A bunch of new stuff, all non-Canon, was announced yesterday.

I am probably most interested in a the Mavic Pro 2.0. I think a couple of people have drones, any impressions? I wish I could say I have time, but I have something like one open weekend between now and November. In other words, I am not even getting much time to play with the gear I bought earlier this year much less getting something new. That said, I've seen some great drone pictures and I can see how it would be fun.


Then, of course, the much hyped Nikon D6/D7 were announced along with 3 "Z" lenses:


So far, I like Thom Hogan's list of pro/con's of the new systems:

Personally, I am very happy with my Canon kit and am in far too deep to even really consider these seriously. But it is fun to see new technology. People have been talking about mirrorless so long it is also interesting to see the manifestation. Going through the classic pro/con lists of mirrorless:
  • Size: It is smaller, about the size of a Rebel.
    • But the lenses are really about the same size as the Canon equivalents.
    • So, the overall system, a bit smaller. Personal preference comes into play here if that difference means something to you.

  • Weight: Does weight less, again, similar to a rebel (585 g z7 vs 532 g for the T7i). The 6DII would be 765 g (I am lifting these from "camerasize.com" and includes memory card and battery).
    • The lenses again, the 24-70 f/4 is 100 g lighter than Canon's "L" (so we still need to see how good it is), but the Z-35 f/1.8 is a bit heavier than the Canon 35 f/2, and the Z-50 f/1.8 is ~250 g heavier than the Canon 50 f/1.8, but ~130 g lighter than the Tamron 45 f/1.8

  • FPS....Thom Hogan boils the Z6 down to a 9 fps and the Z7 to 5.5 fps. We really haven't seen the massive fps advantage yet.
  • No need for AF microadjustment. This is just true. There is no need to correlate two different systems.
  • Cost. Not really seeing a savings, but that gets into manufacturer cost strategies.
  • Silent shooting. This is becoming somewhat real. I've seen several reports of photographers in certain situations preferring the quieter action of mirrorless.

Overall, only the size, when compared to FF, is all that different. But adding a lens it really becomes negligible.

The classic cons:
  • EVF...we'll see. Some people seem to love EVFs. I am not one of those people. They have a long ways to go before I even think about giving up my OVF.
  • Battery life. Yep. rated at 300 shots. Sony recently got better, but still not in the DSLR range.
  • AF speed accuracy. We'll see. Sony seems to be getting good. Too soon to tell with the Nikons
  • A con I had never thought of, but seems to be coming true is increased CA with shorter flange distances. I would think focal point is what would matter (and that wouldn't change between systems), but I've seen this referenced and if you look at any of Bryan's Sony lens review, there is CA compared to the equivalent Canon lens. EF flange distance is 45 mm, mirrorless tends to be around 18 mm. Maybe it is better to have more space between the last element and sensor for CA. Not sure.

Look at the horizontal lines in the center image:

So, now that mirrorless cameras are rolling out, my generally opinion has not changed much. I vastly prefer OVFs, and then other benefits seem a bit marginal for me, but there will be people where it matters.

Then, Nikon also introduced a 500 f/5.6 "Frensel" lens. Too me, this is essentially equivalent to a 400 f/4 DO II with a 1.4x TC, but still, that is a great option to have in Nikonland.

So, lots of new stuff. The only thing that has a chance of landing in my bag is a drone...sometime in the future when I have time to play with it.