealick wrote: RoamingScott wrote:
I will play devil's advocate. If you have the means to do so monetarily without significant stress to your financials or marital situation...
Often buying and trying (and selling if you don't like) is cheaper in the long run than renting. The added advantage is that you can keep the gear far longer, and if you buy used, you don't eat so much depreciation.
Half of knowing what you like and what works well for you is knowing what you dislike. When I had the R5 in hand, the left hand power button was an immediate dealbreaker for me. The latency of the mode selector was such a bad experience that not many reviewers touched on. I didn't know that until I had the chance to try to live with it.
I didn't expect to like the Z9. Everyone bitched about how big it was, how ungainly use was, etc. Turns out, I fell in love with it the moment I held it, despite never having an integrated grip camera before.
All of these things are just part of the journey of finding the tools we vibe with. Whether you catch and release like me, or just rent for a week at a time, there's a lot of value in trying as much as you can to laser focus on your actual needs and preferences.
My thoughts, as well. I buy from places like B&H, Adorama and even Amazon and return the items if I don't like them. It's FAR cheaper than renting. These retailers still sell these items (as open box) and still make a profit off them. They wouldn't offer the ability to return/refund if they couldn't or didn't still make money off the items. I also agree with the left-side power button thing. Same immediate shock I had when trying the R5 and R3. I have the same reservations of Leica's SL cameras with the power button or switch on the left side (at least with the SL3). What I hate most is manufacturers changing this from model iteration to model iteration (e.g R5 > R5 mk2) where the power button will be on the left side one year, and then on the right side the next. Pick a general design formula and stick with it so your users can build that muscle memory. I feel the same about Sony moving that movie button to the top of the A7RV.
I have to give Canon props for rectifying one of their most braindead design decisions of the last 20 years. I'd rather them move it to the correct side than just press ahead in the name of "muscle memory".
Now if we could get Nikon to stop making cameras with the playback button on the left side...
The play button is on the right side on the Z6III/Z8/Z9. Perfect for larger lenses.
Overall I am personally more of a sampler than a switcher. Nikon has been my main system for many years but I have added Sony bodies when they delivered value to me such as the a9III. It’s great since Sony lenses adapt with excellent AF on Nikon bodies. Fuji also for higher res landscape. All these cameras have similar physical UI (menus are very different though).
So I understand those that would prefer to not switch and think we are still in a pendulum situation where brands overtake each other at every release.
However is that really the case? Is Canon still not behind the a1/Z9/Z8 with the R5II and R1? And even if they have managed to take a small lead in some aspects (possibly bird AF although that remains to be confirmed), are they not going to be years behind again in a few months when the a1II/Z9II ship? Those will certainly feature faster read out speeds (probably 1/600s), 2 or 3 times faster processors,…
I think that is a real question and waiting until those show up is probably the most reasonable decision. This may be why photorumors is reporting that numbers of R1 pre-orders are much lower than recent Sony/Nikon flagships even in the US where Canon still has a strong following (and supposedly has a much higher market share). If those market share numbers really apply to high end FF cameras also, it means that the ratio of R1 pre-orders may be 5 to 10 times lower than the Z9. Not insignificant.
Would the announcement of a Nikon 200-500mm f4 S TC influence such decisions? Canon has not included a TC in their 100-300mm f2.8, would they include one in their rumored 200-500mm f4?
