Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[fullstop]

i don't expect Canon to bring EF-X lenses slower than f/5.6. at least not during the first few years.

16-35/4, 24-80/4, 24-105/4, 16/2.0, 24/2.0, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.4, 105/2.0 would be the first EF-X lenses i would consider. All of them could be made more compact than the EF versions.

i see 3 ways for Canon to really make their FF MILC system standout from the start:

1) really smart AI implementation of DP-AF; automatic recognition and superior tracking of moving subject - way beyond any EOS DSLR AF ... make "AI-AF" mode really work as advertised

2) eye control AF - smart implementation using 2018 Hardware and software capabilities, combined with 1) AI-AF and Face/Eye/subject recognition .. eg. camera AF frames 3 persons or 5 birds or 2 lions or whatever visible in frame - user looks at the subject to be selected and double blinks to confirm, camera AI AF takes things from there ... and tracks, no matter what!

3) FF BSI DP-AF sensors with global shutter, total elimination of last moving mech unit (shutter) from camera. X-Sync at any shutter speed. no vibrations, no noise, no xsync limits.

good and fairly priced EF-X lenses as listed (and EF adapter of course) plus compact camera body/ies with the 3 features combined would give Canon instant and total dominance in FF MILCs.

Sony's market share would be cut in half in first year already. Nikon FF MILC system would be still-born.

but ... i doubt "innovative Canon" will be able to pull it off.

 

[3kramd5]

Is that all? Hell Harryfilm could probably hack the firmware of a mid-2000s Rebel using a USB cable and an HP48 calculator and get all that to work.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.

E-shutters might (hopefully in short order) be able to achieve speeds faster than a mechanical shutter. The E-M1 Mk.1 had a sensor readout of 1/13 and the E-M1 Mk.2 had a sensor readout of 1/60. The A7R3 has a sensor readout of 1/30 and the Sony A9 has a sensor readout of 1/160. A mechanical FP shutter moves approx. at 1/300. I believe manufacturers might be able to optimize existing rolling shutter performance within a release cycle or two without actually needing to move to a global shutter which would have substantial frame rate/read noise penalties.

 

[3kramd5]

E-shutters might (hopefully in short order) be able to achieve speeds faster than a mechanical shutter. The E-M1 Mk.1 had a sensor readout of 1/13 and the E-M1 Mk.2 had a sensor readout of 1/60. The A7R3 has a sensor readout of 1/30 and the Sony A9 has a sensor readout of 1/160. A mechanical FP shutter moves approx. at 1/300. I believe manufacturers might be able to optimize existing rolling shutter performance within a release cycle or two without actually needing to move to a global shutter which would have substantial frame rate/read noise penalties.

Yah it will get there sooner or later. In the semiconductor world, 4K global readout at 300FPS is already available in an off-the-shelf product (albeit at 10-bit).

 

[fullstop]

If I am not mistaken, some of the Fuji X-cameras have electronic shutter with exposure times as short as 1/32.000s. "innovative Canon" may simply not be innovative enough.

 

[3kramd5]

If I am not mistaken, some of the Fuji X-cameras have electronic shutter with exposure times as short as 1/32.000s. "innovative Canon" may simply not be innovative enough.

And Sony has an e shutter with an exposure time of 1/32000, but that’s not what we are talking about.

Canon had a mechanical shutter with 1/16000, but it would sync at 1/500 (which is beyond any other camera I can think of).

 

[fullstop]

Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams.

Actually, I'd be fine with an e-shutter with 1/4000s and X-Sync all the way. Where I shoot and with my puny "moderate aperture" lenses, I have never encountered enough light for 1/32.000s. Actually I think it would take a close-range nuclear blast at ISO 100 and f/5.6.

 

[3kramd5]

Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams.

Actually, I'd be fine with an e-shutter with 1/4000s and X-Sync all the way. Where I shoot and with my puny "moderate aperture" lenses, I have never encountered enough light for 1/32.000s. Actually I think it would take a close-range nuclear blast at ISO 100 and f/5.6.

Why not what? Why isn’t minimum exposure time what we’re taking about? Because that wasn’t the question asked. It was:

Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250?

Ultimately, faster than 1/250 sync may come out of mirrorless development, so the answer might be yes (although it would be due to sensor technology, not due to a mirror or lack thereof).

As far as any current mirrorless camera I’m aware of goes, the answer is no. The rated sync speed for the Fuji and Sony is 1/250, and I believe it’s limited to their mechanical shutters but I’m not certain.

Note, although the A9 enables 1/32000 sec exposure durations, it takes it about 1/160 of a second to read the shutter, which it does line by line. A flash lasting less than 1/160 will be incompatible with the real e-shutter in innovative sony’s bestest mirrorless camera, which is a heck of a long way from the 1/4000 you’d be “fine with.”

 

[Kit.]

Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real.

They are talking about flash sync.

And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video. All them video guys shall go buy real video cams.

It looks like you are taking it backwards. Rolling shutter in videos only causes artifacts at freeze frames, while every photo is a sort of video freeze frame.

Actually, I'd be fine with

Who cares?

 

[fullstop]

don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec. No idea why Sony and Fuji still put mech shutters in addition to electronic shutters into their MILCs. Especially when mech shutters only cause problems like unwanted vibrations, unwanted noise and unwanted limits on X-Sync speed.

Probably those mech shutters are soleley in there to avoid rolling shutter, especially during video capture.


ah yes: who cares? Stupid question. I do! That's more than enough. But I don't care, whether you care or not.

 

[Mikehit]

don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec. No idea why Sony and Fuji still put mech shutters in addition to electronic shutters into their MILCs. Especially when mech shutters only cause problems like unwanted vibrations, unwanted noise and unwanted limits on X-Sync speed.

Probably those mech shutters are soleley in there to avoid rolling shutter, especially during video capture.


ah yes: who care?. I do! That's more than enough. And I don't care, whether you care or not.

As has been described above, it is not technologically possible - but it seems to be another case of you ignoring reality. When we have a true global-electronic-shutter yes, faster sync speeds will be possible.

 

[3kramd5]

don't see why an electronic shutter today should not be able to X-Sync all the way down to the shortest exposure time, including 1/32.000 sec.

Go up two posts from yours. It takes about 1/160 s to read out the shutter from top to bottom (A9), regardless of the exposure duration. Getting it to read that fast took stacked DRAM sensor architecture; the A7 series is down around 1/30 s or slower. Getting one to read in 1/32000 s would be amazing, but it’s beyond the state of the art.

Reference: https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/how-fast-is-the-sony-a9-electronic-shutter/

 

[fullstop]

1/500s sync speed was already possible with electronic shutters more than 10 years ago, and even in entry level mirrorslpappers, eg. Nikon D40.
So why should an X-Snc speed of 1/32000 not be "technically possible" in 2018?

 

[3kramd5]

1/500s sync speed was already possible with electronic shutters more than 10 years ago,

The d40 has a CCD with global readout. It is unlike the CMOS sensor as in most modern cameras.

 

[fullstop]

aha! yes. thx.

 

[3kramd5]

Canon has a global shutter CMOS in its c700 (but you have to choose between that and DPAF). Sony has a global shutter CMOS in the F55. I wonder how long until such sensors are adapted for stills/hybrid cameras. Conventional wisdom is that they’re too expensive, but CMOSIS offers one, full frame and 8k nonetheless, for $5400. Sony Semicon, with its massive production, ought to be able to compete with that (note you don’t need a large order quantity to get that price from CMOSIS).

 

[Kit.]

Canon has a global shutter CMOS in its c700 (but you have to choose between that and DPAF). Sony has a global shutter CMOS in the F55. I wonder how long until such sensors are adapted for stills/hybrid cameras. Conventional wisdom is that they’re too expensive, but CMOSIS offers one, full frame and 8k nonetheless, for $5400. Sony Semicon, with its massive production, ought to be able to compete with that (note you don’t need a large order quantity to get that price from CMOSIS).

Global shutters reduce the DR at the native ISO by up to 1 EV.

 

[3kramd5]

Global shutters reduce the DR at the native ISO by up to 1 EV.

Necessarily? Or is that just a trend you’ve seen?

Either way, for those wanting faster sync, it would likely be a reasonable trade.

 

[hollybush]

Why not? E-shutter. 1/32000s. It's real. And I don't care at all for rolling shutter in video, since I never capture video.

Rolling shutter is a problem in stills as well. For example, older cameras with 1/60s sync used to quite badly distort moving balls (I think there's a famous Life magazine photo). The limit of acceptability is somewhere between there and the current standard 1/250s. This would be why Sony still includes a mechanical shutter with the α9.

It's quite possible that Canon had intended to wait until the mechanical shutter was superfluous before introducing mirrorless, but had their hand forced by the market.

And yes, there is reduced image quality from the α9 when using the electronic shutter.

 

[Kit.]

Necessarily?

Yes, as you need to split your "electron well" into two: one to capture those photoelectrons when "the shutter is open" and one to store them for digitization when "the shutter is closed". For each pixel.