July 16, 2018, 03:09:26 AM

Author Topic: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill  (Read 1886 times)

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1065
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2018, 09:27:42 PM »
I am only keen on the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 lens. Hope it is available by end Sep 2018.  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2018, 09:27:42 PM »

Etienne

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1201
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2018, 09:44:46 PM »
"Development announcement."  Yippeeee

I have a "development announcement" of my own: my teleporter / time machine is in development. It should be ready for production about 15 years after Sony has released their Mark IV teleporter. But mine will be more expensive and will only transport half of your body.

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2574
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2018, 09:47:03 PM »
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?

Not everyone's needs are the same.  For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal).  People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.

So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards?  Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy  _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"
That's it, I'm switching to Rollei

Normalnorm

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2018, 09:50:19 PM »
Hmm, I didn't buy the 5d mark IV because of its 30MP and crippled 4k. Was really expecting the FF mirrorless to have 38MP. If the 4k video isn't crippled it could still be a winner, even with 30MP...

I bought the mkIV because I needed a backup for my 5DsR and did not want two high MP bodies.
I now find myself shooting almost exclusively with the mkIV as it is that much more enjoyable to use.

I also found that 30MP is plenty for architecture and the images between the two bodies is not dramatic.
The DR is allegedly much better but IMO I can't see much difference from my mkIIIs but then again I am not dragging shadows 5 stops.

As for "needing" more res I have yet to encounter any job that "needed" more than 20MP. Even high end still life or beauty as these were being done on 16MP cameras to great results for a long time.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 09:53:05 PM by Normalnorm »

ricardoko

  • Canonflex
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2018, 11:09:31 PM »
Let's say canon came out with FF mirrorless with the same sensor and features as the 5DIV.  Would there be any reason to still get DSLRS?  assuming same price

tmroper

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2018, 11:26:58 PM »
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?

Not everyone's needs are the same.  For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal).  People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.

So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards?  Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy  _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"

By the more pixels the better, I meant easier.  You just have more to work with, and run into fewer problems when retouching skin.  And yes, standards have changed over the years with digital, especially with beauty advertising, which is different from fashion (think make-up vs clothes).   But like I said, the main issue is, it's just easier, quicker and therefore cheaper when working with more pixels (assuming hardware capable of it).  Personally, I'd be happy still shooting film and doing hardly any retouching.  But that's not what most clients want.  Things are trending a little more toward natural, un-retouched style ("don't retouch me!"), so we'll see about that in the years to come.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7230
  • USM > STM
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2018, 11:28:41 PM »
Anyone itching to buy a FF Mirrorless would compare such an offering Sony's range and, pretty much regardless of price or mount, would find it very difficult not to go for the Sony ...

Unless they own EF glass and want it to work natively, reliably, consistently, etc. in which case they'd wait for the Canon product to arrive.

That doesn't seem very difficult to me.

- A

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #21 on: July 15, 2018, 11:28:41 PM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 7230
  • USM > STM
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2018, 11:31:00 PM »
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?  You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)

Agree.  But like it or not, it's the easiest way to differentiate your product on the market and to ask for a higher price.

- A

cpreston

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #23 on: July 15, 2018, 11:32:23 PM »
I am an actual videographer who uses the Canon Cinema line of cameras and generally has no interest in high megapixel cameras outside of photos and timelapse. I stick with Canon because I generally don't care about the video features of their photo cameras, but I like their lenses and DPAF. That being said, if they produced a small mirrorless camera that had decent resolution without a crop, I would upgrade from my current EOS-M1's that I use. I don't think any of the video people care whether they reuse the 5D IV sensor, or even the 5D II sensor. They just want some type of decent 4K, with a log profile (unneeded IMHO), in a crop that is at least as large as S35.

Joatamos

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #24 on: Today at 01:04:07 AM »
Last time I checked, this site is called CanonRUMOURS.com ....   not canon.com, nor canonfact.com.

I won't presume to speak for others, but I come here for the rumours, the "we think", "maybe", "looks like" etc. Keep the information flowing please.

Can't wait to hear glorious detail about the FF mirrorless Canon models, but in the meantime, please don't hold back on unsubstantiated mutterings..   8)

Uneternal

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #25 on: Today at 02:40:25 AM »
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?

Not everyone's needs are the same.  For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal).  People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.

So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards?  Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy  _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"

By the more pixels the better, I meant easier.  You just have more to work with, and run into fewer problems when retouching skin.  And yes, standards have changed over the years with digital, especially with beauty advertising, which is different from fashion (think make-up vs clothes).   But like I said, the main issue is, it's just easier, quicker and therefore cheaper when working with more pixels (assuming hardware capable of it).  Personally, I'd be happy still shooting film and doing hardly any retouching.  But that's not what most clients want.  Things are trending a little more toward natural, un-retouched style ("don't retouch me!"), so we'll see about that in the years to come.

I think there was a dedicated site saying you don't need anything over 12 megapixels, and everything over it actually decreases quality because the sensor pixels get too small. Well that was like 10 years ago and technology got better, we have BSI and other stuff allowing sensors to catch more photons, so manufacturers were able to increase the megapixels without wasting quality. Thats why a Sony a7 III, although having better resolution doesn't give you more grain than a 1DX in high ISO. At the same time you can have cameras like the A7S II which give you those 12 megapixels but look a lot better than what we've been used to in the past.
Personally, as I do a lot of retouching, I must say I can never have enough megapixels. I just love to crop pictures afterwards or those extra megapixels of texture I get out of the 5DIV at work compared to my 6D at home. Of course, for the ordinary shooter, 20 MP should be enough.

Kit.

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 171
Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #26 on: Today at 02:56:47 AM »
Still not a word about the G7X III :(

canon rumors FORUM

Re: The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill
« Reply #26 on: Today at 02:56:47 AM »