Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,970
1,182
119
sanj said:
transpo1 said:
douglaurent said:
Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?
I agree with you. Defence of Canon needs to come from strengths like service, reliability, glass etc NOT it being market king. That is a function of marketing and bandwagon etc.

It's always funny to me how anytime someone on this forum has the temerity to criticize Canon for not offering the reasonable features they want, the answer always seems to be "marketshare and sales." It's like there's a whole forum of marketing professionals not photographers and artists
To use, probably inadvisedly, the fall back car analogy.

If you want a car you can buy a Toyota or an Alfa Romeo, the Toyota will always get you there, always, it will get your kids there when you give it to them too, it will never set you on fire but it will never let you down. Or you can buy an Alfa Romeo, you will love it like you never did the Toyota. You can enjoy driving it like you never could the Toyota but you will never be able to rely on it, it will let you down, more than once!

People have different reasons for getting what they do, I'd never critisize anybody for getting an Alfa Romeo, indeed I'd smile at the sound as they pulled away at the lights. But I, personally and in a professional environment, value reliability as a must have feature, I often travel with one body and Canon have never let me down. For me that is more valuable than a hint more dr, or any other specific IQ related feature.

All that doesn't mean I wouldn't like the driving experience that Alfa Romeo would give me, and if a company that made that as well as the proven dependability made a model combining both I'd take a serious look at it, but they don't, yet. Pointing that out about

Canon products is not being defensive or delusional, it just means people have different priorities. As for Canon's sales success, it seems to me that is mainly down to extremely rigid cost controls and value for money in the lower order models. At this point mirrorless can't compete cost wise, so it doesn't.
 

gregory4000

EOS M50
Mar 12, 2015
49
0
Orangutan said:
Don Haines said:
Orangutan said:
neuroanatomist said:
douglaurent said:
Now THESE are really things that the whole world is waiting and asking for! Congrats! Much more important than seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder or a dedicated ISO wheel!
Who cares if it's a few milliseconds behind the real world. Who cares if it's not the actual exposure because an EVF is showing an 8-bit jpg'd version of the world and I'm capturing a RAW image.
In fairness, the eye/brain already have a 100ms delay; adding another 50ms (the current EVF best, I believe) is probably tolerable for most purposes. Also, if it's 50ms now, in "a few years" (I've given up predicting) it'll be low enough that it's not really noticeable.

Along those same lines, the fact that the current EVFs are limited to standardized 8-bit images does not mean it will always be so. A fully mature EVF will be configurable to meet the photographers needs; i.e., set your own curve.

I agree that EVF is not a full match for OVF, but it's getting there, and it's close enough that we can say that there's no essential quality of EVF that will prevent it from reaching the level of "fully adequate."
I believe that the lag time on the OM-D E-M1 II is 8ms (depending on the mode the camera is in, as low as 5!!!!!), and that the wider colour range that the sensor can capture is mapped onto the 8 bits of colour resolution of the EVF (betcha 16 bit EVF is on the way)
That's impressive -- 8ms lag will be unnoticeable. 16-bit EVF + ability to set the EVF tone curve checks the boxes for EVF quality. So what's left to do is:

  • Power consumption
  • Low light image quality and focus
  • CDAF speed, accuracy and tracking

All of these continue to advance. When will it be ready? Dunno. As things stand, I agree that a hybrid OVF/EVF may be the transition step.
 

hbr

EOS RP
Oct 22, 2016
326
0
Technology is steadily advancing and in the end we all benefit from it and the competition between manufacturers. Over the past 10 years I have read that Canon is doomed by every new model released by Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc., that I just disregard all that nonsense. It hasn't happened yet and I doubt if it will happen in the near future.

I agree with the car analogy - customer satisfaction with a brand or product often is more important than which product has the best features. My Hondas and Toyotas have lasted me 20 years and have all given me over 200k miles of relatively maintenance free service. Reliability and customer satisfaction are very important - Guess what brand of car I will purchase next.

Good for Sony. Good for Nikon. I am happy for them. We need the competition, but guess which brand of camera I will purchase next.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,769
Canada
sanj said:
I agree with you. Defence of Canon needs to come from strengths like service, reliability, glass etc NOT it being market king. That is a function of marketing and bandwagon etc.
Interestingly enough, the two ends of the Canon spectrum are represented by "the pros and fanatics", with the other end being "the great unwashed masses"....

For the pros and fanatics, things like service, reliability, and glass are critical to the decision making process, yet to the masses, price and getting a "name brand" are the biggest factors.

And features and specs? We forum members will hotly debate them! Every little difference means YAPOD (Yet Another Prediction Of Doom) for Canon and in the midst of all this we loose track of the interesting statistic that the bulk of DSLRs are very seldom used outside of "green box mode"
 

hbr

EOS RP
Oct 22, 2016
326
0
There a lot more of us out there that photograph as a hobby over those that are pros that need the latest and greatest technology. While we may drool over the "big whites" and the professional cameras, we simply can't justify the expense. We are Canon's bread and butter from a profitability standpoint.
 

johnhenry

EOS T7i
Apr 24, 2013
81
0
Just more noise from Canon trying to keep dangling a carrot in front of people on the fence about getting a FF but not actually WANTING to release one, just to keep them from migrating to Sony/Nikon

They leave OUT 4K video so to keep flogging their expensive 4K video cameras and just leave the rest of us hung out to dry with their inept marketing ploys.

Just seems to be more Vaporware from a company who is getting good at it.
 

Rocky

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 30, 2010
918
32
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
Right on +1
 

davidhfe

EOS T7i
Sep 9, 2015
53
19
johnhenry said:
Just seems to be more Vaporware from a company who is getting good at it.
Not announcing products until they are ready to ship (ok, a little longer with the 1 series, but basically true) is, like, the exact opposite of vaporware.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,769
Canada
Rocky said:
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
Right on +1
This is based on the assumption that a mirrorless flange distance has to be tiny. That may well be a flawed assumption as narrow bodies have drawbacks as well as advantages.... We do not have the data to guess which way it will go....
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Mikehit said:
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
The move from FD to EF was essential to introduce AF - the pain was offset by long-term gain. No such extreme advantage exists with a move to mirrorless. Apart from to stop you whining (then again.... :-X).

Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy with all but the top range bodies. Even Sony with their much-praised adapters take a massive hit in performance then you use an adapter to fit a Canon lens.

So where is the sense, again?
bumping this .. this is too true. also when canon had the FD mount and minolta came out with their AF system, canon fell to #3 in marketshare. They had to do something and fast. EF was a gamble (the project manager put his career on the line to convince the higher ups) that paid off in spades. but the scenario is nothing close to the same as it is today.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
johnhenry said:
They leave OUT 4K video so to keep flogging their expensive 4K video cameras and just leave the rest of us hung out to dry with their inept marketing ploys.
Right. you sure about that?
 

gmrza

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 21, 2011
521
1
neuroanatomist said:
So now you're speaking for millions of customers, and claiming to have knowledge of what drives their purchasing decisions? Talk about delusional… Millions of people don't buy new cameras and lenses because 'the workflow completely sucks'? Completely asinine. It's far more likely that in most cases, the camera and lens(es) they have are meeting their needs perfectly well.
I can only speak for myself, but what I am finding is that my wife and I are purchasing gear (specifically bodies) less frequently - mainly because the ones we have are doing what we require. To put it in a more concrete perspective: my wife seldom, if ever, gets a request for a print more than 1m (40") across. 95% of prints she sells are 50cm wide across or less. Those requirements can be achieved perfectly by a 5DIII. True, if my wife were shooting billboards, a 5DSR would make sense, but she isn't.
Whenever my wife is shooting for a client, she uses a portrait grip. The ergonomics of a body with a portrait grip are superior. Thus, for professional use, including events and studio work I see little use for a mirrorless body, unless a mirrorless body becomes able to do something that a DSLR cannot.

Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.

The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.

Where I would like a smaller camera is for holidays, but there I am also prepared to compromise on sensor size.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Don Haines said:
Rocky said:
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
Right on +1
This is based on the assumption that a mirrorless flange distance has to be tiny. That may well be a flawed assumption as narrow bodies have drawbacks as well as advantages.... We do not have the data to guess which way it will go....
short registration distance cameras especially full frame depend on:

a) a relatively good sensor filter stack that doesn't distort light rays too much at the periphery, or the lenses have to be custom designed for that sensor stack.

b) related patents surrounded one of two things (offsetted microlenses and the such which also limit longer focals, or BSI based sensors).

canon right now has no BSI related sensors or technology, they haven't even prototyped it as far as we know. we have seem offsetted microlenses, but their use for telephotos would be suspect even if it does help with shorter focals.

the M5/M6 work "okay" as far as periphery - however, I think there's some magic happening in the camera, because I see casting in special filter cases with the M5.

however that's only APS-C. the world is a harder place for short registration full frame sensors.

It's entirely likely that canon will develop a BSI sensor just for this camera, or they will continue to use their existing R&D and sensors and leave the registration distance at 44mm.

If I'm a betting man, the cost of new R&D for lenses and the cost of developing an entirely different process to make sensors is not something that sounds too palatable when the market continues to contract.
 

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
Aug 26, 2014
143
172
gmrza said:
Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.

The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.
From my frequent international photo travels over the last 5 yrs with high end photography groups (everywhere but snow leopards!), I think the biggest market I've seen for mirrorless which has just occurred in the last year is in the skilled aging baby boomer who has been carrying around a 500-600 lens and 5D or 1 series cameras and now has had the back, hip, shoulder, or knee surgery and just can't carry all that stuff anymore but still wants a really capable set up for wildlife/birds and has been desperate for a lighter equally capable setup with smaller/lighter lenses to fill the bill and have been hoping mirrorless would fit the bill. Some have temporized by switching down to the 7DM2 and 400 lenses to get a lighter rig but still are looking for the next step. I've seen 2 guys switch completely to Olympus and another to Sony because they could no longer carry their heavy rigs around and they said they couldn't wait any longer for Canon.
Was just in Namibia with a guy who was shooting a Fuji mirrorless with telephoto+TC along side his Canon 7DM2 with 70-200 f2.8 +1.4lll and he got absolutely great stuff and said there was no difference and felt he didn't miss anything switching from one rig to the other. Another guy was using the Olympus E M1 II + 300 and also had his 1DX2 + 100-400 II and felt with the animals and action we had, there was no advantage to either camera and he didn't miss a shot because of switching between the equipment. DON'T GET ME WRONG--fast moving tiny swallows you are going to miss with a mirrorless and some other really split second stuff. Unless you are sure you are going to get those pictures no matter what the conditions with a top of the line fast shooting Canon/Nikon, some of the mirrorless are now getting "good enough" for the weight trade off for a lot of people.
Catherine

Catherine
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,769
Canada
digigal said:
gmrza said:
Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.

The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.
From my frequent international photo travels over the last 5 yrs with high end photography groups (everywhere but snow leopards!), I think the biggest market I've seen for mirrorless which has just occurred in the last year is in the skilled aging baby boomer who has been carrying around a 500-600 lens and 5D or 1 series cameras and now has had the back, hip, shoulder, or knee surgery and just can't carry all that stuff anymore but still wants a really capable set up for wildlife/birds and has been desperate for a lighter equally capable setup with smaller/lighter lenses to fill the bill and have been hoping mirrorless would fit the bill. Some have temporized by switching down to the 7DM2 and 400 lenses to get a lighter rig but still are looking for the next step. I've seen 2 guys switch completely to Olympus and another to Sony because they could no longer carry their heavy rigs around and they said they couldn't wait any longer for Canon.
Was just in Namibia with a guy who was shooting a Fuji mirrorless with telephoto+TC along side his Canon 7DM2 with 70-200 f2.8 +1.4lll and he got absolutely great stuff and said there was no difference and felt he didn't miss anything switching from one rig to the other. Another guy was using the Olympus E M1 II + 300 and also had his 1DX2 + 100-400 II and felt with the animals and action we had, there was no advantage to either camera and he didn't miss a shot because of switching between the equipment. DON'T GET ME WRONG--fast moving tiny swallows you are going to miss with a mirrorless and some other really split second stuff. Unless you are sure you are going to get those pictures no matter what the conditions with a top of the line fast shooting Canon/Nikon, some of the mirrorless are now getting "good enough" for the weight trade off for a lot of people.
Catherine

Catherine
Yes!

If I was going to jump systems to get a smaller camera, it would be to Olympus. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have nothing in that form factor that even remotely competes.....
 

digigal

Traveling the world one step at a time.
Aug 26, 2014
143
172
Don Haines said:
Yes!

If I was going to jump systems to get a smaller camera, it would be to Olympus. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have nothing in that form factor that even remotely competes.....
I've got about 1-2 more years left of being able to lug that Canon stuff around before I've got to figure out that menu system of Olympus! LOL. Hope Canon comes up with something by then that competes. Not hopeful though.
Catherine
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,228
417
digigal said:
gmrza said:
Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.

The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.
From my frequent international photo travels over the last 5 yrs with high end photography groups (everywhere but snow leopards!), I think the biggest market I've seen for mirrorless which has just occurred in the last year is in the skilled aging baby boomer who has been carrying around a 500-600 lens and 5D or 1 series cameras and now has had the back, hip, shoulder, or knee surgery and just can't carry all that stuff anymore but still wants a really capable set up for wildlife/birds and has been desperate for a lighter equally capable setup with smaller/lighter lenses to fill the bill and have been hoping mirrorless would fit the bill. Some have temporized by switching down to the 7DM2 and 400 lenses to get a lighter rig but still are looking for the next step. I've seen 2 guys switch completely to Olympus and another to Sony because they could no longer carry their heavy rigs around and they said they couldn't wait any longer for Canon.
Was just in Namibia with a guy who was shooting a Fuji mirrorless with telephoto+TC along side his Canon 7DM2 with 70-200 f2.8 +1.4lll and he got absolutely great stuff and said there was no difference and felt he didn't miss anything switching from one rig to the other. Another guy was using the Olympus E M1 II + 300 and also had his 1DX2 + 100-400 II and felt with the animals and action we had, there was no advantage to either camera and he didn't miss a shot because of switching between the equipment. DON'T GET ME WRONG--fast moving tiny swallows you are going to miss with a mirrorless and some other really split second stuff. Unless you are sure you are going to get those pictures no matter what the conditions with a top of the line fast shooting Canon/Nikon, some of the mirrorless are now getting "good enough" for the weight trade off for a lot of people.
Catherine

Catherine
That is about as sensible a comment as I have read in these discussions.
In my late 50s, my next DSLR will probably be my last and on the current products my preference would be to Fuji - nice retro styling with dials to cover most used operations and some reputedly beautiful native glass. But 5 years is a long time in this business and the future looks very interesting.
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
digigal said:
Don Haines said:
Yes!

If I was going to jump systems to get a smaller camera, it would be to Olympus. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have nothing in that form factor that even remotely competes.....
I've got about 1-2 more years left of being able to lug that Canon stuff around before I've got to figure out that menu system of Olympus! LOL. Hope Canon comes up with something by then that competes. Not hopeful though.
Catherine
Canon will never compete with olympus though.