My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.

I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

On 2021-10-12, Bengt_T <bengt_tornqvist@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
>
> I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".

Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
> Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
> whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.

All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy. When I "ditched the whole
lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
have with me!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 2021-10-13, David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> On 13/10/2021 10:31, Incubus wrote:
>> Canon's sensors are seriously lacking in dynamic range. I'd ditch the
>> whole lot and go with a full frame Nikon.
>
> All that full-frame kit is too big and too heavy.

Are you a pygmy?

> When I "ditched the whole
> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.

I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
> have with me!

I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
video.

In article <slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> video.

there's no requirement that it be used.

On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
> Are you a pygmy?
>
>> When I "ditched the whole
>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
>
>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
>> have with me!
> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> video.

Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!

You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
minute.

I take photos for personal interest - not for sale, and I don't have a studio
setup. The micro-four-thirds is easily capable of studio-quality work, though.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
>> Are you a pygmy?
>>
>>> When I "ditched the whole
>>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
>>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
>> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.
>>
>>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera I always
>>> have with me!
>> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
>> video.
>
> Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
> anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
>

Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if
my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

> You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
> below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
> minute.

The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
can't see.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 2021-10-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
>> video.
>
> there's no requirement that it be used.

It does add extra cost and weight, though.

In article <slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> video.
> >
> > there's no requirement that it be used.
>
> It does add extra cost and weight, though.

video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
to a file.

for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
issue with recent phones is thickness.

On 2021-10-13, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
>> >> video.
>> >
>> > there's no requirement that it be used.
>>
>> It does add extra cost and weight, though.
>
> video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
> in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
> to a file.

It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.
The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more
resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
enough buffer for writing.

> for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
> would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
> sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
> issue with recent phones is thickness.

A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
feature. People really are strange.

In article <slrnsme0ft.45q.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> >> video.
> >> >
> >> > there's no requirement that it be used.
> >>
> >> It does add extra cost and weight, though.
> >
> > video capabilities in an slr adds *zero* weight or cost. it's entirely
> > in firmware and nothing more than an extension of live view that saves
> > to a file.
>
> It's a feature that requires additional testing, which has an overhead.

the overhead is negligible. live view is already there, so all they
need to do is save the data stream to a file and add a few menu items.

> The research and design also increases overheads, particularly if a
> camera manufacturer decides to use a more expensive sensor so that more
> resolution is available with video. Additionally, it requires a fast
> enough buffer for writing.

buffers are big for other purposes, namely number of stills before
locking up.

> > for phones, there is a non-zero cost to adding a camera when there
> > would otherwise not be one, but a phone without a camera would not
> > sell, so it's a must-have feature. the added weight is negligible. the
> > issue with recent phones is thickness.
>
> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> feature. People really are strange.

it's a very useful feature. just used it minutes ago, in fact.

Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> feature. People really are strange.

It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.

My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
(in article<slrnsmdtci.eg.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>):

> On 2021-10-13, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article<slrnsmdlpr.r82.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > <u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> > > video.
> >
> > there's no requirement that it be used.
>
> It does add extra cost and weight, though.

Video adds extra “weight”!??

Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 10:36:36 AM UTC-4, RJH wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2021 at 14:23:28 BST, "David Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 13/10/2021 13:55, Incubus wrote:
> >> Are you a pygmy?
> >>
> >>> When I "ditched the whole
> >>> lot" I went micro-four-thirds which has proved very good, with some excellent
> >>> quality lenses available from multiple manufacturers.
> >>
> >> I suppose, if you only ever want to shoot in bright sunlight.

Nah, there’s also techniques too. We did that for an ad hoc night photo taken
with an iPhone5 which came out so well that we ended up using it for the 4x6
in our Christmas card that year.

> >>> Of course, now 90% of my photography is with the phone - the camera
> >>> I always have with me!
> >>
> >> I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> >> video.
> >
> > Probably compared to many people I am rather small, but I don't have a car so
> > anywhere I go (these days?) I have to carry my kit with me. Weight matters!
> >
> Absolutely - a DSLR and a few lenses can easily top 5kg. I'd be surprised if
> my micro 4/3 and 2 basic lenses are more than 1kg. Whatever, it's a big reason
> why I don't use my DSLR any more . . .

It’s invariably a capability trade-off. My long reach system is ~12lbs (5.5kg) unpacked,
and it’s partner is +6lbs more. Another system is IIRC around 8kg unpackaged and
when packaged for transport is a shade over 20kg…oh, and these were chosen to be
APS systems, to not be as big/bulky/heavy as a FF.

> > You would be surprised how low a light level modern phones can shoot, certainly
> > below naked eye visibility. Automatically takes and stacks exposures up to a
> > minute.
>
> The iphone 12 takes some astonishing night time photos - picking out detail I
> can't see.

Indeed; recent developments have been pretty profound…

…and FYI, I’m interested in the same question as the OP: what mirrorless
noises would be good to compliment my pile of Canon EF glass that I’m not
particularly inclined to flip to another brand without huge justification?

-hh

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 5:22:44 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2021, Incubus wrote
> (in article<slrnsmdtci....@localhost.localdomain>):
> > On 2021-10-13, nospam<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article<slrnsmdlpr....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> > > <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I wish my 'phone didn't have a camera just as I wish my D750 didn't do
> > > > video.
> > >
> > > there's no requirement that it be used.
> >
> > It does add extra cost and weight, though.
> Video adds extra “weight”!??
>
> Your understanding of added functions in modern digital cameras seems to be either distorted, or lacking. Explain yourself sir!

Perhaps he’s referring to all of the extra widgets that one ends up buying to also do video…

…but these are offset by the lighter wallet! <g>

-hh

On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
>> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
>> feature. People really are strange.
>
> It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
>
> My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
> exclusively user her phone to take pictures.

There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
telephone.

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
> >> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> >> feature. People really are strange.
> >
> > It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
> >
> > My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
> > exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
>
> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
> on a telephone.

Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".

The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.

-hh

On 2021-10-14, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
>> >> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
>> >> feature. People really are strange.
>> >
>> > It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
>> >
>> > My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
>> > exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
>>
>> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
>> on a telephone.
>
> Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
>
> The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
> a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.

It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
technology.

In article <slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
<u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> telephone.

such as?

On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:46:30 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> <u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> > telephone.
> such as?

if you're stupid or clumse you keep taking pictures of your ear while talking on the phone. ;-)

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 7:02:33 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-14, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
> >> >> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> >> >> feature. People really are strange.
> >> >
> >> > It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
> >> >
> >> > My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
> >> > exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
> >>
> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
> >> on a telephone.
> >
> > Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
> >
> > The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
> > a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
>
> It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
> broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
> technology.

Of course there's trade-offs, but the point still stands that "any" pic is better
than "no" pic, because the very first requirement is to have a recording device.

Thus, the "have it with you" that I mentioned, which is referring to Chase Jarvis's
2009 book, "The Best Camera: Is the One That's With You".

FYI, if you're not familiar with Mr. Jarvis, try reading his Wiki page:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Jarvis#Awards_and_recognition>

Since he said that back in 2009, the advancements in underlying technologies
have enabled even smartphone cameras to reliably produce better quality images
than a full frame 35mm film camera's general capability, at a fraction of the cost,
weight, and size. It doesn't effectively matter that there's even better digital SLRs
that have pushed the limits higher, because that's often chasing niche or edge
cases: a technology only needs to be good enough for the primarily intended
applications, and for this criteria, smartphones have already demonstrated that
they surpass this 'good enough for the intended use' criteria for many applications.

Is it all applications? Of course not. But then again, there's also no full frame dSLR
camera that's able to do everything without needing hardware modifications such
as changing lenses, so this is a disingenuous criteria to try to selectively apply.

-hh

On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 20:08:44 UTC+1, Bengt_T wrote:
> My present equipment consist of the camera body and some lenses compatible for APS-C sensor cameras.
>
> I am considering to invest in a new mirror less Canon camera body than can use my present set of lenses. For initial selection I kindly ask for guidance in which body, or bodies, to "investigate".
I bought a canon ESO M6 MkII that I'm really happy with, but you'll need EF-EOS M mount adapter to use
the EF and EF-S, lenes.

I bought the 'kit' which was the body + lens + electronic viewfinder that attches to the hot-shoe.
Because of it's small size it can fit in a jacket pocket without too many issues or take the lens off which is far smaller than the one that came with the M3 I had previously.
I was presently suprised at how good the electronic viewfinder was no noticable lag and have used it more than I
thought I would.

On Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 12:02:33 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-14, -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 4:32:54 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
> >> On 2021-10-13, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Am 13.10.2021 um 17:57 schrieb Incubus:
> >> >> A gimmick that Nokia introduced with the 7650 is now a must-have
> >> >> feature. People really are strange.
> >> >
> >> > It's convenient to have a camera in a phone.
> >> >
> >> > My wife has stopped a while ago using her camera and nowadays
> >> > exclusively user her phone to take pictures.
> >>
> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera
> >> on a telephone.
> >
> > Everything has trade-offs; "Film at 11".
> >
> > The question here is merely if the downsides you're gloomily alluding to, are
> > a worthwhile trade vs the upside of the "[always] have it with you" paradigm.
> It depends on one's perspective. Personal convenience comes at a
> broader cost but most people are sheep who know nothing about
> technology.

Technology should be transparent to the user unless they have an interest in the technology.

On 2021-10-14, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsmfqpq.3r1.u9536612@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
><u9536612@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
>> telephone.
>
> such as?

The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
consumer.

On Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 9:35:11 AM UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
> On 2021-10-14, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <slrnsmfqpq....@localhost.localdomain>, Incubus
> ><u953...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There are a number of undesirable consequences from having a camera on a
> >> telephone.
> >
> > such as?
>
> The negative impact on the camera industry and its impact on the
> consumer.

So claimed the horse buggy whip manufacturers ... /s

-hh