precisely. the only reason why transition to mirrorfree gear has not happened much faster and much earlier. more than enough demand. not nearly enough supply of right gear at sensible prices.We cannot buy what they do not sell.
I get so tired of this meme.precisely. the only reason why transition to mirrorfree gear has not happened much faster and much earlier. more than enough demand. not nearly enough supply of really right gear at sensible prices.
The M line fulfills a promise of mirrorless and a niche: really small, lightweight ILC system with relatively high IQ. I still have my original M, and it's still my "grab-n-go' camera with either the 22mm f/2 or surprisingly good 18-55 IS. But there's a whole list of features and use cases where it can't touch the 7D or 5Ds. Granted it was Canon's first attempt, but nothing else in production that same year could touch them either.just watch how well stuff sells, when makers do offer things that many users want, like decent, small and inexpensive APS-C gear: Canon EOS M50 and EF-M lenses for example.
And a profitable one.market niche of those willing and able to buy f/1.2 lenses or f/2 zooms, ART bricks or GrandMaster flash lenses at 2, 3 or more grand a pop is really small. minority interest.
Are Canon's P&S cameras not mirrorless yet?I doubt the M mount will disappear. Eventually, Canon will replace its Point and Shoot and APS-C cameras with mirrorless versions.
I agree.Ouch. Don't care? Not something one would expect from a Canon fan site.
I (fully) agree about the ergonomic issue and the EVF lag. Let's also include and other disadvantages like the one card and the battery consumption. Plus the need to use converter to put our good L lenses I wouldn't change my 5DIV for EOS R and I would get a 5DV but I am afraid I am a minority. We'll see....The only advantages of the R over the 5DIV that I see, apart from the buffer, are 1) A couple of great new lenses, 2) Doing away with AFMA, and 3) More AF points for, supposedly, easier composition.
No, I haven't used the R, but I can see that it does not appeal to me ergonomically at all because of the layout of the controls.
Canon pulled a fast one here by getting photographers excited about "potential" and a few amazing lenses ready right now. But did anybody get excited about the R camera itself?
That's why I, and, presumably other photographers, see the R as a something of a promise of better to come, a placeholder to buy time, and a prototype which allows Canon to have consumers pay for a lot of R&D. (And it gives the repair techs good training with FF mirrorless.) This is solid, clever, and even admirable business acumen.
Will the next release of a FF mirrorless have some EVF breakthrough that reduces the lag that makes it difficult for action/sports? Will it have a sensor that allows for no (or much less) 4K cropping?
(Yes, 4k seems to practical photographers an unnecessary feature, but many customers already have 4k TVs, so they likely imagine how awful it would be to have a shiny new camera that doesn't match the native resolution of their displays at home...)
An interesting couple of years ahead for photographers and the industry!
I just ask for a good solid performing mid range R camera with IBIS.
But you have to finish the quote"I don’t care much about the EOS M system "
Surely the EOS M has a high potential to surpass the XXD line in the coming years.
So yes, it has that potential, but only if Canon sees that potential and leverages it. Good bodies, not leftover sensors and more glass options.... as I still believe it isn’t being taken seriously at Canon.
Very good points all, and I agree about technical maturity being the real issue. I am perplexed by the attention given to one memory card only, for me the breakthrough will be IBIS, which opens up so many possibilities to use some of the new RF ultra bright non-IS lenses in low light situations (28-70 being one of them). My RP is proving a very valuable companion to the 5D MkIII even with its lower-grade EVF, but IBIS would be the trigger to replacing the 5D, or at least relegating it to 3rd body status.I get so tired of this meme.
Mirrorless ILCs are a decade old now. Until very recently they have suffered from AF, EVF, and battery life issues. To some extent they still do, although the differences are much smaller now and in some use cases tilt towards MILCs. That is not a conspiracy nor is it a failure of Canon/Nikon/whoever to 'read the market.' It has taken that long to work out the technology. Rome was not built in a day. I've kept my eye on Sony since the first FF MILCs, and every generation, including the current one, has had a fatal flaw. The tech still isn't as mature as DSLRs and is still being worked out and improved. It's much better now than it was. But the point is that this stuff takes time. Neither Canon nor Nikon wanted to stop you from buying a mirror free camera from them.
A minority of very vocal mirrorless fans, along with some of the press, have been clamoring for MILCs to 'takeover the market' and 'kill the mirror slappers' practically since 2008. The rest of the market has been quietly buying DSLRs and waiting for the tech to mature.
The M line fulfills a promise of mirrorless and a niche: really small, lightweight ILC system with relatively high IQ. I still have my original M, and it's still my "grab-n-go' camera with either the 22mm f/2 or surprisingly good 18-55 IS. But there's a whole list of features and use cases where it can't touch the 7D or 5Ds. Granted it was Canon's first attempt, but nothing else in production that same year could touch them either.
And a profitable one.