Canon Asking Select Professionals What They Want in a Mirrorless Camera

[rfdesigner]

5. Wireless/detachable touch LCD display that can also clip on;

I've proposed this in the past.

Wireless charging of the screen from the camera, even if it's only got half an hour battery with the screen illuminated it could be days without the screen on, dual function as a remote intervalometer.
By doing a dedicated screen the link speed, reliability and efficiency all improve. Relying on the user also having a smartphone compatible with any APP canon might produce might be a longer shot, not everyone has a smartphone, I don't.

Taking the smartphone idea but turning it around..

A Canon smartphone with an adapter (the mirrorless body minus screen) which takes the lenses, but because it's dedicated it isn't some nasty delicate monstrosity, it's tough and ergonomic.

 

[ahsanford]

Only NOW????

Read amorse's post at the bottom of page 2 of this thread. Canon won't court pros for the 6D market the same way they would for the 5D market -- it's possible...

• ...the enthusiast FF ILC mirrorless is already in development and doesn't need the pro-level feedback (again, see that amorse post),
  
  
• ...Canon may have been mapping out a full FF ILC mirrorless portfolio in the ivory tower back at corporate and just wanted to suss out how well it plays with heavy hitters in the field before banking it as the plan,
  
  
• ...Canon was on the fence as to mirrorless needing to match their FF SLR specs vs. offer different functionality for pros. In other words, Canon might have been curious if FF pro mirrorless was simply what we think it is (i.e. trade an EVF for the mirror) or if its appeal to pros is for different applications (travel assignments --> small size, utterly silent for weddings, b-cam with stronger video than the primary SLR)

So I don't read this as day 1 of the FF ILC mirrorless adventure. I see this as a focus group for a specific level of that future FF mirrorless product lines. I could be wrong.

Oh and profis dont need any mirrorless why bother asking?!

Because amplifying light in really dark rooms, a histo in the VF, eliminating mirror slap, taking up less space in the bag, etc. only benefits enthusiasts? Everyone other than the 1% most demanding application photographers (think wildlifers, sports photogs, etc.) will shoot mirrorless when it's all said and done. All of them. It makes sense to ask what future they'd like to see before you launch something.

- A

 

[ken]

I don't get the desire for a non-EF mount from so many people. If it has a short flange on the body, you'll just have a flange on EVERY lens (eating up valuable bag space), or the equivalent in an adapter (which makes the mount less stable).

Are the people asking for short flange not aware of the physics? Or... are they wanting the ability to use non-Canon glass? Or something I haven't thought of?

 

[Sporgon]

Keep the exact same 5D IV form factor and replace the mirror box with an EVF and grant all the goodies that come along with that. Done.

Just remind me what those goodies are.

 

[ahsanford]

why have anything less than other competators such as sony a7 series

Because we presume Canon has solid market data, surveys, VOC information that says that they don't need everything A7 offers to get current Canon users to buy it.

I'm fairly confident a straight 5D4 with [OVF + Mirror] traded for an EVF -- so a full EF mount rig with no other changes* -- would sell very well. Consider what an EVF alone could unlock for current 62 or 5D4 users:

• In-viewfinder histo (for that matter customize the hell out of the viewfinder in general)
• Amplify light in dark rooms
• Focusing screens RIP, aka "oh wow, I can use wide aperture manual focus lenses off the tripod now!"
• Mirror slap RIP

Sure, an A7 could do that and a whole lot more. But it's built by Sony (see recent weathersealing videos), requires the use of a third party adaptor to possibly get your AF to work well, and has the ergonomic/controls/menu sensibilities of a Playstation controller. Parts of it are brilliant... while parts of it are the opposite of brilliant.

Honestly, I think Canon will sleep like a baby if when they FF mirrorless that is underspec'd to Sony. Because they know it will sell well.

- A

* And we know they'll do more than that -- give it a tilty-flippy, possibly look into a quieter silent shutter, etc.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't get the desire for a non-EF mount from so many people. If it has a short flange on the body, you'll just have a flange on EVERY lens (eating up valuable bag space), or the equivalent in an adapter (which makes the mount less stable).

Are the people asking for short flange not aware of the physics? Or... are they wanting the ability to use non-Canon glass? Or something I haven't thought of?

You are right about the lens tube phenomenon (e.g. see all Sony GM lenses), but some folks covet small size to a very high degree. For those folks, if you are very strict with your lens specs / FLs, you can create a relatively tiny FF kit.

So, for instance, a FF 'thin' mount body with a 35 f/2.8, 50 f/2, perhaps a collapsible 24-70 f/4 zoom yet to be designed, etc. would actually create a smaller overall form factor than than a full EF mount.

But yes, if you want f/1.4 primes, f/2.8 zooms or longer FL lens you are fooling yourself w.r.t. a thin body actually building a smaller camera + lens combo.

But we'd collectively be quite foolish to drive past a boatload of people who truly buy the notion that mirrorless is all about being smaller/thinner. Those folks exist and they will pay good money for the 'presumption of value' that a thin body brings.

- A

 

[Deleted member 378875]

why have anything less than other competators such as sony a7 series

Because we presume Canon has solid market data, surveys, VOC information that says that they don't need everything A7 offers to get current Canon users to buy it.

I'm fairly confident a straight 5D4 with [OVF + Mirror] traded for an EVF -- so a full EF mount rig with no other changes -- would sell very well. Consider what an EVF alone could unlock for current 62 or 5D4 users:

• In-viewfinder histo (for that matter customize the hell out of the viewfinder in general)
• Amplify light in dark rooms
• Focusing screens RIP, aka "oh wow, I can use wide aperture manual focus lenses off the tripod now!"
• Mirror slap RIP

Sure, an A7 could do that and a whole lot more. But it's built by Sony (see recent weathersealing videos), requires the use of a third party adaptor to possibly get your AF to work well, and has the ergonomic/controls/menu sensibilities of a Playstation controller. Parts of it are brilliant... while parts of it are the opposite of brilliant.

Honestly, I think Canon will sleep like a baby if when they FF mirrorless that is underspec'd to Sony. Because they know it will sell well.

- A

I beg to differ ... simply taking a 5D4 and swapping [OVF + Mirror] for an EVF will in many people's opinion produce a worse camera, simply because an EVF is laggy and the viewfinder image quality is terrible compared to "real life" directly through the lens.

Personally, I can't bear to use an EVF. My theory is that the sales in mirrorless cameras are being driven by two factors : small/lightweight for some people, and feature-rich for others. I find it difficult to believe anyone actually prefers the VF image quality.

Only once we have "retina" quality high-res images with 100Hz lag-free refresh will a straight EVF-for-OVF swap produce a camera of equal value.

I appreciate that I don't speak for everyone here ... but having owned and used a 5D4, 80D and M5 I have no doubts about my feelings on the subject ...

 

[ahsanford]

I beg to differ ... simply taking a 5D4 and swapping [OVF + Mirror] for an EVF will in many people's opinion produce a worse camera, simply because an EVF is laggy and the viewfinder image quality is terrible compared to "real life" directly through the lens.

You drove right by my point. Mirrorless isn't about being categorically better/worse than SLRs -- it's another option that can do other things.

Tell me, how has your Zeiss Otus focusing been at f/1.4 handheld on your 5D4, if you don't mind my asking?

How has your focusing worked in a dark room, say 200-300 lumens of light? Are you hitting and hoping? Are you stopping down to range focus, now requiring ISO 6 gajillion? Are you 5x/10x-ing in LiveView with your camera a good foot away from your eye?

Do you like chimping your histo exposure after the fact?

In those three instances, a (well designed) mirrorless rig would mop the floor with the 5D4. It's not a better camera than a 5D4, but in those use cases a mirrorless rig might shine above what an SLR can do.

Full disclosure: I don't own a mirrorless rig -- I prefer an OVF setup like you do. But mirrorless can undeniably tackle a few more asks than an SLR can in some circumstances.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I beg to differ ... simply taking a 5D4 and swapping [OVF + Mirror] for an EVF will in many people's opinion produce a worse camera, simply because an EVF is laggy and the viewfinder image quality is terrible compared to "real life" directly through the lens.

You drove right by my point. Mirrorless isn't about being categorically better/worse than SLRs -- it's another option that can do other things.

Like burst mode.....

A 1DX2 tops out at 14
A 7D2 tops out at 10

A mirror less should be able to hit 120

 

[IglooEater]

I beg to differ ... simply taking a 5D4 and swapping [OVF + Mirror] for an EVF will in many people's opinion produce a worse camera, simply because an EVF is laggy and the viewfinder image quality is terrible compared to "real life" directly through the lens.

You drove right by my point. Mirrorless isn't about being categorically better/worse than SLRs -- it's another option that can do other things.

Like burst mode.....

A 1DX2 tops out at 14
A 7D2 tops out at 10

A mirror less should be able to hit 120

And fill up a 64 gig card in 22 seconds XD

 

[neuroanatomist]

The one on the left would be comfortable to hold, the one on the right would give me a hand cramps very quickly. I know which one I'd pick.

 

[ahsanford]

The one on the left would be comfortable to hold, the one on the right would give me a hand cramps very quickly. I know which one I'd pick.

The funny thing? The same is true of the small lens comparison, b/c the grip is sooooo much more than something to counterbalance the lens weight with:

More buttons
More surface area for gripping
More room for a larger battery
More comfortable resting hand position
Less awkward finger movements to use the controls
Top LCD

- A

 

[Don Haines]

I beg to differ ... simply taking a 5D4 and swapping [OVF + Mirror] for an EVF will in many people's opinion produce a worse camera, simply because an EVF is laggy and the viewfinder image quality is terrible compared to "real life" directly through the lens.

You drove right by my point. Mirrorless isn't about being categorically better/worse than SLRs -- it's another option that can do other things.

Like burst mode.....

A 1DX2 tops out at 14
A 7D2 tops out at 10

A mirror less should be able to hit 120

And fill up a 64 gig card in 22 seconds XD

And if you catch the baseball deforming as the bat hits it, you are much more likely to sell that photo..... It all depends on what you are after. For those who need it, faster burst is wonderful!

 

[Talys]

Top LCD

I'm surprised that this isn't more important to some people. I can hardly imagine purchasing a workhorse camera without one.

 

[Don Haines]

Top LCD

I'm surprised that this isn't more important to some people. I can hardly imagine purchasing a workhorse camera without one.

+1

Got to have the shoulder display and enough controls to operate it! None of this go through a menu to change basic settings crap!

 

[bhf3737]

You drove right by my point. Mirrorless isn't about being categorically better/worse than SLRs -- it's another option that can do other things.

Tell me, how has your Zeiss Otus focusing been at f/1.4 handheld on your 5D4, if you don't mind my asking?

How has your focusing worked in a dark room, say 200-300 lumens of light? Are you hitting and hoping? Are you stopping down to range focus, now requiring ISO 6 gajillion? Are you 5x/10x-ing in LiveView with your camera a good foot away from your eye?

Do you like chimping your histo exposure after the fact?

In those three instances, a (well designed) mirrorless rig would mop the floor with the 5D4. It's not a better camera than a 5D4, but in those use cases a mirrorless rig might shine above what an SLR can do.

Full disclosure: I don't own a mirrorless rig -- I prefer an OVF setup like you do. But mirrorless can undeniably tackle a few more asks than an SLR can in some circumstances.

- A

Thanks for explaining the use-cases in great details.
If I may add to that, no need for AFMA is a huge plus for mirrorless. It is time saving and removes worries about whether the body-lens combo is calibrated or not.
on the other hand, my limited experience with mirrorless (M5 and XT-2) tells me that autofocus with mirrorless in moderate to extreme low light is inconsistent and slow at best, and DSLRs (e.g. 5DSr and 35mm f/2) do a much better job there.

 

[Aaron D]

You guys who draw a line in the sand for a native EF mount kill me. Why make a mirrorless camera if all it is is a DSLR without a mirror? some additional burst rate? And all the distress about your hands cramping on such a tiny grip! Does Canon often make stupidly impossible cameras to hold? And all that space in your bags eaten up by lenses with the mirror void built-in! Really? A couple centimeters times TWELVE isn't going to force you to throw out your favorite Domke. Which is probably worn out ANYWAY and needs to be replaced because you're changing lenses 30 time a day and can't.

Are you all still using FD lenses because you refuse to go with the new EF mount? No! You bought new lenses! Are you still painting with oils because photography is a silly fad that won't last?

Hyperventilate!

 

[ahsanford]

my limited experience with mirrorless (M5 and XT-2) tells me that autofocus with mirrorless in moderate to extreme low light is inconsistent and slow at best, and DSLRs (e.g. 5DSr and 35mm f/2) do a much better job there.

You are correct. But a mirrorless rig in very low light has manual focusing options the 6D2 and 5D4 do not. On the mirrorless rig, you could conceivably amplify the light enough for you to use manual focusing + focus peaking, all while the camera is stably being held up to your face/eye.

Handheld on a 6D2/5D4 -- which does not have a focusing screen option, if it's darker than the AF will operate under, you have to resort to hacks you mentioned above or possibly just use a speedlite's AF assist beam without firing the flash -- if the situation/venue even lets you do that.

On this, it's Point: Mirrorless. It just has more ways to pull the shot off under those (admittedly specific) constraints. Again, I still prefer an SLR and that's why I use my 5D3. But I wish I could better wield manual focus lenses and shoot with some sort of focus assist in dark rooms.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Why make a mirrorless camera if all it is is a DSLR without a mirror?

There are many virtues to mirrorless besides size. I'd advise reading the thread as we've offered quite a few.

And all the distress about your hands cramping on such a tiny grip! Does Canon often make stupidly impossible cameras to hold?

No, but have you shot all day with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens on an SL2 / 200D? Did you like that feeling? I ask because that's about the size grip the A7R3 comes with (see pic) -- do you honestly want to use big fast FF lenses on a consumer grip designed to principally hold a crop 18-55 on it?

So, yeah, I think a FF mirrorless rig with a smaller grip 'because mirrorless is defined as being smaller' is patently absurd for this class of camera.

- A

 

[Dvash7]

I can only hope that Canon releases a mirrorless at the price point around 2000$ eith full format sensor. Basically a M5 scaled up with fully flippable screen and having learned from the M5's weaknesses such as only one card slot, bad battery life and af performance.

Or, put another way, a 6D2 with extra stuff for the same price.

I don't think that's going to happen.

Canon will mark up the initial FF mirrorless offering above it's SLR equivalent, i.e. if the first FF mirrorless is 6D2-spec'd, it'll cost $2300-2500, if it's 5D4-spec'd, it'll cost $3500 or so.

Again: they are not competing with Sony with their price, value proposition, etc. They will simply be taking money from pent up Canonites who have been waiting for this.

- A

This is exactly what I'm most worried about.
I've had a 7D for ages, and was looking forward to the 6D2. Needless to say, I took a hard pass on that one.
The only reason I haven't jumped ship to Sony yet is that I'm heavily invested in Canon glass, and with all the rumors circulating it just seems reasonable that Canon will come out with a FF mirrorless option sooner rather than later.
I certainly hope it isn't just for "pent up" Canonites like me. I really don't want to spend my money on its JUST because it's mirrorless, I want a decent product!