WHAT IS THE CONCENCUS OF THE BEST MIRRORLESS CAMERA, CANON R5 OR EQUIVILENT SONY.
Jan 14, 2023 22:07:13 #
cahale wrote:
Wouldn't it be better how you are perceived by what's hanging on your wall?
It certainly would! But somehow our "identity" gets hung up on brands we are seen using.
Jan 15, 2023 02:48:44 #
SIMIBILL wrote:
I am considering buying a high-quality mirrorless camera. Being a Canon user for many years, of course, I am considering the Canon R5. But many reviews online say Sony mirrorless cameras are superior, and more lenses, including Tamron and Sigma, are available.
Please share your experience and opinions with me.
Please share your experience and opinions with me.
------
Nikon Z9
Jan 15, 2023 05:40:33 #
I asked the mirror on the wall....
"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the best mirrorless camera for y'all?"
The mirror replied....
"FOR YOU, the best one is the Fuji XT-5"
I replied...
"Thank you mirror!"
"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the best mirrorless camera for y'all?"
The mirror replied....
"FOR YOU, the best one is the Fuji XT-5"
I replied...
"Thank you mirror!"
Jan 15, 2023 08:08:28 #
MDI Mainer wrote:
It would be nice if the Admin developed an algorithm that automatically deleted any post that begins "What is the best brand of . . . . " 
Concur!!!
We are now up to nine pages
Best Wishes To The Collective,
JimmyT Sends
Jan 15, 2023 08:09:53 #
burkphoto wrote:
That is the reality of photography related purchases: the images you create with them.
For many, there is little correlation between equipment ownership and photographic output quality, and that can be a multi-thousand dollar frustration leading to equipment languishing in a closet until the owner dies. In some other cases, photographers punch far above their weight classes with equipment they simply know how to use.
For many, there is little correlation between equipment ownership and photographic output quality, and that can be a multi-thousand dollar frustration leading to equipment languishing in a closet until the owner dies. In some other cases, photographers punch far above their weight classes with equipment they simply know how to use.
Ouch!!!
Jan 15, 2023 08:16:45 #
Jan 15, 2023 09:41:58 #
SIMIBILL wrote:
I am considering buying a high-quality mirrorless camera. Being a Canon user for many years, of course, I am considering the Canon R5. But many reviews online say Sony mirrorless cameras are superior, and more lenses, including Tamron and Sigma, are available.
Please share your experience and opinions with me.
Please share your experience and opinions with me.
It is basically a toss up - IF - you can afford and use only R lenses for Canon or G master for Sony.
Jan 15, 2023 10:38:18 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
Generally speaking, the best camera is the brand you like and have that works for you. In most cases we buy the camera we like get use to it and stay with it. I use Canon but never had a Nikon or Sony etc. so being content and comfortable and never used brand "X" how can I say.
The only advice I can give is go to a store and play around with different cameras.
The only advice I can give is go to a store and play around with different cameras.
Jan 15, 2023 10:40:27 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
burkphoto wrote:
The S5 II is available late this month. The S5 IIx... (show quote)
Thank you!
Jan 15, 2023 10:43:53 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
jlg1000 wrote:
Jpegs?
Of a high end camera?
That gear is intended to shoot RAW, not crappy 8-bit obsolete jpegs.
Of a high end camera?
That gear is intended to shoot RAW, not crappy 8-bit obsolete jpegs.
Did you just say jpegs are crappy? What’s wrong with you. I love my 8 bit jpegs
Jan 15, 2023 10:56:27 #
bsprague wrote:
It certainly would! But somehow our "identity" gets hung up on brands we are seen using.
I managed to get over that affliction long ago. “Paying for panache is pitiful, whether or not you can afford it,” as the wealthiest guy I ever met once said, back in 1972. Art (he went by Art, never Mr.) often drove an old VW Beetle and wore off-the-rack suits with cheap shirts from the outlet store. His mission was to help the community by donating millions to the local museums, libraries, our church, and several colleges and universities. If you needed something as an individual, he would not normally give it to you, but would show you some potential ways to get it, or lead you to someone who could help. He knew hundreds of influential people. He was fond of the North Carolina state motto, Esse Quam Videre, Latin for, “to be, rather than to seem.” Yet he lived in SC…
Jan 15, 2023 11:12:30 #
gwilliams6 wrote:
Dont expect ANY consensus here in UHH, LOL. br br... (show quote)
Thank you--excellent info from a real pro.
I've had many cameras in the last 7 decades--my photography has always been a learning hobby until 2000 when I started selling on-line and learned alot about photographing objects. Currently have a Nikon D3400, has a mirror, that I acquired at an estate auction--some of us don't have it all....and as you imply it's what you do with it not the status quo.
Jan 15, 2023 12:53:50 #
davyboy wrote:
Did you just say jpegs are crappy? What’s wrong with you. I love my 8 bit jpegs
I also loved my 8-bit Commodore 64 in 1981
Move on, obsolete tech.
Jan 15, 2023 13:30:14 #
jlg1000 wrote:
I also loved my 8-bit Commodore 64 in 1981
Move on, obsolete tech.
Move on, obsolete tech.
There is nothing wrong with JPEGs, other than how some people misuse them.
JPEG is a tool, just as raw data formats are tools. It has its place in the tool box. Used correctly, it can serve a valuable purpose.
JPEG was primarily conceived as an efficient distribution format for finished image files. The idea was to export a JPEG from a TIFF or other bitmap format, and use that to display on the Internet or to order prints from a lab. That was before digital cameras got popular. It was back in the days of expensive storage and expensive network bandwidth and dial-up modems.
When digital cameras were developed, at first there was an absolute need to retrieve and process raw files. But it wasn't long before camera companies put a processor in the camera and saved JPEGs there. They were meant to be previews that would not be post-processed. But users got lazy, and demanded better JPEGs.
Today, we have pretty decent in-camera processors that churn out pretty good JPEGs — if you set the exposure and white balance and other menu parameters correctly. But you still have more control over output when you process a raw file. The bad news is that, because you have that control, you have to process raw files.
Many folks just have an aversion to computers and all the complexity and expense that good post-processing entails.
Jan 15, 2023 13:43:09 #
I have read through most of the responses here and I must say opinion is the predominant response rather than experience. I'm not sure how you evaluate opinion because it is, more than likely, based on emotion than objectivity. The OP asks a troublesome question because to get any kind of real answer, the responders would have to have used the Canon R5 and its equivalent Sony products for some time in order to make any kind of judgement. My guess is that the number of folks who qualify on this basis is fairly limited and I didn't see any in this thread. So, to me, the question leads to a lot of drivel and piffle. Nothing really learned. To the OP, why not rent the Canon and its equivalent and try them out.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.