Could FF mirrorless tempt 'never-mirrorless' FF SLR folks with features?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My real issue is that I don't want to make compromises inautofocus raw speed and accuracy especially with less light (meaning a combination of extenders, f stop and available light.

If i can get simple center point af at f8-11 in a room lit with a 60w bulb with and without af illuminator (a real flash one, not the Sony garbage), I will probably be pretty happy.


At f5.6-f8, if I can see it through the lens, I would like instant, hunt free jitter free autofocus.

Is that totally unreasonable as an ask from a ff milc?

What I do not care about very much is af tracking stuff and much intelligent af other than potentially eye af. But frankly, I would even give that up, preferring af point selection if I had to map a second button to engage. But give me good low light af and I could probably be a happy convert.

As you may know, AF in low light is possible with cameras in live view, f/11 is no issue. AF is also more accurate with DPAF. There are more AF points that are easily selectable either by joystick or touch screen, which is wonderful for me.

The things that need to be addressed are a viewfinder, the size of the AF points, the delay when image review is turned on, minor issues like that.

If you have not used a recent camera with DPAF in live view, many of your points have been accomplished years ago. Mirrorless is going to be basically live view with a EVF and hopefully a couple of issues fixed, like the long wait between images when review is turned on.

 

[Kit.]

Once Canon and Nikon start making MILCs on their high end product line,

Canon started in January 2012 with EOS C300.

they will probably replace DSLRs very rapidly despite what any hardcore users might think.

"Very rapidly" means different things for a Canon customer and for a Sony customer, for example.

All of the future development dollars will go to MILCs.

Mirrorbox is a mature technology that doesn't require a lot of development dollars. Hybrid OVF/EVF viewfinder is probably the only technology that still benefits from further development.

A mirrorbox is not particularly cheap, but as a percentage of the cost of the 1D/5D series it's not that expensive either.

6D-like bodies may lose mirrors quite soon.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A mirrorbox is not particularly cheap, but as a percentage of the cost of the 1D/5D series it's not that expensive either.

6D-like bodies may lose mirrors quite soon.

When you consider the cost of replacing / servicing mirror boxes, the cost goes up, both to Canon and the consumer. Add in a pentaprism, AF sensor, exposure sensor, and its even more expensive. A EVF, however, may cost as much to implement. I don't know the current reliability, but it should be high.

 

[3kramd5]

A EVF, however, may cost as much to implement.

I doubt EVF costs as much to implement. They are easily competed, whereas almost certainly a camera company has to design the reflex assembly, or pay for it to be designed.

EVF may require more sophisticated electronics to drive at a high framerate, but they benefit from overall industry progress in those regards.

 

[wsmith96]

Sure, I would consider changing but my decision factor would be on the amount of lens replacement I would have to do should there be a new mount.

 

[Talys]

c

they will probably replace DSLRs very rapidly despite what any hardcore users might think.

"Very rapidly" means different things for a Canon customer and for a Sony customer, for example.

Indeed. I think the biggest problem is that a lot of us have a hard time putting ourselves in someone else's shoes.

It is not like MILCs will be 100% better at EVERYTHING, at least not for decades to come, as in, if you put a Pro/Con list, every single tick box is on the MILC side. They'll have some super awesome features that some people can't live without, but DSLRs will keep tick a few of those checkboxes for a long time yet, I think. This is unlike film versus digital, where almost all the checkboxes were on the digital side.

How will people weight that as a proportion of "what I want" versus "what I need" and also, "what I'm willing to invest in a significantly different system on" -- I think the scales are different for every person, and the way it impacts the average photographer will weigh how quickly, or even if, there is a switch for that person.

To give you a simple example, let's say our company has a photo ID badge system that costs $10,000 that has a cheap Rebel with live view hooked up to a dedicated PC with a special printer that prints a employee photo & info onto an RFID card that opens doors and elevators and is used for security identification. How long would it be before we replaced that DSLR with a MILC? Sure, it will happen - when we replace the photo ID access badge system. But that could be in 10+ years, because the current one works, and the new ID badge system that is bundled with an MILC is going to be another $10,000.

 

[ahsanford]

Sure, I would consider changing but my decision factor would be on the amount of lens replacement I would have to do should there be a new mount.

The body will be either be a full EF mount or a new thinner mount with an EF adaptor. Both will work with your EF glass as well as EF does on any DPAF camera does today.

So even if there is a new mount, there will be zero lens replacement required.

- A

 

[scyrene]

Sure, I would consider changing but my decision factor would be on the amount of lens replacement I would have to do should there be a new mount.

The body will be either be a full EF mount or a new thinner mount with an EF adaptor. Both will work with your EF glass as well as EF does on any DPAF camera does today.

So even if there is a new mount, there will be zero lens replacement required.

- A

If it's a small body, even if the EF lens and body communicate as well through an adaptor as that, it won't be as ergonomic with some (especially big) lenses as the current setup. A new mount implies prioritising smaller size, right? A DSLR-sized mirrorless body doesn't need a new mount. So a new mount won't work as well with some lenses, if they can't be held comfortably, whatever the AF situation.

 

[3kramd5]

A new mount implies prioritising smaller size, right?

Not necessarily. There are other mount-related considerations besides size. For example, the ability to use different optical designs can be facilitated by the mount.

 

[stevelee]

All this is very theoretical to me, since I can't think of a reason I might be in the market for a new camera in the next five years or so. The exception would be a successor to my G7X II for travel, maybe even the III next year before a big trip. At present, neither the camera purchase nor the trip is planned, however.

 

[3kramd5]

All this is very theoretical to me, since I can't think of a reason I might be in the market for a new camera in the next five years or so. The exception would be a successor to my G7X II for travel, maybe even the III next year before a big trip. At present, neither the camera purchase nor the trip is planned, however.

I have no plans to buy a new camera, but I rarely do and that’s never stopped me

 

[scyrene]

A new mount implies prioritising smaller size, right?

Not necessarily. There are other mount-related considerations besides size. For example, the ability to use different optical designs can be facilitated by the mount.

I don't know much about this. But does it seem realistic for them to create a new mount just for the purpose of creating these 'different optical designs' - which elsewhere on these forums have been stated as restricted to wide(ish)-angle lenses? It seems like a whole lot of hassle and complication for such a small 'advantage'. Whereas if they are prioritising small size, then there's much more incentive, no?

 

[ahsanford]

A new mount implies prioritising smaller size, right?

Not necessarily. There are other mount-related considerations besides size. For example, the ability to use different optical designs can be facilitated by the mount.

I don't know much about this. But does it seem realistic for them to create a new mount just for the purpose of creating these 'different optical designs' - which elsewhere on these forums have been stated as restricted to wide(ish)-angle lenses? It seems like a whole lot of hassle and complication for such a small 'advantage'. Whereas if they are prioritising small size, then there's much more incentive, no?

Biggest reason (by a long margin): as we've all said, for a handful of lenses you can create a smaller overall construct. Think 50 f/1.8, 35 f/2.8, a pancake, perhaps a very tiny 24-50 f/3.5-6.3 zoom, etc.

Second reason (faintly possible): Canon is rolling out some hot new body-to-lens communication protocol, AF technology, etc. that EF simply cannot do. No idea what that might be. Perhaps automated focus stacking (as in the lens literally re-positions for you based on your setup, inputs, etc.) might be possible with this.

Third reason (next to zero chance): Canon is rolling out a curved sensor body, which would dramatically change the size and shape of many more than just wide/standard lenses. This is really improbable as I understand as (I believe it was Neuro) pointed out that the radius of curvature to make this idea really sing and reduce lens size would be focal length specific or require a sensor that curves different amounts depending on the FL. That to me says someone would probably try this is a fixed lens setup before ever building a system around it.

- A

 

[Kit.]

One killer feature not yet mentioned in this thread would be round sensor (not "curved", but fully covering the image circle of a FF lens). That's hard to do with a mirrorbox.

Not going to happen any time soon, though.

 

[stevelee]

All this is very theoretical to me, since I can't think of a reason I might be in the market for a new camera in the next five years or so. The exception would be a successor to my G7X II for travel, maybe even the III next year before a big trip. At present, neither the camera purchase nor the trip is planned, however.

I have no plans to buy a new camera, but I rarely do and that’s never stopped me

If I hadn't had some more responsibilities and commitments to come along for this summer, even though I hadn't planned a trip, I might be in Norway right now with my G7XII.

I had planned to buy a 16-35mm f/4 in early October for my birthday. A few weeks ago a high school classmate died suddenly and unexpectedly. On the way home from the funeral, I stopped by the Best Buy, and they had the lens in stock. Under the circumstances, I couldn't make waiting until fall to buy the lens make any sense, so I went ahead and bought it.

I certainly do impulse purchases, but I usually have some notion of something I am going to want, and right now nothing in terms of cameras or lenses occurs to me that I want or anticipate wanting.

OK, I did buy my first DSLR, a Rebel, as a complete impulse when I stopped at H. H. Gregg some years ago to look at TVs and washers and dryers. I'm sure I must have had some notion that I'd buy a DSLR some day. It wasn't a very good choice, but it was cheap and came with a couple not-so-great lenses, and it did let me know that I wanted to get a T3i when that came out. That camera served me well for many years.