On other fora where I am active, people who post deliberately divisive posts to stimulate argument rather than discussion, are called ... well, "under-bridge dwellers," politely.

So the ridiculous fight continues?

The thing this article says to me is that people who own Canon gear can count on getting service for many years to come.

This has gone form beating a dead horse to beating the sticky mess which used to be a dead horse to beating the stained earth where a dead horse used to be.

Should I photograph this stain with a prime or a zoom?

Oi. This whole thing started because a person who doesn't understand a lot about photography formed an opinion based on price and weight, not image quality---which is perfectly valid.

The answer? Well .... hasn't it been hashed to death? If you need to do a job which only a certain tool can do, you need to buy that tool. otherwise, you don't.

Fast primes do a very few things that no other lens can do .... and if those things don't matter to the style of photography you do ....

The best part is, the OP said in his first post that her didn't want to do a lot of reading .... :D

Meh. Tool for the job. If you don't want to shoot a subject or in a situation where a fast lens improves the shot, don't get one.

If weight and cost are deciding factors, make your decision based on them.

If you want the effects that a faster lens can give in certain situation, buy that lens.

It might be rocket science or even more complex than that .... but it can be simplified to a few sentences.

I cannot understand this .... I I do understand that you are very good and very experienced photographer.

With a phone or a point-and-shoot, or any DSLR or Mirrorless (and I have used a number of Canon DSLRs and the R6) set on Auto .... all it takes is aiming.

And still, what makes a good photograph is 100 percent the shooter.

Henri Cartier--Bresson, (from what I have been told) used a film Leica with a fast fifty .... all the "magic" of his art is his artistry, his ability to see a scene as it would look on film, and his technique, to be able to use his camera to create/capture that scene.

In All photography, excellence is independent of the tool.

For most photographers, obviously there is a limit beneath which the tool would be a hindrance (a pinhole camera) and an upper limit where the capacities of the camera exceed the user's abilities---there are so many different adjustments to create so many effects, and if the shooter not yet learned them or how to use them, they are excess.

With a mirrorless or a DSLR, as with a phone .... "success" in the most basic sense---a sharp picture with reasonable light and color--- can be 99 percent the camera, so long as the shooter can aim and hold steady, and so long as the shooter aims at stuff like pets or flowers or whatever .... stuff that is intrinsically attractive to most viewers.

(In fact, without mirror slap, the mirrorless might be easier because the camera won't shake that tiny amount on shutter release.)

The one main benefit to mirrorless is that it is the way manufacturers want to go---and not, I don't think, because it is "More advanced," but because it is in fact simpler.

Mirrorless is more electronics, less minutely machined moving parts. Less to break, less top malfunction. More circuit boards, fewer moving parts.

However, most of the sports shooters I knew up until just a very short while ago, preferred DSLRs. I don't know why ... but these are people who make their living with cameras, and who can buy whatever cameras they want.

In any case .... if Nikon goes broke and Canon drops the 1DX .... but until then, (and I am fairly certain Canon and whoever else will eventually develop mirrorless which can equal or outperforms the best of Canon and Nikon---but they haven't yet) then the mirrorless is not the Only option for the future. Maybe in a decade ... but I don't buy to shoot in ten years.

Sorry, I digress.

Anyway .... maybe I misunderstood your comment that "With the wrong camera, success is probably 99% luck. But with a mirrorless camera, it's 100% the photographer." What would be a "wrong" camera? Why would success (and how do you define "success" in this context?) be 99 percent luck? And why would the same person not be able to have luck with a camera without a mirror? As I say, I have used the supposedly best mirrorless out there .... and don't see why a beginner couldn't put it on "Auto" and get a lot of good shots.

CHG Canon asks:

1. What is your budget?
2. What are your photography interests?

A camera, or a camera set-up (camera and lenses if you go that route) is a tool. What's right tool? Depends on the job. What do you want to do with a camera?

As bleirer points out, the major manufacturers are all going to mirrorless---simpler and smaller, not yet as widely effective for the price as a DSLR, but certainly the wve of the future.

However, as CHG Canon notes ... you might not need a DSLR or a Mirrorless. It all comes back to what you want to do with your camera.

So ... why do you want a camera?

burkphoto pretty much explained it completely.

If a photographer wants a specific effect to produce a specific image .... be it telefoto reach, amazing creamy bokeh, super-wide field, whatever .... the photographer gets that device or bit of gear which gives that effect. The weight is not an issue. The price is, but not so very much .... A pair of socks is cheaper than a pair of pants, but except for the red Hot Chili Peppers ......

I shoot mountain bike racing sometimes, and mountain bike races often take place in the woods, under a full canopy. I can either use a lot of flash, which is hard to control, or a fast, wide-aperture lens and less or no flash. The fast lens cost a lot .... hard choice.

I used to shoot auto racing. There are some shots you can only get with a lot of reach--a super-zoom telefoto. Buy the lens or don't shoot that shot. it's a choice.

Some folks shoot intimate portraits and need a lot of bokeh to make the subject stand out. There is no alternative---get a wide-aperture lens or don't get the shot. Make the choice.

Some folks do street photography, and the most important thing is that a lens be light and versatile---the photographer needs ot be agile, flexible, adaptable, and a big heavy prime would be a terrible choice, while a lightweight, possibly slightly less sharp telefoto---a 24-105 (not a cheap lens,) an 18-135 or even 55-200---both "kit" lenses---might be the perfect tools.

Choose the tool for the job. if you can do the job with a screwdriver, get a screwdriver. But realize, that to weld you need a welder, and all the kit ... yes it costs more, is heavier, and bulkier than a screwdriver. But the screwdriver won't run a bead.

Great stuff.

Another great set. Whatever your gear, you have the eye for good photos.

Beautiful work

Impressive animal, well presented. Consider this a push and shoot and post more please.

Lizards make good models.

(Download)


(Download)

After seeing all this, I have to reconsider RWR's comment about how soon no one will have to learn how to take pictures. :D