Canon Asking Select Professionals What They Want in a Mirrorless Camera

[SkynetTX]

Yes, but most amateurs will just want more green box modes

+1
But do they really need a DSLR or mirrorless if they don't want to take the advantages of it? Except the IQ maybe?

 

[gmon750]

I'd be happy with a well-engineered mirrorless version of the 5DM3 that lets me use my EF lenses. I don't care much for all that fancy, detachable screen and 4K-video nonsense.

 

[ahsanford]

Small correction. RX1R=A7 internals (24 MP) not A7R (36 MP).

Spot on. My memory failed me there.

- A

 

[slclick]

Interesting that ask Pros. After all they will buy a few hundred copies. While amateurs will drive the volume w/ 10,000s. I guess numbers don't matter too much.

yes, asking experts...crazy notion.

 

[ahsanford]

People seem to forget that the 35mm camera pretty much killed medium format in it's day because it gave the photographer so many more advantages. Today, with DSLRs available with high MP counts and medium format shrinking towards 35mm size, there is virtually no reason left to go medium format, in my opinion. Sure there will always be an extreme fringe element that wants more than the typical pro who is using a DSLR. Let other companies cater to the fringe.

That's the tenor of my rant (the current state of things, not the backstory).

MF can be successful, but I think it needs to fundamentally be better than just 'but it has leaf shutter lenses' or 'you need to have to shot this with film to see why it's so exciting for digital'. All of those chats feel like a Leica rangefinder conversation that is more spiritual / philosophical than analytical.

In the end, the sensor (and the ability to get the most out of it) has to be worth the trouble of leaving the FF space for it. 50 MP + 1 stop more DR + the quick sync a leaf shutter brings isn't enough to walk away from so so so much that the FF ecosystem offers, IMHO.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting that ask Pros. After all they will buy a few hundred copies. While amateurs will drive the volume w/ 10,000s. I guess numbers don't matter too much.

+1
I love shooting beetles so I need a crop DSLR with a sensor that is able to decrease the diffraction effect at f/16 or smaller and has better noise performance than the currently existing ones. See my specifications of the 9000D.
On the other hand Pros can ask for features that amateurs will find useful as well.

Er that would be a FF sensor, it gives you all you ask for (better diffraction performance (because the CoC is larger), and better ISO performance (because noise per capture is based on total sensor area)), just get a lens that matches your crop equivalence and you and your beetle photography are taken to the next level.

 

[Don Haines]

People seem to forget that the 35mm camera pretty much killed medium format in it's day because it gave the photographer so many more advantages. Today, with DSLRs available with high MP counts and medium format shrinking towards 35mm size, there is virtually no reason left to go medium format, in my opinion. Sure there will always be an extreme fringe element that wants more than the typical pro who is using a DSLR. Let other companies cater to the fringe.

That's the tenor of my rant (the current state of things, not the backstory).

MF can be successful, but I think it needs to fundamentally be better than just 'but it has leaf shutter lenses' or 'you need to have to shot this with film to see why it's so exciting for digital'. All of those chats feel like a Leica rangefinder conversation that is more spiritual / philosophical than analytical.

In the end, the sensor (and the ability to get the most out of it) has to be worth the trouble of leaving the FF space for it. 50 MP + 1 stop more DR + the quick sync a leaf shutter brings isn't enough to walk away from so so so much that the FF ecosystem offers, IMHO.

- A

Having shot in formats ranging from 8X10 to the Kodak Disk camera, 35mm was a good balance between size and quality..... that’s probably why it was so popular.

Nowadays, the quality of the lenses is much higher and the sensors have better resolution than film, so a decent 35mm digital camera beats the quality of most medium format cameras of 40 years ago....

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting that ask Pros. After all they will buy a few hundred copies. While amateurs will drive the volume w/ 10,000s. I guess numbers don't matter too much.

yes, asking experts...crazy notion.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. For sure whatever Canon do they will be castigated for it and any product will be decried as DOA and 'if only it had' by soul-searching internet 'experts' who are actually looking for nothing more than page hits.

 

[dolina]

* Stock Android 8 Oreo
* 6-inch display
* Snapdragon 835 SoC or better

 

[JP]

The pros they are probably talking to are saying:

1. We want a relatively slow frame rate.
2. A max burst time of 1.3 seconds before the buffer is full, and a waiting time of 4-5 seconds before we can take the next photo.
3. A 1/200ths top sync speed for studio flashes. 1/250ths is never needed, nor desired.
4. No PC socket needed... that's for old school photographers. Replace that with a Direct Print button.
5. An AF coverage of the middle of the frame only.
6. A loooooong shutter lag time..
7. A 50+ MP sensor to ensure quality images.
8. Top iso of 200,000,000...
9. Low iso of 100
10. able to fit into the same pocket we use for our cell phones.

 

[hne]

The pros they are probably talking to are saying:

1. We want a relatively slow frame rate.
2. A max burst time of 1.3 seconds before the buffer is full, and a waiting time of 4-5 seconds before we can take the next photo.
3. A 1/200ths top sync speed for studio flashes. 1/250ths is never needed, nor desired.
4. No PC socket needed... that's for old school photographers. Replace that with a Direct Print button.
5. An AF coverage of the middle of the frame only.
6. A loooooong shutter lag time..
7. A 50+ MP sensor to ensure quality images.
8. Top iso of 200,000,000...
9. Low iso of 100
10. able to fit into the same pocket we use for our cell phones.

Yes. If they instead made a camera with

8-10fps
4-5s burst time, with 1.3s for the buffer to clear
1/2000s sync speed
PC socket
DPAF normal coverage
Zero lag shutter (by preparing when you half-press)
25-30Mpx
Top ISO 12800
Low ISO 25
Any size

... then it might be a huge success.

 

[thomic]

-EF mount
-Blackout free EVF with more than 99fps
-Dpaf locks focus in 0.03s
-8-12fps with autofocus and 100% success rate for subject walking, running or cycling
-Tilty flippy display with touch AF
-Small crop factor 4k with decent codec
-30-45Mpix FF sensor
-13.5-14Evs DR
-Stereo microphone
-Headphone and microphone sockets
-Decent battery life (600px)
-USB-C socket with USB3.1 standard
-Wifi/Bluetooth/NFC
-$1999
*Eye catching design a la m6
*2 UHS-II card slots
*Compatible with EF-S in a crop mode
*No AA filter
*Wireless charging
*Global shutter
*5-axis IBIS
*$2499

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Interesting that ask Pros. After all they will buy a few hundred copies. While amateurs will drive the volume w/ 10,000s. I guess numbers don't matter too much.

A couple of thoughts to add to those of others:

1. While some amateurs (and no doubt many on this forum) will use their camera regularly, many (most?) amateurs may only use their cameras occasionally - special events etc. - whereas there is nothing like a pro who may be using a camera for a few hours a day, day-in, day-out, to interpret what works and what doesn't and what would improve the existing state.

2. Think of the marketing angle: would you rather be advertising it as "as used by the world's leading professional photogs", or "as used by thousands of amateurs"...


Stoical.

 

[Deleted member 374702]

- No dropping to 12 bit in continuous
- No lossy compression in high speed

In fairness to Sony, they have been listening to folks who get butt hurt on fine print preventing them from getting full max burst speed with uncompressed RAW. You can now opt out of mandatory compression nonsense in the menus.

Reporting testing from Imaging Resource below:

A99-II: Max advertised = 12 fps JPEG or compressed RAW, and they tell you right in the manual it will slow down with uncompressed RAW. But when tested with uncompressed RAW, it still delivered 11.1 fps.

A7R3: Max advertised = 10 fps for JPEG or compressed RAW, and they tell you right in the manual it will slow down with uncompressed RAW. But when tested with uncompressed RAW, it still delivered 9.2 fps.

A9 is a soup of conditions because of that mechanical / electronic shutter setup. Max advertised = 20 fps JPEG or compressed RAW (elec) / 12 fps uncompressed RAW (elec) / 5 fps (mech) for all files, and that's exactly how it tests.

So only in one instance above is fps seriously hit for wanting uncompressed RAW output. Sony is improving on this front, and let's tip our cap here -- 42 x 11.1 uncompressed RAW is an impressive accomplishment. When we talk about this latest round of supercameras (D850 / A9 / A99-II / A7R3), they move a ton of data.

- A

The only reason, why they added the uncompressed mode, was because they got caught(by DPR?), not because they "listened"!
People give too much credit to Sony - as if they're some Prometheus incarnates bringing fire down to the mortals - but, in reality, all they did, was to do the only thing they could to get out of the DSLT mire, as radical as it might've seemed.
Yes, α9 is a soup, I completely agree with that. My problem lies with people who believe it is a nectar from the gods
The only one that moves ton of data properly is the D850 - it's buffer, in it's most challenging speed, empties out for about 3-4 seconds w/o locking you out of anything: 46mpx, 14bit @ 9fps. None of the others have anything that even gets close. People say well, it's the size that limits the cards choice, the battery, the CPU, blah, blah... then what is the big and chunky α99II's excuse of 25 images buffer that takes 34 seconds to clear?! Obviously, Sony are listening to people very selectively
I don't hate Sony, don't get me wrong, it's just the accompanying clamor that is getting more and more annoying.
Cheers

 

[highdesertmesa]

Why GFX50? Cant understand it. Color? Noise? Controls?

Because the price point of the rumored rangefinder (and less expensive) version of the GFX 50S body may begin to encroach on the 5DsR (and future 5Ds Mk II) price point. Also once the 100S version is released in 2019, the 50S price will drop substantially. And the GF lenses are not any more expensive than Canon's best L lenses, yet they can resolve up to 100 MP.

I went on a mini rant about medium format's appeal to FF users recently: post 1 / post 2

In my mind, it's a very hard sell to FF users. Many more takeaways than advantages, and the hotness the bigger sensor brings isn't that much hotter than what FF can deliver today.

I'm not saying that there is not benefit to MF -- leaf shutters and bigger sensors are not bad things at all. But I feel one is walking away from so much more than they are walking towards in a FF --> MF conversation.

But a total agreement / +1 on the 100 MP arriving to change things there. That's a clear selling point that FF will not have for some time.

- A

I own the GFX and 5DsR, and I can tell you the difference in the files is substantial and well worth the price difference (I got the GFX body for just over $5K). The only thing I use the 5DsR for any more is longer telephoto shots, but that will change somewhat when the GF 250 plus 1.4x comes out this year. I'll still keep the 5DsR and 100-400 II with 1.4x III for the occasional 500mm+ shot.

 

[tmroper]

People seem to forget that the 35mm camera pretty much killed medium format in it's day because it gave the photographer so many more advantages. Today, with DSLRs available with high MP counts and medium format shrinking towards 35mm size, there is virtually no reason left to go medium format, in my opinion. Sure there will always be an extreme fringe element that wants more than the typical pro who is using a DSLR. Let other companies cater to the fringe.

I don't think that's true at all. MF started off and stayed mostly a professional and commercial format. Meanwhile, 35mm came along first as a more consumer format, and then became something professionals adopted because it suited their needs better (conflict photography, photojournalism, etc). But in professional studios, and on produced location commercial shoots, MF film stayed very prevalent until digital took over. The Mamiya RZ67 was probably the most ubiquitous, and that's why there are so many of those available to buy used today.

 

[koofoo]

We shoot weddings and studio portraiture and have been Canonites for nearly 15 years. We've spent over £100k on bodies and lenses. However, we've recently acquired Sony's A7SIIs and A7RIIIs and can definitely say that if Canon wants to please it's loyal customer base it better get off of it's lardy backside and develop something like an A7RIII killer. Buying the Sonys wasn't an easy decision but we got tired of waiting. We know of other fellow crews who've switched too.

 

[TAF]

People seem to forget that the 35mm camera pretty much killed medium format in it's day because it gave the photographer so many more advantages. Today, with DSLRs available with high MP counts and medium format shrinking towards 35mm size, there is virtually no reason left to go medium format, in my opinion. Sure there will always be an extreme fringe element that wants more than the typical pro who is using a DSLR. Let other companies cater to the fringe.

I don't think that's true at all. MF started off and stayed mostly a professional and commercial format. Meanwhile, 35mm came along first as a more consumer format, and then became something professionals adopted because it suited their needs better (conflict photography, photojournalism, etc). But in professional studios, and on produced location commercial shoots, MF film stayed very prevalent until digital took over. The Mamiya RZ67 was probably the most ubiquitous, and that's why there are so many of those available to buy used today.

Might I politely suggest you review "Film Formats" at Wikipedia; notice the dates of introduction of the various film formats. You will find that MF came first - by years. If you bought a camera, it used MF film. 35mm came along as a motion picture format, and Oskar Barnack adapted it to small portable cameras because he was not in the best of health and didn't want to carry the much larger and heavier cameras of the day (story also found at Wikipedia).

MF survived initially because there were so many cameras that used roll film, then it became the professional choice due to higher image quality. It survives now due to the endpoints of the film genre; higher image quality for the professionals, and the Holga world or art.

In the digital realm, the larger sensors are still superior; as long as the technology we take for granted in the FF/APS arena propagates 'upward', it always will. Bigger sensors win. If that stops, then MF will probably die (in the digital arena, the film should be with us for a good long time - I hope!).

 

[FunkyCamera]

Hopefully these professionals will tell them the right answer - they don't want Canon to waste their time on these toy cameras, and hopefully Canon will listen to those professionals instead of forums warriors who don't actually take photos, and just own a mirrorless because they think it's cool.

Professionals use DSLRs, and I'm sure Canon will be smart enough to remember that, and not fall into the Fony Hype.

 

[TAF]

Does Canon often make stupidly impossible cameras to hold?

That would describe the entire EOS M line until you get to the M5. It would also describe many of the P+S line. And I have pretty average American sized hands (glove size 9).

Of course Canon sells much of their products in Asia, where hand sizes are a bit smaller.

Ergonomics are very challenging on an international level; there really is a significant difference in size around the world.