Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,253
454
douglaurent said:
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.
Yes, people are talking about those things. The question is: how many people and what percentage of the market do they form? You are in those circles and see it all the time - but my guess is you are in a very small, self-selecting group and those discussions, in the context of millions of satisfied DSLR users mean very, very little.
 

100

EOS 80D
Nov 9, 2013
182
8
canonographer said:
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.
Useful features for sure but you don’t need an EVF for that, live view will show you the same information.
With Magic Lanten you can have it on some Canon camera’s today http://www.magiclantern.fm/features.html (Image Overlays) and I hope Canon will add those features in future camera’s as well as a tiltable display on a high resolution full frame camera.
Even with an EVF I’d probably use live view for landscape photography.
 

100

EOS 80D
Nov 9, 2013
182
8
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?
Once you use the word “important” before features you’re not talking about facts but about opinions.
If you look at all features of all cameras is there one specific camera that scores best on all features or even the majority of all features?
And when a camera scores second, third, fourth, etc. on a specific feature does that really matter if the difference between them is small?
If there was a single camera or single brand that outscored all others by a big margin, wouldn’t it be logical that camera or brand would gain market share rapidly and eventually have the biggest market share?
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,253
454
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]

I believe you wrote this in 2016:

I have the 1DX2 since 10 days now. Used to work with A7R/S2 and GH4, the size and weight and the lack of a tilting screen or peaking is a big minus. Even on the photo side Canon did cut features like internal timelapse or the HDR function of the 5D3, which is very uncool for this price.

But by adding a magnet viewfinder like in old 5D2 days, the 1DX2 is still a handable and can be used as one man show, with 2 outstanding advantages: 4K 60fps of course and the excellent video autofocus. If you use it right, there is no need for manual focus or focus peaking, and shooting can be done much faster than before and can be even more fun with even sharper shots.

Amazingly the video autofocus does work very good with all Canon lenses from the last years, and also selected ones like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC or 85/1.8 VC. Without any logical pattern, other Tamron or Sigma lenses don't do video focus at all. A Tamron 16-300 superzoom doesn't work although it has great stabilization paired with the 1DX2, a Sigma 18-300 does have video focus but weak stabilization. Crop lenses don't seem to vignette with the 1.3x 4K video crop of the camera.

The photo focus features and 16fps are also very nice for certain shooting situations, although the amount of MP is low when being used to a 5DsR, 645Z or A7R2. To me it is not an outstanding dynamic range monster and the quality difference to pics like from an RX100 IV is not huge enough.

What's missing is the whole amount of nice small E-mount lenses and stupidly no Canon crop lenses can be mounted, so a 1DX2 setup will require all the large and heavy Canon full frame lenses. At least they work great and are a pro photo option as well, so the cominations make it an excellen allround camera.

Strange is that 4K 25fps video can be recorded on fast CF cards and doesnt require the superexpensive CFAST cards like Canon says. In 4K 60fps mode, the CF cards do stop recording after app. 8 seconds.

All in all Canon needs to be quick to release mirrorless versions of their DSLR lineup. At photokina Sony will release the A9 that comes with all relevant DSLR features and of course the best of the A7 world - and if this A9 camera does have 4K 60fps, there is no need for a 1DX2 anymore (and certainly not a 5D4).
Seems to me you believe Canon is doing quite well....
 

pokerz

EOS 80D
Aug 19, 2016
167
0
Woody said:
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.
there are many mirrorless and even canon len offering electronic distance scale.

 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,141
43
pokerz said:
there are many mirrorless and even canon len offering electronic distance scale.
Those candles can be used for focusing... EVF or OVF.

Try it when the subject is far away and you only have starlight or crescent moon light. No city lights or other forms of light pollution. Seriously, try it.
 

bdunbar79

EOS 5D MK IV
May 16, 2012
3,152
0
40
Wadsworth, OH
douglaurent said:
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.
I think you missed his point. You stated that Canon had no advantage over SONY regarding landscape photography. Clearly they have a very large advantage over SONY in landscape photography; tilt-shift lenses.
 

bdunbar79

EOS 5D MK IV
May 16, 2012
3,152
0
40
Wadsworth, OH
douglaurent said:
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?
Why do you work with those tools if they are limited? Isn't part of being a professional photographer using the tools that you need? Why are you using Canon products if they limit you? His point was that the MAJORITY of consumers do NOT find them limiting, demonstrated by market share and sales. Who cares what YOU want?
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
douglaurent said:
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.

...

Just right now Canon's tactics are a lose-lose situation for them and their customers.

Aside from your own personal observations, what evidence do you have that these are true assertions?
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
douglaurent said:
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?
It isn't, and there's no problem if those people talk about the features they want. The problem is that people like you make the false assumption that everyone else wants the same thing you do.

There are two different questions here:

What should an individual photographer buy? The available item that best meets their needs.

What should a company make and sell? The items that are likely to be profitable.


Do not confuse the two: while there is some overlap, they are not the same question.
 

GHPhotography

EOS M50
May 9, 2016
32
0
Orlando, FL
Orangutan said:
What should an individual photographer buy? The available item that best meets their needs.

What should a company make and sell? The items that are likely to be profitable.


Do not confuse the two: while there is some overlap, they are not the same question.
I feel like this is 95% of the issue people have on this forum. It's perfectly fine to be mad at Canon for not making what you want, but refusing to believe data that doesn't support your personal view is dumb. The fact is Canon dominates the market, and is gaining market share. Market giants stay giant by focusing on what is good for business and innovating/shifting either a) to grab/create a new market or b) respond to a new threat to your market share. Canon is doing both, but like all giants it is slow to move. When it does move, though, history shows it makes a massive impact.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
750
97
Maximilian 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?
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
Maximilian 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?
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
I'd argue that we've already had influence and people have already voted with their purse in the video department. Sony is the premiere option for 4K video these days, which is likely one of the reasons Canon added C-Log to the 5DIV.

I, for one, voted with my wallet and did not purchase a 5DIV, but have stayed on this forum because I love Canon products and want them to be more competitive with features for my needs. Just the same way you photog guys want an 85mm 1.4 IS or 200-600 or whatever the most anticipated lens is right now. (Full disclosure, I would love an 85mm IS.)

Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.

From a video perspective- we don't know the numbers- but my hunch is that the market share looks quite different. I believe most people have already voted with their wallets in this regard. And since a major requirement of the new Full Frame mirrorless rumor the OP stated is 4K video, then, well- there you have an example of Canon trying to add a feature to match their competitors in an effort to maintain that market share.
 

Woody

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
1,141
43
transpo1 said:
Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.
Well said.

But keep in mind that impressive technology does not guarantee success. Just look at history: Minolta, Pentax and Samsung (photography-wise). One can almost say the same about the current state of Nikon: their OVF facial tracking capability and awesome sensor quality (thanks largely to Sony) are the envy of many, still their ILC market share is declining...
 

Rockskipper

Somewhere skipping rocks and taking photos
Apr 20, 2017
62
7
Probably the most important thing about buying a camera is your perceptions of what you're going to get and whether or not that matches what you do get. Canon is now to the point that they pretty much own the average person's perceptions that they're the top of the line, or at the very least, one will get a darn good camera and also lenses and support. When you start spending the kind of money you can put into camera equipment (I just spent over 5k this week alone, and I'm a hobbyist), you want that feeling that there will be someone out there if you need to make a repair or support call.

Canon's marketing has made sure that the average consumer gets a warm fuzzy feeling when they think about them (things like their Boy Scouts and National Parks programs), as well as making sure there are lots of fantastic photos out there for people to look at. Most consumers aren't pros, and I would guess not even at the enthusiast level, but they just want to make nice photos. Canon, whether their technology is superior or not, provides this at about any price point you want.

Just try to buy something at the Canon Store and you'll see how loyal people can be. It can be difficult to use and sometimes doesn't work at all (try to read reviews or info on the 6D) and should be an embarrassment to such a large successful company. But people buy there anyway (or so I assume, as I did). Canon owns the perceptions and also has good products, whether they be superior or not is not as important to the average Joe or Jill, as long as they can take nice photos. They don't pixel peep.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,253
454
transpo1 said:
I'd argue that we've already had influence and people have already voted with their purse in the video department. Sony is the premiere option for 4K video these days, which is likely one of the reasons Canon added C-Log to the 5DIV.

I, for one, voted with my wallet and did not purchase a 5DIV, but have stayed on this forum because I love Canon products and want them to be more competitive with features for my needs. Just the same way you photog guys want an 85mm 1.4 IS or 200-600 or whatever the most anticipated lens is right now. (Full disclosure, I would love an 85mm IS.)

Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.

From a video perspective- we don't know the numbers- but my hunch is that the market share looks quite different. I believe most people have already voted with their wallets in this regard. And since a major requirement of the new Full Frame mirrorless rumor the OP stated is 4K video, then, well- there you have an example of Canon trying to add a feature to match their competitors in an effort to maintain that market share.
The other issue is a skewed perspective.
There is a growing minority of people who want a 'stills' camera to double up as a semi-professional video camera. On image quality the Sony is ahead of Canon.
Because these people want a 2-in-1 camera there are more complaints against Canon for not upping their video than there are complaints against Sony for not addressing the shortfalls in their stills functionality.

In some ways I see that as a compliment to Canon in that people think Canon is most likely to get the whole package right when they see the need to, and they are unable to understand why Canon hasn't done it yet.
You could also interpret it as when Canon do decide to do it, Sony are toast because their one advantage will have gone.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,253
454
Rockskipper said:
...and sometimes doesn't work at all (try to read reviews or info on the 6D) and should be an embarrassment to such a large successful company.
Really? Please enlighten me
 

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
74
41
Maximilian said:
addola said:
Ahhh, did you just tell me to "go back to learn optical formulas" then proceeded to use the comma & decimal interchangeably?
Oh no! I was joking about that! Hence the "Ha!"! My bad! Maybe I should put a smiley face :) instead. I know that in Europe you use the decimal/comma differently with Euros!

Take a look at DxOMark scores for transmission (T-Stop for actual transmission as opposed to F-Stop). I noticed that with Sony FF lenses, the transmission seem higher (closer to F-Stop) than SLR counterpart (Disclaimer: this is unscientific, and I could be wrong, but it's interesting)
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
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.
well, that's you. I can't ever see the benefit of shooting landscape with anything BUT an OVF. otherwise you don't get the natural contrast, dynamic range of the scene as you are framing the image. you get a 8 bit blocked up video stream that can even approach distracting at higher ISO's because of noise.

Nor can that video stream really indicate when you are raw clipped, and will artificially clip at "jpg" levels and not at raw latitude levels.

essentially it's a "make do" for a lack of understanding of the scene, your sensor and what your histogram is suggesting to you.

I find it always curious that some assert that they need high DR sensors and the works and then view the image data through a low DR and usually tight contrast curve EVF....