June 19, 2018, 10:03:55 PM

Author Topic: Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?  (Read 26604 times)

fullstop

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
there are specs and there are other specs. Some materialize in every image captured, some don't ever. some i don't care for (eg "4k" or any form of video capture), others i do care for quite a bit:
stills image quality, AF performance, responsiveness, straightforwardness of user interface, reliability, pricing ...
some specs are "paper relevant only", many others count in real life and with every single capture.

While Sony does not lead in all "specs dimensions", Canon has allowed them to do so in some and get darn close in many others. Canon (and Nikon) sat pretty much helplessly like lane ducks, iterated their mirrorslappers, made half-assed attempts at mirrorless (Nikon 1 anybody?) and let Sony become a true and formidable challenger on the way to take #2 spot in the stills imaging market. Had Canon acted just a bit more proactively it would not have happened.

Sony's foray into stills imaging gear could have ended with their ill-devised and deservedly ill-fated SLT/A-mount series of "mirrored bricks". All it would have taken from Canon would have been a "halfway decent", compact mirroless FF system 5 years ago when Sony launched the original A7 triplet (A7/R/S). Sony would have been dead in their tracks from day 1. Now Canon (and even more so Nikon) face a much bigger challenge to come up with an (overall) really winning mirrorless FF system. Not impossible by any means, but much harder than 5 years ago.

Same for APS-C systems: Fuji would not have gotten a leg on the ground, had Canon launched their APS-C mirrorless system with an EOS M50 as a start - specs and features. plus two more EF-M lenses. But no, Canon "held back on specs" and tried to charge outlandish prices for their underspecced 1st gen EOS M. as a result they had to give it away in a big firesale and Fuji has successfully established a small foothold in the market. Almost all Fuji mirrorless sales could easily have been Canon sales. Almost all Sony A7/A9 sales could easily have been Canon sales.

no amount of "smoke and mirrorslapping" can hide the serious mistakes Canon and Nikon management made. no speculation needed, looking at the facts is sufficient to understand the picture. Canon's relative success in a shrinking market is mostly "inert mass still in motion" - large customer base, strong brand name - like a large oil tanker, it won't stop on a dime. but it can run aground quicker than Sony may decide to end selling stills image gear. :-)
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 07:06:41 AM by fullstop »

canon rumors FORUM


jolyonralph

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 694
    • Every Other Shot
To be fair Canon did have a poor start with the EOS M range, but they are now selling very well. Don't underestimate the power of the Canon brand, especially at the lower end.
Jolyon Ralph

Cameras: 5DSR, A7RII, 5D III, EOS M6/M5/M3, Mavic Pro, DXO One.  Oh, and more lenses than I care to count.

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
there are specs and there are other specs. Some materialize in every image captured, some don't ever. some i don't care for (eg "4k" or any form of video capture), others i do care for quite a bit:
stills image quality, AF performance, responsiveness, straightforwardness of user interface, reliability, pricing ...
some specs are "paper relevant only", many others count in real life and with every single capture.

While Sony does not lead in all "specs dimensions", Canon has allowed them to do so in some and get darn close in many others. Canon (and Nikon) sat pretty much helplessly like lane ducks, iterated their mirrorslappers, made half-assed attempts at mirrorless (Nikon 1 anybody?) and let Sony become a true and formidable challenger on the way to take #2 spot in the stills imaging market. Had Canon acted just a bit more proactively it would not have happened.

Sony's foray into stills imaging gear could have ended with their ill-devised and deservedly ill-fated SLT/A-mount series of "mirrored bricks". All it would have taken from Canon would have been a "halfway decent", compact mirroless FF system 5 years ago when Sony launched the original A7 triplet (A7/R/S). Sony would have been dead in their tracks from day 1. Now Canon (and even more so Nikon) face a much bigger challenge to come up with an (overall) really winning mirrorless FF system. Not impossible by any means, but much harder than 5 years ago.

Same for APS-C systems: Fuji would not have gotten a leg on the ground, had Canon launched their APS-C mirrorless system with an EOS M50 as a start - specs and features. plus two more EF-M lenses. But no, Canon "held back on specs" and tried to charge outlandish prices for their underspecced 1st gen EOS M. as a result they had to give it away in a big firesale and Fuji has successfully established a small foothold in the market. Almost all Fuji mirrorless sales could easily have been Canon sales. Almost all Sony A7/A9 sales could easily have been Canon sales.

no amount of "smoke and mirrorslapping" can hide the serious mistakes Canon and Nikon management made. no speculation needed, looking at the facts is sufficient to understand the picture. Canon's relative success in a shrinkibg market is mostly "inert mass still in motion" - large customer base, strong brand name - like a large oil tanker, it won't stop on a dime. but it can run aground quicker than Sony may decide to end selling stills image gear. :-)

My take on this is a little different than yours.  I think that Canon's "serious mistake" was to take the time to develop dual pixel sensor technology as the foundation technology for its mirrorless effort.  The decision was made quite a a while ago now, and it meant that it didn't take a "first to market" path in dealing with Sony or Fuji.  You may be right about Nikon, and Canon may have missed the boat by waiting on dual pixel technology to make a a big mirrorless push, but I don't think the dual pixel technology reflects "inert mass in motion".


fullstop

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems.  Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology.

5 years ago a decent hybrid AF system [on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF] as in Sony's first gen A7/R/S) would have been "more than good enough" in Canon FF MILCs to stop Sony in their tracks. Canon would have sold a boatload of FF bodies and then more boatloads of Mk. II and Mk. - "with vastly superior, pure magic, Canon exclusive DP technology". :)

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems.  Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology.

5 years ago a decent hybrid AF system [on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF] as in Sony's first gen A7/R/S) would have been "more than good enough" in Canon FF MILCs to stop Sony in their tracks. Canon would have sold a boatload of FF bodies and then more boatloads of Mk. II and Mk. - "with vastly superior, pure magic, Canon exclusive DP technology". :)

Dual pixel is not just a high end AF solution.  It is now being used all the way down the food chain to the M-50.  Anyway, my point wasn't that Canon was right with its dual pixel choice.  My point was that Canon wasn't as sleepy and stupid as you make them out to be.😊

fullstop

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.  :P

Mikehit

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2533
of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.  :P

Every comparison I read is that in low light, DP is superior. Do you have experience//knowledge to the contrary?

canon rumors FORUM


Durf

  • EOS Rebel T7i
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
    • Durf's Journal - Photography Art
of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.  :P

Every comparison I read is that in low light, DP is superior. Do you have experience//knowledge to the contrary?

Many don't realize that Canon (and Nikon for that matter) have for many years now established themselves for the pro and semi-pro photographer community as heavy duty workhorse camera systems with a proven dependability and reliability tract record. Many pros and semi-pros are still happily using the older 5D mark iii's and getting great results etc.

Sony has only just recently resolved their over-heating problems and issues with photographers having to carry pockets full of batteries, not to mention their lack of a wide variety of lenses to choose from.

Sony is still in their "beta testing" phase so to speak for pro's in my opinion and haven't proven themselves as reliable and dependable as Canon or Nikon yet.

Several of their camera's (IN MY OPINION) I'm sure are great camera's and will get the job done, but for the most part they are  mostly popular and sensationalized through marketing tactics only, specifically through the internet and not through long term proven reliability and dependability years of usage by pro's and semi-pros.

Just my 2 cents worth! ;)
6D2 | 80D | T6i | 16-35mm f/4L | 50mm f/1.8 STM | Tamron SP 45mm & 85mm f/1.8  | 100mm f2.8L Macro | 70-300mm IS USM ii | Sigma 150-600mm | 
Pentax K1000 | Vintage Glass: Takumar-Pentax-Helios |
www.DurfsJournal.com

Sharlin

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 655
while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems.  Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology.

DPAF is a "magic trick" when you consider the bigger picture that includes both still and video. For stills only it's great but not ultra-revolutionary compared to the AF tech of Sony etc. But as far as I know for video it's easily superior to anything else out there. Not to mention that yes, Canon's only real competitor in terms of total ILC marketshare is still Nikon, and Nikon's sensor-based AF story is... not great.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 10:48:27 AM by Sharlin »

fullstop

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8)  ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon).   ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers.  :)

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold. :-)

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1645
  • Canon 6DII
re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8)  ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon).   ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers.  :)

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold. :-)

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body? 


ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6875
  • USM > STM
Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Because 'everything they want' varies from shooter to shooter and not everyone is a one-issue voter so to speak.  (If size really was everything m43 and Nikon 1 would have ruled the world.)  Some folks may want more subject isolation for a given aperture, some may want better quality high ISO files, and some may have grown up in film and just hate crop factors.

The notion that "mirrorless must be small" people should get APS-C, while pros/grown-ups get a huge FF mirrorless setup misses the mark.  As Sony has shown, Nikon likely will show (strongly rumored to go thin) and Canon possibly will show (mount TBD), a system that allows folks to build a smaller system that can reel in the same images as a bigger one is attractive to the market -- even if that smallness requires making lens choice compromises.

- A

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8)  ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon).   ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers.  :)

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold. :-)

Canon may well start with a FF equivalent of the M50, or maybe a digital equivalent of a 6DII.  Of course, whether such a camera would have a 5DIV sensor or cost $999 is something we can only speculate about, if that is something we want to do.😊

canon rumors FORUM


ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6875
  • USM > STM
Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Wow, how did I miss that bit above?

Canon's goal is not to put Sony out of business -- it's to be the #1 brand and make a profit, which they are doing very effectively right now.

So to set their financials on fire and start a price war to 'win' in a market they already currently enjoy the largest margins in is to tell all investors/shareholders  "Profits, schmofits.  We just took it to Sony good last quarter."  And then they'll wonder why price can't ever be elevated again.

Canon has carefully cultivated an impressive value proposition and marketing approach that allows their products to be charged the prices they are.  Why abandon that?

I understand the narrative that Sony is some near-term existential threat to Canon dominance, I do.  But until Sony actually starts stealing share/profits/etc. from Canon, it's a non-issue.  This whole argument of 'Canon blew it and they can't catch up now' is giggleworthy.  If Sony steals a few points of Canon share one year, Canon will change their pipeline and start offering more tech-per-dollar.  But to do so now -- in absence of any evidence that this existential crisis is upon them -- is just setting profits on fire, IMHO.

- A

fullstop

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way. 

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets. 

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then.  That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price!  ;D

canon rumors FORUM