Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

c.d.embrey

EOS 7D MK II
Jul 21, 2010
655
7
unfocused said:
This thread passed into an alternate universe several days ago.
Welcome to the internet :) Where the absurd is the normal state of things.

When and if a mirrorless camera comes, it isn't going to make anyone a better photographer.
But the multitude thinks it does. And for many perception equals reality :)
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,409
1,899
120
unfocused said:
canonographer said:
privatebydesign said:
canonographer said:
...For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like...
Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.
So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.

Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.
You are both being ridiculous. Expecting any lens or camera to be the answer to great pictures is just ridiculous. That's like thinking a golf club can make you into Tiger Woods. You don't need Zeiss lenses... you don't need tilt-shift lenses...you don't need in-camera stabilization...you don't need live view...you need talent and vision.

This thread passed into an alternate universe several days ago. Everybody needs to take a deep breath. When and if a mirrorless camera comes, it isn't going to make anyone a better photographer.
:) I was just being provocative, deliberately...

The implication seemed to be that because the poster didn't see a lens gap there wasn't one, which is patently not true.

As for the 11-24, I own one, and the 17TS-E and for detailed landscapes the two don't compare, the TS-E's are in a different league. Now whether an individual 'needs' that extra detail or not is a decent thing to have a discussion about but the statement "there are no lens gaps anymore, none," is asinine.
 

100

EOS 80D
Nov 9, 2013
182
8
canonographer said:
I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
Why is an EVF a game changer for landscape?
Without live view it might be, but all modern DSLR’s have live view.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,262
1,921
Canada
unfocused said:
You are both being ridiculous. Expecting any lens or camera to be the answer to great pictures is just ridiculous. That's like thinking a golf club can make you into Tiger Woods. You don't need Zeiss lenses... you don't need tilt-shift lenses...you don't need in-camera stabilization...you don't need live view...you need talent and vision.
Everything has to be in balance, but upgrading any part of the essential trio (skills, lens, camera) will result in better pictures overall..... Since this is a gear forum, we do tend to obsess on gear, but I think that most of us would rank skills as far more important than the camera or lens....

As to "upgrading" camera and lens.... it is not always so and depends a lot on what you are after... If you are out shooting a soccer game in the afternoon, an 80D will outperform a 6D, but when the sun goes down and you want to take a picture of the milky way, the 6D outperforms the 80D..... and this is just one of the reasons many of us have multiple bodies....
 

gmrza

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 21, 2011
521
1
GHPhotography said:
Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?
This is possibly one of the bigger issues with a shorter flange distance: the illumination of the sensor is from a much more oblique angle. This creates problems in itself with lenses being harder to design while still giving a good image, but also results in significant peripheral illumination fall-off. This is actually already a problem with the EF mount with very fast lenses (think f/1.2).
While Canon may be able to address the illumination issues by developing sensors that can accept light from oblique angles, the cost of building high quality lenses to work with a shorter flange distance may be higher than customers are willing to accept.

A small full frame camera only makes sense in a limited context, as you have pointed out, where you are using focal lengths that are not too long and not too short (possibly somewhere like 50mm to 135mm if you look at the traditional range-finder segment). For most professional photography, for instance, the format of the current EOS bodies probably provides the best ergonomics, so having a mirrorless body is almost academic. While it is a technology of the future, Canon has to satisfy its customer base of professionals, first and foremost.
We need to think about it for a moment: the 1DX / 1DXII are the size they are because that presents the best ergonomics. Canon probably could fit all of the features of the 1DXII into a body the size of a 5DIV (except for battery life), but doesn't because that is not what its customers are looking for.
 

canonographer

EOS M50
Mar 10, 2014
39
0
100 said:
canonographer said:
I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
Why is an EVF a game changer for landscape?
Without live view it might be, but all modern DSLR’s have live view.
Focus peaking, exposure zebras, histograms, levels, etc.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,151
58
canonographer said:
I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
May I know why EVF is preferred to OVF for landscape photography? I have not shot landscape in a while because I have a young kid, but I always thought EVF is not good for astrophotography and night landscapes.

Appreciate if you can provide some insight here 'cos I am debating if it's worth keeping my OVF stuff.
 

pokerz

EOS 80D
Aug 19, 2016
167
0
Woody said:
canonographer said:
I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
May I know why EVF is preferred to OVF for landscape photography? I have not shot landscape in a while because I have a young kid, but I always thought EVF is not good for astrophotography and night landscapes.

Appreciate if you can provide some insight here 'cos I am debating if it's worth keeping my OVF stuff.
If OVF is better in low night, why astrophotography needs MF with Liveview (EVF) ?
 

pokerz

EOS 80D
Aug 19, 2016
167
0
gmrza said:
GHPhotography said:
Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?
This is possibly one of the bigger issues with a shorter flange distance: the illumination of the sensor is from a much more oblique angle. This creates problems in itself with lenses being harder to design while still giving a good image, but also results in significant peripheral illumination fall-off. This is actually already a problem with the EF mount with very fast lenses (think f/1.2).
While Canon may be able to address the illumination issues by developing sensors that can accept light from oblique angles, the cost of building high quality lenses to work with a shorter flange distance may be higher than customers are willing to accept.

A small full frame camera only makes sense in a limited context, as you have pointed out, where you are using focal lengths that are not too long and not too short (possibly somewhere like 50mm to 135mm if you look at the traditional range-finder segment). For most professional photography, for instance, the format of the current EOS bodies probably provides the best ergonomics, so having a mirrorless body is almost academic. While it is a technology of the future, Canon has to satisfy its customer base of professionals, first and foremost.
We need to think about it for a moment: the 1DX / 1DXII are the size they are because that presents the best ergonomics. Canon probably could fit all of the features of the 1DXII into a body the size of a 5DIV (except for battery life), but doesn't because that is not what its customers are looking for.
the FACT is that shorter flange distance + extension on len (when required) = longer flange distance
long flange distance = long flange distance


best ergonomics? so what is the best colour? what is the best temperature? what is the best height?
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,151
58
pokerz said:
If OVF is better in low night, why astrophotography needs MF with Liveview (EVF) ?
When it gets really really dark, live view focusing is useless. You just need to know where the infinity focus point is and manually focus. Human eyes can see better under pretty dark conditions than EVF/live view.

But when it's not too dark, then manual focusing with EVF/live view works.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,151
58
canonographer said:
100 said:
Why is an EVF a game changer for landscape?
Without live view it might be, but all modern DSLR’s have live view.
Focus peaking, exposure zebras, histograms, levels, etc.
If those are the advantages, then they mean nothing to me.

Having said that, I am rather impressed with Sony PlayMemories Camera Apps. Very very cool. Will like to see that in Canon MILCs.
 

BurningPlatform

EOS 80D
Mar 4, 2014
102
46
Just adding an idea to the EF flange distance part of the discussion. I think that retaining native EF lens compatibility is a good idea. But in the future, I think that Canon may be tempted to release a lens line that is compatible with EF mount but not with current (d)SLR cameras. So much empty space behind the lens previously filled by the mirror assembly could be utilized for backwards protruding lens elements. Think historical designs like Biogon and Hologon. The lens does not have to end at the mount.
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
Orangutan said:
douglaurent said:
So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.
This is the core of your misunderstanding: NO ONE here that I'm aware of is unwilling to talk about improvements we'd like to see in Canon products. The problem is that some folks, such as yourself, phrase these discussions in apocalyptic terms, such as Canon is destined to fail if they don't ______ very soon, because Sony will crush them."

The problem is your hyperbole.

What we know from history is that Canon has been very skilled (as a business). They've come into new markets as they have needed to (from the business perspective). Based on history, and based on the interviews with executives, they're very much aware of the changes happening in the market, and are simply waiting for the best (i.e. most profitable) time to act.

Feel free to discuss and compare features

Please discontinue the apocalyptic hyperbole
You seem to read words and messages that don't exist, maybe consider contacting a doctor?

Most of all not Canon, but many Canon users have a problem who invested a lot of money. They waste some years with inconvenient workflows and missing features, because Canon plays it slow.

Canon losing customers to Sony or Panasonic, and also losing reputation for their slow path innovation is a fact you can read, hear and see today. It doesn't need any apocalyptic predictions for that - and as Canon will catch up at some point, this problem might not exist anymore in the years 2020/2021/2022 to eternity.

Just right now Canon's tactics are a lose-lose situation for them and their customers.
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
LonelyBoy said:
douglaurent said:
I own nearly complete pro camera and lens lineups of all brands, as I also rent out stuff. And I use all systems daily, which is why I can compare and recognize the differences. Traditionally I would always use Canon first, but it's frustrating when you experience the many unnecessary limitations and missing features of their products.

And I also wrote many times that this whole forum is about NEW Canon product developments. So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.
Good for you. However, if you don't like the site, and find Canon products frustrating, why not sell them off and use the others you prefer? You still didn't answer the question.
If all people on the planet would get rid of all things they don't use often, all things that are dated and all things with aspects they are angry about - without any financial necessity - that would turn the whole world into a third world country. So why should I do that? The goal is to make Canon come up with better solutions, and come up with them faster.
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
LonelyBoy said:
douglaurent said:
...or what you can read in worldwide photo forums, or hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere. Because it's not a subjective feeling, it's based on the specs and features of existing camera models, and clearly visible different speeds of innovation between Canon/Nikon and Sony/Panasonic/Olympus.
How exactly is that more meaningful than actual sales data?
How is sales data more meaningful than being a photographer and filmmaker working on a project with tools that are artificially limited?
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
[/quote]

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?
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
Don Haines said:
I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....

We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....
Any average customer - and those millions of people who bought cheap DSLRs - appreciates what an EVF can do if you show it to them (a viewfinder that shows the right exposure and focus helps, lets you see video and review shots etc etc). The reason why most of these people DON'T buy any new DSLR's or add lenses is, that the workflow completely sucks, and they are not supported in improving their skills.
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
privatebydesign said:
canonographer said:
Don Haines said:
neuroanatomist said:
canonographer said:
Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.
Except for the sales and market share gaps. ;)
And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......
I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.
Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.
Owning all current 8 Canon and Nikon Tilt Shift lenses, I can reassure you that they all work great on the Sony A7R2 - AND do work even better on the Sony body as they are stabilized.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
754
103
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?
[/quote]

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
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,829
820
Germany
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?
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
I think the problem with this argumentation (features vs. market success) is not that those who use the argument of "market share and sales" are saying that this is the reason why they bought into a Canon system.
It is the argument that comes first from those wanting more features: "If feature X is missing, Canon is doomed!" (displayed in some more or less technical expressions).
Here comes counterargument that Canon seems to be doing something right, because of market share.

I don't know if I speak for the others in the "market share" fraction but I'd say it that way:
  • Of course I would like to have any kind of good, cool feature, gimmick and gizmo that is possible in my Camera.
  • But I can understand that by just demanding this in a forum and stress this with the "loss of success" argument won't have any real influence on the Canon dev. and marketing departments
  • If enough people vote with their purse, Canon might react
  • If you think that by arguing in that way and style, you can gather a big enough crowd behind you to change something, I'd say you seem to need more knowledge in marketing and pol. campaigning