7DmkII or 70D?

[havoc315]

I'm going to address this directly: CIPA just released total sales figures for Jan-April. For Nikon bodies, you can track by serial numbers seen in the pipe, as they're produced sequentially (even as they're regionalized), and Nikon themselves gives some indication as well in their financial reports. You and I both know that the D750 doesn't sell nearly as much as the D3300. As for QVC, Thom Hogan did that that research, and had it up on his front page for a week or two. Amazon and Flickr are pretty much small peanuts in the camera market, even though they're highly visible ones.

In total sales, mirrorless is peanuts. Now, that's not to say it is in total shutter clicks, just in sales, but a best-seller it is not in the ILC market. The good news for mirrorless moving forward is that sales of bodies are not the be-all-end-all, as the more clicks on any given mount, the more lenses tend to be sold (all else equal ... which it isn't, but that's another story).

Please post a link actually demonstrating those sales numbers. Again, I don't believe they are accurate. We know that mirrorless is 1/3rd of all ILC camera sales (according to CIPA). So it does stand to reason that some mirrorless models sell just as well as some dSLR models.

 

[jec6613]

Please post a link actually demonstrating those sales numbers. Again, I don't believe they are accurate. We know that mirrorless is 1/3rd of all ILC camera sales (according to CIPA). So it does stand to reason that some mirrorless models sell just as well as some dSLR models.

*le sigh* no, it isn't 1/3, not even close.. It's 23.2% of shipments by units, 22.6% of production by units, 20.2% of shipments by value, 20.7% of production by value. That's less than 1/4, and by value about 1/5. That's for the first four months of this year.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201504_e.pdf

 

[havoc315]

Let's look at the supposed advantages of dSLR... whether they are still advantages, or likely to be in the future:

It does still leave the SLR with a very sizable advantage in certain areas:

• Zero lag TTL viewing (even a Genlocked EVF like the Samsung NX is still 1/60 of a second delayed)

Actually, I think it's less than 1/60th of a second -- which is already invisible to the naked eye. So it's an invisible lag, which will only get shorter and shorter as the technology speeds up.

• Less heat coming off the sensor and electronics allows the user to use the unit continuously for longer

I've never seen extensive reports of overheating issues, except in video use (from mirrorless AND dSLR). In fact, along a similar note, a mirrorless camera can last longer, without the wear and tear of a flipping mirror.

• Battery life is substantially longer, as very few electronics are powered most of the time. Most DSLRs clock in at 4-5 times as many photos as a mirrorless of the same size battery

Just a matter of needing more efficient batteries. The battery life of the NX1, for example, is longer than many dSLRs. For example, the NX1 has a battery life of 500 shots -- that's longer than most Canon APS-C cameras! So we can already cross this off the list as a major concern. Not like mirrorless camera batteries die after 20 shots while dSLRs can last 2000 shots. Overall, on average, dSLR battery life is longer than mirrorless But as shown in my example, there are already mirrorless cameras with longer battery life than many dSLRs.

• Much faster autofocus with all lenses,

Gotta sound the buzzer on that one. It was true a couple years ago, no longer true. A camera like the A6000 already has faster AF than most dSLRs. Can still wait for more reviews, but early reviews suggest that the A7rii can autofocus Canon lenses just as fast as a native Canon camera.

And then there are also practical differences caused by the camera market:

• DSLRs have much larger lens sets offering a huge variety of glass to resolve any particular need. Off of the top of my head, Nikon has a half dozen exotic telephotos, four teleconverters, five Macro, three perspective control, four f/2.8 zooms, five f/4 zooms, and a full stable of non-exotic primes from 14 mm through 300 mm, including ones that allow discrete bokeh control ... and that's just in current production.

Again, mirrorless are moving towards universal mounts. So you can take all those exotic lenses, use them on mirrorless, without compromise.

• DSLR ergonomics are developed over decades of experience, and on mid to high end ones everything can be adjusted with the viewfinder to your eye and by feel, and the camera is designed to get out of the way and just shoot.

So just build a mirrorless with the exact same ergonomics.


Now, the practical summary of all of this:



Yesterday, a hawk flew over. I swung my camera up, mashed AF-ON and my shutter as soon as it was at all in my viewfinder, and my D7200 rattled off 43 perfectly in focus shots from a 300 mm f/4 with 1.4x teleconverter as it flew over. Even the Nikon 1 system, holder of the fast focus crown for mirrorless (smaller lenses, after all), can't compete with that, and I know it, as my fiance owns one (that I'm a bit jealous of, might I add, but that's another story). Every single one, it didn't even miss the first shot, at 7 FPS, when the lens was focused at 10 feet and the hawk was at 200 feet.

And we are getting to the point where you can do the exact same thing with mirrorless -- Even use the same lens, same teleconverter. But get a perfect 11 (A6000) or perfect 15 (NX1) images, instead of just 7.

You keep banging on about mirrorless like it's the second coming - it's not, and it has quite a ways to mature. But it's good enough for you and a lot of other people, and is rapidly going to have a larger market penetration and in 5 years (my guess) surpass DSLRs in sales. But they can never completely replace SLRs, simply because to do so, they must give up all of their inherent mirrorless advantages and incorporate a long throw PDAF sensor.

Second coming --- No, it's not. But it's a computer versus a typewriter. And it isn't good enough for me -- YET. I shoot with the D750, I shoot with lenses totally unavailable in current mirrorless cameras. Up until 3 days ago, there was no full frame mirrorless with good AF speed. The technology is very very rapidly maturing, including just in recent days.
I expect that within a couple of years (if not faster), there will be mirrorless full frame that will fully support all my Nikon F-lenses, and will AF faster than any dSLR. When that happens, it will be good enough for me. It will be good enough for my professional and amateur photography. I'm just being realistic about the evolution of the technology and market.

 

[havoc315]

*le sigh* no, it isn't 1/3, not even close.. It's 23.2% of shipments by units, 22.6% of production by units, 20.2% of shipments by value, 20.7% of production by value. That's less than 1/4, and by value about 1/5. That's for the first four months of this year.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201504_e.pdf

Again, please show me individual unit sales.

 

[jec6613]

You made a specific request showing that mirrorless wasn't 1/3 of the market, I gave you the CIPA numbers. I do have some non-public information, but here's the public pieces to put it all together:

Nikon's 2015 fiscal report: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2015/15_4qf_c_e.pdf

It indicates their 34% market share of ILC, which means that Nikon sells about 50% more cameras than the entire mirrorless segment put together. With a lens unit share of 29.5% and assuming their statement from fiscal 2014 holds true (1.4 lenses per body), that means that Nikon bodies with kit lenses accounted for 24% of the total camera market by unit sales. Some D5x00 were sold without lenses, and some D7100 (almost a non-contributor as it was EOL in that quarter), D610 and D750 were sold with lenses, but the end of that is: the plastic Nikon bodies outsold the entire mirrorless segment put together. Things actually got worse for mirrorless in April (this is common, DSLRs sell quite well in April/May, and mirrorless sell very well in November).

As for AF performance, recall how PDAF works:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works

One of the important parts of its performance is the lens to sensor distance, which in the case of mirrorless is the microlens to image sensor distance (read: very short). With that short distance, PDAF can do fine tuning once it's in the ballpark and the subject is reasonably in focus, but it cannot slam the lens the close up stop to near infinity and know exactly where it should be while the shutter is cocking to fire. That requires a reflex (or pellicle, in the case of the Sony Alpha mirrorless) mirror. And, again, if you throw that mirror in the way to make a true action oriented PDAF system, you lose many of the advantages of mirrorless.

Another example I can think of where mirrorless won't keep up is rink-side ice hockey - when the puck goes from across the rink to somebody next to you, a mirrorless system switches to CDAF until it gets close, then back to PDAF. It's the initial acquisition where mirrorless fall down, not the tracking of a fairly predictable subject in motion. This effect becomes exaggerated as the focal length climbs (absolute focal length, not relative).

As for AF performance, no, the A7II isn't on par with a DSLR, unless you stick the adapter on it for DSLR lenses, which has a mirror and PDAF sensor ... yeah. It suddenly makes it not so mirrorless.

As for using existing lenses, they're virtually all optimized to deliver light to the AF sensor in a DSLR the way it wants it, and be fast with that. Sonic ring motors don't play nicely with the short focal distance of a mirrorless PDAF sensor, which is why Canon is moving to STM motors in many of its newer lenses, which both allow better PDAF from a sensor and better CDAF for older bodies. It's also why the FT-1 from Nikon will only use a single center cross type AF sensor, the rest won't focus reliably. So, sure, I can bolt on an existing piece of glass to a mirrorless camera, but that doesn't make the performance the same as one optimized for mirrorless use.

And, yes, I'm choosing my lens purchases carefully to ensure that the ones I'm buying nowadays are ones I'll want to keep in an SLR long-term, recognizing that updating mid zooms to ones still not optimized for mirrorless is a bit silly.

 

[havoc315]

No... I asked for evidence supporting your claim that the a6000 doesn't sell as well as dslrs. I cited imperfect, but best available evidence, that the a6000 is as popular as most dslrs. You haven't posted anything to show otherwise.

Your knowledge of mirrorless autofocus is also very very outdated. I didn't say a7ii -- which auto focuses slower. I said a7rii and a6000 -- the a6000 is already known to autofocus faster than most dslrs. The a7rii requires some confirmatory testing... But early reviews suggest that it can autofocus legacy lenses, nearly as fast as native bodies. No mirrored adapter needed. No switching between cdaf and pdaf. No limits to center point only -- using 399 pdaf points to drive native mirrorless lenses (where is does also use cdaf) and also driving all Canon Ef lenses and all Sony sam/ssm lenses.

You're taking the technology as it existed yesterday, and making false assumptions about where it is headed. The a7rii already disproves most of your assumptions.

And going back to your prior post, take a look at how well zackidawg does shooting birds in flight with the a6000. He has posted numerous times, that for tracking birds in flight, his a6000 outperforms his dslr.

 

[elmoandzoey]

Back to the question now Reading up on all this I am now wondering if maybe getting an EOS M and a lens adapter would be a better way to go than getting a 70D... I have a 60D after all and would just need a backup. The EOS M will be better than the 40D I had after all - and I am quite happy with the 60D as my prime. Hm.... a smaller body may be nice to have in certain situations.

 

[SkaGoat]

No... I asked for evidence supporting your claim that the a6000 doesn't sell as well as dslrs. I cited imperfect, but best available evidence, that the a6000 is as popular as most dslrs. You haven't posted anything to show otherwise.

Your knowledge of mirrorless autofocus is also very very outdated. I didn't say a7ii -- which auto focuses slower. I said a7rii and a6000 -- the a6000 is already known to autofocus faster than most dslrs. The a7rii requires some confirmatory testing... But early reviews suggest that it can autofocus legacy lenses, nearly as fast as native bodies. No mirrored adapter needed. No switching between cdaf and pdaf. No limits to center point only -- using 399 pdaf points to drive native mirrorless lenses (where is does also use cdaf) and also driving all Canon Ef lenses and all Sony sam/ssm lenses.

You're taking the technology as it existed yesterday, and making false assumptions about where it is headed. The a7rii already disproves most of your assumptions.

And going back to your prior post, take a look at how well zackidawg does shooting birds in flight with the a6000. He has posted numerous times, that for tracking birds in flight, his a6000 outperforms his dslr.

the problem is the a6000 is worse than a 70D when focus tracking, and it's an older camera, with an older AF system.

So I'm in complete agreement, that if you want a camera that can grab initial focus great in great light, then the modern mirrorless have no problem with that, but once you try to track objects, especially coming at/moving away from the camera, the Sony cameras still aren't great.

Don't even get me started with EVF, and the terrible lens selection, makes the current crop of Sony mirrorless a no go for most.

 

[nbaresejr]

Things that aren't a huge issue for me.. .fast burst rate and a bazillion AF points.

I think you answered your question with that statement. The 7D mkii is those things. If you dont have a need for it the cost over the 70D is almost a waste. The 70D will do all the things you want in a crop camera. It has a good AF system, Duel Pixel, video. Good IQ up to 6400 (the 7d mkii is a little better according to reports).

You also mentioned your husband. The t6i/s will be a little small for his hands. I think the 70D is going to be better for him to hold.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[havoc315]

Just to get specific:

You made a specific request showing that mirrorless wasn't 1/3 of the market, I gave you the CIPA numbers. I do have some non-public information, but here's the public pieces to put it all together:

Nikon's 2015 fiscal report: http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2015/15_4qf_c_e.pdf

It indicates their 34% market share of ILC, which means that Nikon sells about 50% more cameras than the entire mirrorless segment put together. With a lens unit share of 29.5% and assuming their statement from fiscal 2014 holds true (1.4 lenses per body), that means that Nikon bodies with kit lenses accounted for 24% of the total camera market by unit sales. Some D5x00 were sold without lenses, and some D7100 (almost a non-contributor as it was EOL in that quarter), D610 and D750 were sold with lenses, but the end of that is: the plastic Nikon bodies outsold the entire mirrorless segment put together. Things actually got worse for mirrorless in April (this is common, DSLRs sell quite well in April/May, and mirrorless sell very well in November).

None of that shows that the Nikon D3300 or D5500 outsells the A6000. I have repeatedly stated, that currently, all combined dSLRs outsell all combined mirrorless. It does not mean that every dSLR model outsells every mirrorless model. For APS-C and full frame shooting, there are far more dSLR choices than mirrorless choices.

As for AF performance, recall how PDAF works:
https://photographylife.com/how-phase-detection-autofocus-works

That's how it used to work... and still works on dSLRs... mirrorless are changing that dynamic...

One of the important parts of its performance is the lens to sensor distance, which in the case of mirrorless is the microlens to image sensor distance (read: very short). With that short distance, PDAF can do fine tuning once it's in the ballpark and the subject is reasonably in focus, but it cannot slam the lens the close up stop to near infinity and know exactly where it should be while the shutter is cocking to fire. That requires a reflex (or pellicle, in the case of the Sony Alpha mirrorless) mirror. And, again, if you throw that mirror in the way to make a true action oriented PDAF system, you lose many of the advantages of mirrorless.

False. May have been mostly true a week ago, no longer true.
See below..


Another example I can think of where mirrorless won't keep up is rink-side ice hockey - when the puck goes from across the rink to somebody next to you, a mirrorless system switches to CDAF until it gets close, then back to PDAF. It's the initial acquisition where mirrorless fall down, not the tracking of a fairly predictable subject in motion. This effect becomes exaggerated as the focal length climbs (absolute focal length, not relative).

As for AF performance, no, the A7II isn't on par with a DSLR, unless you stick the adapter on it for DSLR lenses, which has a mirror and PDAF sensor ... yeah. It suddenly makes it not so mirrorless.

Doubly false.. never said the A7ii... said the A7rii. Which does need a simple spacing adapter, but no longer needs a PDAF sensor-mirror adapter. Thus, it is still mirrorless. Don't take my word for it, from imaging-resource:

A7R II autofocusing with a Canon lens
One of the key features of the A7R II is that they claim it can autofocus conventional SLR lenses mounted via adapters very quickly. They showed me as an example an A7R II with a Canon EF 24-70mm attached via a Metabones "smart" adapter. Even though we were in a pretty dimly-lit conference room, the A7R II seemed extremely responsive, with very little delay between me half-pressing the shutter button and the beep of focus-confirmation. Sony's Mark Weir noted that this was the first time a full-frame mirrorless camera could focus traditional SLR lenses as fast as SLRs could. He noted that in this mode, the A7R Mark II was using only phase-detect AF, vs the two-stage hybrid approach Maki-san mentioned earlier.

I did find that the camera could sometimes get a little confused when the subject was far out of focus, sometimes initially moving in the wrong direction, but when the subject was out of focus by an amount more typical of real-world situations, it was remarkably fast. Frankly, I've very often seen pure phase-detect SLRs do the same thing when subjects were far out of focus, so am not sure to what extent the behavior I saw in the A7R II was atypical.

In any case, at least with two different Canon EF lenses I played with on the A7R II (the other was a 24-105mm L lens), AF seemed entirely fast enough for most uses. With the use of "smart" adapters to translate the focus-motor signals from camera to lens, the A7R II could well be the first truly "universal" camera body we've seen. (When I mentioned the cost of such adapters, Mark Weir pointed out that, while the groundbreaking Metabones Smart Adapters go for $400, there are competing models on the market these days, for as little as $100 apiece.)


As for using existing lenses, they're virtually all optimized to deliver light to the AF sensor in a DSLR the way it wants it, and be fast with that. Sonic ring motors don't play nicely with the short focal distance of a mirrorless PDAF sensor, which is why Canon is moving to STM motors in many of its newer lenses, which both allow better PDAF from a sensor and better CDAF for older bodies. It's also why the FT-1 from Nikon will only use a single center cross type AF sensor, the rest won't focus reliably. So, sure, I can bolt on an existing piece of glass to a mirrorless camera, but that doesn't make the performance the same as one optimized for mirrorless use.

Yes, that was Nikon's imperfect solution, several years ago. Guess what... things have progressed. See above-- Now, a mirrorless PDAF sensor is good enough to drive non-STM Canon lenses, just about as effectively as a native Canon body.

So take that FT-1 adapter, but instead of just a single center point in a 1" sensor... instead, it now works with 399 phase detect points, covering 40% of a full frame sensor.

And, yes, I'm choosing my lens purchases carefully to ensure that the ones I'm buying nowadays are ones I'll want to keep in an SLR long-term, recognizing that updating mid zooms to ones still not optimized for mirrorless is a bit silly.

If the A7rii is the real thing, then they are ALL optimized for mirrorless...

The A7rii looks like a huge leap forward, showing what is possible. It's a very very expensive camera, at over $3000. But technology always cheapens over time, and usually quickly. And maybe it doesn't drive every legacy dSLR lens with 100% of the speed of a native body --- but it was close enough that editors at imaging-resource felt it was just as fast. I know editors at dPreview found it just slightly slower than using a native body.

So if mirrorless right now --- yes at a price of $3200 -- can drive LEGACY dSLR lenses with 90% of the speed of a native dSLR body... Then where are we going in 2 years? 4 years? Mirrorless bodies that cost under $1,000, that can drive every legacy lens, at speed and efficiency matching today's dSLRs. (With tracking and accuracy superior to today's dSLRs already).

I actually found this interesting... the review of the D7200 on dpreview.... The D7100 got the gold award a couple years ago. Around that time, most reviews of most mirrorless cameras contained lines like, "Good for mirrorless... but still behind a dSLR."
Now it's reversed... the D7200 only got a silver award, with statements that it is falling behind mirrorless: Some comments from the review:

" While the D7200 is great as a traditional DSLR, its rivals have learned other tricks: Canon's EOS 70D offers better video AF, while the more expensive Samsung NX1 is a fraction better across many metrics (video spec, video AF, shooting rate and maybe even focus tracking). Meanwhile the Pentax K-3 II offers more substantial build and built-in stabilization, and Sony's a6000 does much of the above for a lot less money."
(Yes.. the Pentax and 70D are traditional dSLRs. But the NX1 and A6000 are mirrorless.)

Also, you claimed that a mirrorless can't do long auto-focus for birds in flight...

I'll point you to the contradictory evidence right on this board:

Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

Here is a nice quote from our fellow forum member, well versed in bird photography, using mirrorless and dSLR:

"Still enjoying the lightweight combo of A6000 plus FE70-200mm F4 G OSS lens, and finding this rig is especially fun and capable for BIF shooting, to the point I actually prefer using it for birds-in-flight to my DSLR as it's just so fast and accurate with the tracking."

 

[havoc315]

the problem is the a6000 is worse than a 70D when focus tracking, and it's an older camera, with an older AF system.

So I'm in complete agreement, that if you want a camera that can grab initial focus great in great light, then the modern mirrorless have no problem with that, but once you try to track objects, especially coming at/moving away from the camera, the Sony cameras still aren't great.

Don't even get me started with EVF, and the terrible lens selection, makes the current crop of Sony mirrorless a no go for most.

1. Where do you get that? It's far superior to the 70D for focus tracking.... Take a look at depreview, which claims is tracks focus even better than the 7dii. And where do you get that it's an older camera with an older AF system? It's 1 year newer than the 70d??!?????

2. Lens selection for the A6000 is limited. But that's changing quickly.... As in the near future, every single Canon lenses will essentially be compatible. They are all now compatible with the A7rii.

Feels like many people make assumptions about mirrorless, based on a quick look at a model 3 years ago. In terms of AF -- they now track better than dSLRs, they are more accurate than dSLRs. And in good light, they are as fast or faster than dSLRs. They still need some low light improvement.
In terms of EVF, a good EVF is now better than an OVF in about 95% of ways. (I prefer an OVF solely for action tracking when shooting at a super high burst rate. For any type of single shot shooting, or under 5 fps, EVF is preferable).
In terms of lenses.... Not only is the native lens selection growing, but it is becoming irrelevant, as the cameras are becoming "universal" -- accepting any lens ever created.

 

[photo_chick]

I think you answered your question with that statement. The 7D mkii is those things. If you dont have a need for it the cost over the 70D is almost a waste. The 70D will do all the things you want in a crop camera. It has a good AF system, Duel Pixel, video. Good IQ up to 6400 (the 7d mkii is a little better according to reports).

You also mentioned your husband. The t6i/s will be a little small for his hands. I think the 70D is going to be better for him to hold.

Good luck with your decision.

Where I get hung up on the 7DmkII is the other high end features it has. The ability to easily plug it into a video rig, advanced video features and other features that come into play with studio shooting. So I'm at the line now where I have to decide. Is this truly a backup for casual use, in which case I buy the Rebel T6s and get more glass with the savings (hubs has no problems with the size though Rebels do look like itty bitty toys in his hands).Or is it to be a companion to my 6D, in which case I will probably only be happy with the 7DmkII.

Everyone has made some excellent points that have really made me think and helped me pick apart what I want and what these cameras have to offer. So thanks! It's probably going to come down to a gut check at the store when I have them both in my hands and play.

 

[SkaGoat]

1. Where do you get that? It's far superior to the 70D for focus tracking.... Take a look at depreview, which claims is tracks focus even better than the 7dii. And where do you get that it's an older camera with an older AF system? It's 1 year newer than the 70d??!?????

2. Lens selection for the A6000 is limited. But that's changing quickly.... As in the near future, every single Canon lenses will essentially be compatible. They are all now compatible with the A7rii.

Feels like many people make assumptions about mirrorless, based on a quick look at a model 3 years ago. In terms of AF -- they now track better than dSLRs, they are more accurate than dSLRs. And in good light, they are as fast or faster than dSLRs. They still need some low light improvement.
In terms of EVF, a good EVF is now better than an OVF in about 95% of ways. (I prefer an OVF solely for action tracking when shooting at a super high burst rate. For any type of single shot shooting, or under 5 fps, EVF is preferable).
In terms of lenses.... Not only is the native lens selection growing, but it is becoming irrelevant, as the cameras are becoming "universal" -- accepting any lens ever created.

Where is this claim? I just read their review, and it doesn't even mention the 7DmII as that camera wasn't even out yet. And there is no mention of the a6000 in the 7DmII review as they aren't in the same category. I am confused by their "Gold, Silver, Bronze" award.... the 7DmII has a higher overall score of 84% but gets silver, the a6000 has a 80% with a gold, that doesn't make much sense.

I meant the 70D was older, and there are many videos from pros, and amateurs showing the hit rate on a burst when moving towards, or away from camera is worse.

I DON'T WANT ADAPTERS, I want good native glass, and if Sony can't provide that, than they're not worth using. Why would I use, a nice thin body, then slap an adapter that's the same thickness as and EOS mirror box on the front?

I can get lots of good, affordable, native glass, without the use of adapters from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and for the m4/3 system, I can't for Sony. You like EVF, I can't stand them, until there is 0 lag, than I'm not interested.

 

[SkaGoat]

Where I get hung up on the 7DmkII is the other high end features it has. The ability to easily plug it into a video rig, advanced video features and other features that come into play with studio shooting. So I'm at the line now where I have to decide. Is this truly a backup for casual use, in which case I buy the Rebel T6s and get more glass with the savings (hubs has no problems with the size though Rebels do look like itty bitty toys in his hands).Or is it to be a companion to my 6D, in which case I will probably only be happy with the 7DmkII.

Everyone has made some excellent points that have really made me think and helped me pick apart what I want and what these cameras have to offer. So thanks! It's probably going to come down to a gut check at the store when I have them both in my hands and play.

My camera lust wants a 7DmkII... and I didn't realize the price gap was only down to $500, that's what I'd get, unless you really want the flippy touch screen, and wifi.

 

[havoc315]

I'm going to address this directly: CIPA just released total sales figures for Jan-April. For Nikon bodies, you can track by serial numbers seen in the pipe, as they're produced sequentially (even as they're regionalized), and Nikon themselves gives some indication as well in their financial reports. You and I both know that the D750 doesn't sell nearly as much as the D3300. As for QVC, Thom Hogan did that that research, and had it up on his front page for a week or two. Amazon and Flickr are pretty much small peanuts in the camera market, even though they're highly visible ones.

In total sales, mirrorless is peanuts. Now, that's not to say it is in total shutter clicks, just in sales, but a best-seller it is not in the ILC market. The good news for mirrorless moving forward is that sales of bodies are not the be-all-end-all, as the more clicks on any given mount, the more lenses tend to be sold (all else equal ... which it isn't, but that's another story).

Then link to the Thom Hogan analysis.... Because I can't find it. So far, I've seen no evidence supporting your statement.

 

[havoc315]

Where is this claim? I just read their review, and it doesn't even mention the 7DmII as that camera wasn't even out yet. And there is no mention of the a6000 in the 7DmII review as they aren't in the same category. I am confused by their "Gold, Silver, Bronze" award.... the 7DmII has a higher overall score of 84% but gets silver, the a6000 has a 80% with a gold, that doesn't make much sense.

I meant the 70D was older, and there are many videos from pros, and amateurs showing the hit rate on a burst when moving towards, or away from camera is worse.

I DON'T WANT ADAPTERS, I want good native glass, and if Sony can't provide that, than they're not worth using. Why would I use, a nice thin body, then slap an adapter that's the same thickness as and EOS mirror box on the front?

I can get lots of good, affordable, native glass, without the use of adapters from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and for the m4/3 system, I can't for Sony. You like EVF, I can't stand them, until there is 0 lag, than I'm not interested.

1 -- You need to find the statement in a round about way. In the review of the A77ii they comment on the auto focus tracking of many of the major dSLRs. They say the A77ii is not as good as the A6000 or D750, but it is better than the 7dii. So if the A77ii is better at AF tracking than the 7dii, and the A6000 is better than the A77ii, it's a pretty simple conclusion.

For other sources: http://petapixel.com/2014/08/18/mirrorless-sports-photography-capturing-tour-de-france-sony-a6000/
Quote: I’d say the A6000’s continuous AF and continuous shooting are up there with the best semi-pro DSLRs and for the reasons noted earlier, I actually prefer the live view experience. Sure there’s the brief lag when composing, but being able to exploit an articulated screen or deploy face detection to track someone anywhere on the frame just opens up so many more ways of shooting. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting this is a 1Dx or D4 replacement, far from it, but it does deliver the best sports shooting experience I’ve tested for any mirrorless camera, not to mention any camera at all even at twice the price.

Imaging-resource further compared the A6000 to the Nikon D4s. Not surprisingly, the much more expensive D4s got better AF results than the A6000, but imaging-resource was darn impressed that the A6000 was competitive with the pro-level D4s. Quoting from imaging-resource:

"I won't belabor this, but I know many of you are curious, so I'll say that my success rate with the Nikon D4S was much, much higher. Its Dynamic AF area modes are much better for multi-player sports; it nails the first image nearly always; and on steady-state motion like bicycles, it almost never misses. But remember that the D4S would easily best a $650 Nikon DSLR, too. That the Sony A6000 can deliver 4-6 sharp images per second on a reasonably regular basis is very impressive"

2--As to adapters.... I'm a bit confused by your point -- You would use a thick bulky camera. But you refuse to use a thin camera that might sometimes become bulky with an adapter?
A simple adapter is no different than using a teleconverter. Do you refuse to use teleconverters? Personally, I don't love adapters either, but there is very little rational basis for such a distaste.

3-- Zero lag... As of now, the lag is invisible to the human eye. Even Superman's super vision could not physically detect the lag. So in terms of single shot lag, there is no rational reason to complain about something that is physically impossible to notice. Now there is indeed "lag" when using fast burst rates -- Depending on the camera model, there is lag at around 5fps+. Now, that's not relevant in comparison to most dSLRs, as most dSLRs don't shoot bursts much faster anyway. But when shooting fast bursts with a Nikon D4s or Canon 1dx or Canon 7dii, you will indeed have less viewfinder lag with a dSLR. But mirrorless will continue to improve, and eventually, the lag will be invisible, just as already exists with single shot modes and slow bursts.

4-- Good affordable native glass. Again, rationally, there is no real reason to fear adapters, that open up all lenses. Up until now, adapters meant sacrificing auto focus capabilities. The A7rii may have erased that issue, or at least is coming very very close to erasing that issue (so maybe a couple more years). So rationally, there is really no reason to dislike adapters. You may even get a camera body with a recessed sensor... So that with the adapter included, the camera body has the exact same appearance and ergonomics as a traditional dSLR. Putting aside adapters, native lens selections are growing rapidly. For example, for m4:3 mount, there are already 108 lenses listed on B&H! 108 lenses!!! Compatible with Sony APS-C E-mount, you will find 89 lenses! Of those, 34 are native, produced by Sony and Sony-Zeiss partnership. So the mirrorless lens systems may have some gaps compared to Canon and Nikon... That's undeniable. But also undeniable that the lens ranges are growing, and catching up darn fast.

There are always those that resist changes in technology. Insisting on some perceived advantages of the old system, that really simply aren't very meaningful. I'm not a huge mirrorless fan. I don't own a mirrorless camera, though I have tested them out. But I'm also not blind to the progress of technology. Let's think of the advantages of manual typewriters over computers: Don't need to plug them in, don't need to recharge their batteries. You can type directly on forms, seeing the characters as you type them. No power up delays. With all these advantages of typewriters over computers, why is it so rare to see a manual typewriter anymore?
There were those who claimed that digital would never supplant film (I made similar statements at one such time). Now, film is simply a specialty niche. But think of all the advantages of a SLR over a dSLR: Smaller and less weight as they don't need a big power battery, much longer battery life, much cheaper, few complicated electronic components that will break. With all those advantages of film, why has digital replaced 99% of photography?

An lag time that is invisible to the naked eye, a lens selection of 90 lenses compared to 110 lenses... These aren't things that are going to prevent the progress of technology.

 

[photo_chick]

My camera lust wants a 7DmkII... and I didn't realize the price gap was only down to $500, that's what I'd get, unless you really want the flippy touch screen, and wifi.

Mine too. That's why I'm ruling out the 70D. It's just a little more to get the 7DmkII. Also I'm not big on the wifi. The instant Facebook gratification was fun when I first got the 6D. But after 2 years with the camera I don't use the wifi much at all anymore. The novelty has worn off and the usefulness in the studio has fallen short of what I thought it would be. Not that I'd avoid a camera with it by any means, it's just not a feature I'm seeking out.

 

[bob100]

Back to the question now Reading up on all this I am now wondering if maybe getting an EOS M and a lens adapter would be a better way to go than getting a 70D... I have a 60D after all and would just need a backup. The EOS M will be better than the 40D I had after all - and I am quite happy with the 60D as my prime. Hm.... a smaller body may be nice to have in certain situations.

I also have a 60D and about a month ago I got an M and the 22mm pancake STM lens for $250 on ebay (new) and with the 50mm 1.8 mkII that's now my primary gear for family and event pics. Yes, the focus is slower than a DSLR and there's no viewfinder but the tradeoff is worth it with the reduction in weight and size. The M with the 22mm and 50mm is what I would bring on a Disney trip and that's what I have used on a recent river cruise and some local events. For family beach events this summer I will also bring the DSLR but that's more for using the 100-400 and longer lens. For sports, birds and macro shooting I will continue using the DSLR but for walking around events the M and 22mm and 50mm does a great job. Check out the POTN and DPreview websites on the various M model (M1, M2, M3), the later models have additional features like a detachable EVF but they are difficult to get and cost more.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/

 

[elmoandzoey]

Thanks for your insights, bob. The M3 is actually more available right now in Europe than the older M1 model. M2 never made it here either. The price for the M3 body with an adapter is about 200 less than the 70D. The M1 and the pancake range in about the 250 region (without the adapter which would add around another 30-50).

Have you ever used the M at Disney? I am just wondering how it would perform on dark rides because if I decide to get it, it sure would be the one to bring to Disney as well. I'd continue using the 60D for the kids' sporting events but travelling and going out would sure warrant the smaller body if it performs well.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

OP used to shoot a Canon crop sensor and said she already had some glass to use.

I know I shoot Canon full frame now and could absolutely see myself going through this same decision process in a year or two. I have several EF-S lenses I love so much I couldn't bring myself to sell them. So adding a new Canon crop sensor would be a logical next step for me.

Danielle, I think @WilsonFlyer has a 6D and maybe a 70D. I think he loves the combo. I hope he chimes in here for you.

Sorry. I just saw this.

Yep, I have that combo and I love it. Actually, I'm going through the same decision process right now. I have a friend who shoots semi-pro (mostly weddings and baby shoots) and she wants my 70D badly. I've been around and around in my head about this for a long time. One day I want to sell the 70D and get the MkII, and the next I don't.

I don't want to give up WiFi, the flip out screen, or the touch screen. Mostly, I don't want to give up WiFi. There's something really nice about sitting in a dance competition (for example) and seeing the photos available for posting to social media (or SmugMug) immediately on my iPad. That may not mean anything to you, but it does to me. Is the MkII a better camera? Oh heck yea! The question is whether it's a better camera for ME (or you). When is "good enough," good enough? Like I said, I'm going through this very issue even as I type this. The money's literally on the table. All I have to do is to pull the trigger and sell my 70D.

I'm probably going to end up selling the 70D and getting the 7D MkII. Why? This is my chance to upgrade for a nominal outlay, and I try not to miss a chance if it comes along. I'm already anticipating the 6D Mk II so I'm already in the process of selling off my EF-S lenses and replacing them (where appropriate) with EFs (and L when I can). It's an evolutionary process. Heck, I'm debating selling the 6D and bying a MkIII while waiting for the 6D MkII to come out at the same time!

There's a great columnar comparison of the 70D v. the 7D Mk II here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/70d/vs/canon/7d-mark-ii/

If you already have "all the glass you need," buy the MkII. You'll never go wrong. If you need glass and will spend your "savings" on glass if you buy the 70D, go buy the 70D and never look back.

If you're looking to try to always have the latest and greatest you can afford, then welcome to (my) the party. PS-You'll never win and it's a vicious cycle. It can be a lot of fun to play the game though.

My 70D has NEVER let me down, nor have I EVER longed for something the 7D MkII could have done for me that my 70D simply couldn't do. Maybe that statement alone will help you. It should help me, but it doesn't, because I can't help myself.