Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

    Having tried CSCs from Olympus and Fuji I eventually came back to Canon....now using a 5D3 and 100D.

    it occurs to me that the 100D is very capable and possible more capable than the CSCs I've tried.

    ....and the XXXXD and XXXD are significantly cheaper than the Fuji XT2 (dslr like CSC), XPro2 (rangefinder like CSC) or Olympus EM-5 (dslr like CSC) or PEN (compact CSC).

    My conclusion is its just a style choice.....interestingly CSCs are often compared with top end DSLRs....with which they equate in price terms but not with lower end DSLRs with which they compare in performance terms.
    The marketeers are having a great time here!

    Paradoxically I've read from contributors on here being tempted away from top end DSLRs to CSCs....and I suspect they'd not be tempted away to lower end DSLRs....(just as I once was).

    Just my thoughts.....any opinions?
    Brian Vickers LRPS

    brianvickersphotography.com

    #2
    Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

    A number of different drivers made me try a Fuji - boredom with Wildlife, boredom with Canon (yes) and wanting to shoot something different.

    I bought an X-E1 and 18mm lens before Christmas and was basically hooked, so much so that I now have an X-Pro 2 and four lenses, two primes and two zooms, and can cover 16mm to 230mm in one small bag. The EVF is great, works really well, and being able to see a live histogram of the shot before I take it is very handy. The rangefinder format of the Pro works really well for me, even though it's actually bigger than my wife's 100D+ 24mm, and the quality of the optics is superb.

    The key performance difference is in AF. With a mirrorless camera there's no need to do any micro adjust as the sensor is where the focus is measured so it's always spot on if you get the shot right. The downside is that CAF performance is nowhere near good enough. Despite what the vendors tell you, though the A9 is reported to be very good, it's not up to the same level as a DSLR. So I don't use it for that, I keep the 7DII and Sigma for wildlife and everything else is done on my Fuji kit.

    Having said that, you're not doing an apples to apples comparison in your costs. IMHO the X-Y2 compares to the 7D2 or D500. The camera to compare to the Canon XXX and XX ranges is the X-t20 which retails for £799 which is a more favourable comparison. It's also worth bearing in mind the X-T20 is a X-T2 with some physical features removed but the guts are the dame. Like putting the features of a 7DII onto a 800D...

    But even then, I Canon don't have the range of small glass that Fuji do - a large selection of primes which is one of the big differences. To be honest, of you shoot landscape or any form that doesn't require long lenses using APS-C, I would recommend a mirrorless over a DSLR now.
    EOS 7D mk II, Sigma 150-660C, Canon 17-85 EF-S, Tamron 10-24 and a wife who shares my obsession.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

      I have looked at the Panasonic g85 and variants and lenses ,and although good can't keep up with the canons at this moment in time .and as I said in another thread the rise of mobile phones hasn't done the compact market any good ,personally I think there will be a massive market swing in the next 5 to 10 years of sooner both in our own hobby and unrelated in the vehicle market where I think petrol/electric hybrids will take over from diesel ,i test drove the new RAV4 hybrid a couple of weeks ago and it's bloody impressive .a interesting period lies ahead indeed

      Comment


        #4
        Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

        When I tried CSC there was no dual card facility and CAF was dire compared to an dSLR....I think in terms of costs then maybe XT2 and 7DII might compare but in terms of focus performance isn't the XT2 on par with XXXD? FPS is better on CSC of course but not a lot of use if you can't get focus. I share your views otherwise....especially the beautiful compact primes.....and I loved the metal build quality. I couldn't get on with rangefinder viewfinder though...but thats just me.

        i dont think the demise of dSLRs is on the way in the next 2-3 years...maybe five. At present I still have a bit of interest in paid work so will stick with Canon a while yet...If I hadn't and didn't need to have action capability maybe I'd switch again.

        Lots of changes to come, I think Ill bypass hybrids cars and await long range all electric though.

        Thanks Guys
        Brian Vickers LRPS

        brianvickersphotography.com

        Comment


          #5
          Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

          Basically I would question the AF performance of an XT-2 compared to any Canon DSLR. I've had some luck with my Pro and 50-230 on big and slow moving birds but it's hit and miss, partially because the lens is both slow in AF terms and max aperture but also AIUI (From Thom Hogan) the AF uses PDAF but then checks with CAF to ensure focus. This last check is enough to slow it down. Compared to the 7DIi, well it doesn't really.

          And with no Tamron or Sigma, aside from the 100-400 there are no long Fuji lenses anyway. SO that lets out shooting small static birds. As an aside, you would be astonished at the amount of photos I've seen from X-T2/100-400 combos where the tog has posted something as a quality shot that I would have culled on the first pass. Some can get it right, loads of others don't.

          But, you can get silly FPS from both the X-T2 and X-Pro 2, t

          The current top of the line kit - the X-T2 and X-Pro 2 - both have two SD slots, are weather sealed, bomb-proof and the manual controls for Shutter speed, Aperture, ISO (X-T2) and exposure compensation make them a joy to use. The Pro will do 8fps and the T2 I believe does 14fps with the booster grip. Which is 1DX territory, but without the chewing gum on a blanket AF unfortunately. I find the controls and the Pro styling make me slow down and look at what I'm shooting much more than the 7D2. I just enjoy it much more at present, possibly cos it's easier to chuck around X-Pro 2 and 35mm than a 7D2 and Sigma 150-600...
          EOS 7D mk II, Sigma 150-660C, Canon 17-85 EF-S, Tamron 10-24 and a wife who shares my obsession.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

            Having switched a while ago I'd agree that it is a style choice. But I'd disagree that CSC's whilst are the price of xD Canon's perform like xxxD ones.

            Certainly if you are into sport or wildlife then SLR's have an advantage, not least because of the mature and extensive lens options, but for pretty much anything else CSC's can be as good if not better.

            Everyone I know at my two camera clubs that have changed from SLR (except me) did so for size and weight saving. The ability to use a small bag with a body and 3 lenses has been for many a game changer and rekindled their interest in photography, whether M4/3, Fuji or Sony.

            I switched partly for size but mainly for image quality/DR/ISO capability. I would not achieve this with a lower end SLR. In fact my options if not going to Sony were Nikon 750/810 or Canon 5D3/SR/4. the switch to Nikon would have involved a significant outlay in glass. Sticking with Canon would have meant a bigger body. Sony was made affordable by buying an adapter so I could use my existing Canon lenses. In fact with cheap adapters for aound £10 you can use any old lens and very happily focus manually with the excellent focus peaking. My Sony isn't the smallest CSC but it is noticably smaller and lighter than the 6d, particularly with a lot of native Sony lenses. It is also superior to my 6D in almost every respect. Ergonomically the 6D was better but not hugely so. One downside is the lenses are expensive. Most of them appear to be optically of a very high calibre and most of them are also significantly lighter and smaller. The exception being the Sony GM lenses which are very much like their L equivalents with regards size.

            One thing I would say about the CSC manufacturers is that they do not hold their models features back to differentiate between price points on what is after all in most cases purely software driven.

            I've not turned into a complete fanboy. Adapted lenses aren't without issues, not all the fancy functions work, SLR's are better at somethings but in the main there is little to choose between them. This is long enough already and I haven't mentioned how great EVF's can be with what you see being what you will get as you change the exposure compensation.

            If you look at something like the new A9 - ok it's bonkersly expensive, you've got to say mirrorless is most definitely not going to go away.
            TS-E17 F4L, 70-300L, 100 F2.8L Macro. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynelsworth/

            Comment


              #7
              Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

              I agree, and I think we all agree as above on most aspects - especially sport and BIF etc. As CSCs have APSC size sensors I'm surprised that one could compete with a 6D? As Sony, I believe, make the sensors for Nikon APSCs there is an equivalence between Sony CSCs and Nikon APSCs which means surely the Nikon FF sensors should be ahead of APSCs and CSCs....I suspect therefore, unless Canon id behind the game, that Canon FF are still ahead of any APSC or CSCs.

              I too liked what you see is what you get from an EVF...shame we can't have that as a switchover option on Canon FF or APSCs.
              Brian Vickers LRPS

              brianvickersphotography.com

              Comment


                #8
                Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                Originally posted by brianvickers View Post
                I agree, and I think we all agree as above on most aspects - especially sport and BIF etc. As CSCs have APSC size sensors I'm surprised that one could compete with a 6D? As Sony, I believe, make the sensors for Nikon APSCs there is an equivalence between Sony CSCs and Nikon APSCs which means surely the Nikon FF sensors should be ahead of APSCs and CSCs....I suspect therefore, unless Canon id behind the game, that Canon FF are still ahead of any APSC or CSCs.
                There are a number of Sony cameras that are not APS-C. The Sony A7 range and flagship A9 all use FF sensors for example.
                I too liked what you see is what you get from an EVF...shame we can't have that as a switchover option on Canon FF or APSCs.
                It's eminently possible. The Fuji X-Pro 2 has a hybrid EVF/OVF, along with the X100 range. So it shouldn't be beyond the reach of Canon...
                EOS 7D mk II, Sigma 150-660C, Canon 17-85 EF-S, Tamron 10-24 and a wife who shares my obsession.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                  I love to read these pointless comparisons. All the modern CSCs and DSLRs produce good performance and tend to excel in different areas. As someone who judges photography on a regular basis I see very little to choose between the end results. I tried a a Fuji XT1 and I really wanted to like it as I had used Fuji film back in the day and had also used early Fuji digital cameras. I hated it. Not because of poor performance, it took great pictures, I just didn't like the feel of it, the menus etc.
                  When I teach people photography they usually ask what camera I recommend, my answer is the one you feel comfortable using. I know that Nikons take great pictures and are superb cameras but I hate using them as well.
                  So many people are seduced by specifications, the most important thing is the skill of the person pressing the button, not the spec of the camera. I have seen images that were amazing taken on an iPhone. Equally I have seen rubbish taken on a 1DX or a Fuji XT whatever.
                  Alan

                  No longer using Canon but still teaching new Canon users (and others) the gentle art of Photography.

                  http://www.springfield-photography.com/

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                    Talking about sensor quality I saw this somewhere else talking about the latest Nikon. Considering the Sony is 2 years old in a lab at least it's sensor is better than both Canon and Nikon. As much as I like Canon at the moment they are seriously lagging in the sensor stakes.
                    You can click on other bodies t see how they compare and have improved.

                    TS-E17 F4L, 70-300L, 100 F2.8L Macro. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynelsworth/

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                      I was forgetting some of the CSCs have large sensors...thanks for reminding me of that Andy.

                      The strongest case for upgrading, for me at least, would be better sensor noise and dynamic range performance.....according to the charts linked by Wayne above the 5D3 is not a great performer in DR (relatively...but as we know good enough in practice)
                      Brian Vickers LRPS

                      brianvickersphotography.com

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                        It still comes down to the complete package and how it all works together, the best sensor in the world is worth squat if it trying to look out through inferior glass.

                        It's rather like saying the ashtray in the Lada is the best car ashtray in the world, fine, but pretty next to pointless when you take the car as a complete package..
                        Canon 1DX, 50D, EF500 F4.0 L, EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L I , EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II, EF70-200 f/2.8L II, EF180 f3.5L Macro, EF 24-105 f/4L, EF17-40 f/4L, EF2.0X III, EF1.4X III, 430EX II, MR-14EX...

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                          If you want to see the big talking point at the moment look at this chart.

                          6D2 dynamic range.jpg

                          Basically the dynamic range of the 6D2 is slightly worse than the 6D, causing lots of sneers and jeers from users of other systems.

                          Look at the Nikon D610 and you can see why Canon comes in for so much criticism for its dr performance at low ISO, the D610 is Nikon's equivalent to the 6D and much cheaper than the 6D2.
                          EOS 6D, 6D Mk II, 80D, 70D, 100D, 200D, M50, M100. Canon 10-18, 18 - 55, 55 - 250 IS STM lenses, Canon 16 - 35 mm F4L, 35 mm EF-S macro, 50 mm F1.8 STM, 60 mm EF-S macro, MPE-65 macro, 85 mm F1.8, 200 mm F2.8 L II, M 15 - 45 mm, M 22mm F2, M 32mm F1.4. Sigma 24 - 35 F2 Art, 135 mm F1.8 Art, 17 - 50 F2.8 DC, 105 mm OS macro, 100 - 400 C, 150 - 600 C.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: XXXXD, XXXD v CSC

                            Originally posted by TonyT View Post
                            It still comes down to the complete package and how it all works together, the best sensor in the world is worth squat if it trying to look out through inferior glass.

                            It's rather like saying the ashtray in the Lada is the best car ashtray in the world, fine, but pretty next to pointless when you take the car as a complete package..
                            Very true. But luckily all manufacturers have outstanding glass, albeit at a price.
                            TS-E17 F4L, 70-300L, 100 F2.8L Macro. http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynelsworth/

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X