More Mentions of a Canon Mirrorless Announcement Ahead of Photokina [CR1]

Quackator

EOS RP
Jul 19, 2011
244
52
In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.
They have provided matured, very solid features and specs time and again,
combined that with best in class support and they have gained more than
half of world's market share over that.

What makes you think from a business side that they need to change that or
that they expect this to change?
 

MrAndre

I'm New Here
Aug 12, 2018
22
14
Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers? Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.

I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon. If I did not care about Canon, I would not be writing here. I would just buy from another manufacturer and be done with it. You can critizise me and tell me that I should be able to manage with Canon gear. But no camera Canon is offering is something I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.

I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus for instance does not help you take better pictures? Of course you could manage with manual, but the keeper rate would go to shit! In some situations, like time sensitive landscapes dynamic range can make or break the image.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Isaacheus

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
486
486
Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers? Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.

I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon. If I did not care about Canon, I would not be writing here. I would just buy from another manufacturer and be done with it. You can critizise me and tell me that I should be able to manage with Canon gear. But no camera Canon is offering is something I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.

I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus does not help you take better pictures? Of course you could manage with manual, but the keeper rate would go to shit! In some situations, like time sensitive landscapes, it can make or break the image.
Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,407
786
Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers?
Poor souls, how did they even manage to stay in business before the current latest and greatest (according to the specs) Sony body arrived?

Or maybe they stay in business because they don't waste money on "latest and greatest" gear each time it happens to be selling?

Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.
What makes you think they are "not innovating on the technological site"?

I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon.
So, you are frustrated because Canon puts less marketing BS into the specs?

I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.

I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus does not help you take better pictures?
Have you actually compared autofocus on the latest Canon and Sony FF bodies?

Have you actually compared their face tracking abilities, for example? Or are you just assuming that if Sony's has a catchier name, it must be superior?
 

MrAndre

I'm New Here
Aug 12, 2018
22
14
Have you actually compared autofocus on the latest Canon and Sony FF bodies?

Have you actually compared their face tracking abilities, for example? Or are you just assuming that if Sony's has a catchier name, it must be superior?

I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?

Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.

Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.
That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Isaacheus

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
486
486
I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?

Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.



That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.
I'll argue against that point to. More dynamic range is always better but the 1 stop at base ISO is not going to make a big difference in those really contrast situations. Maybe if a sensor has 25 stops it would matter but there no way that one stop of dynamic range makes up for the lack of reliabilty and consistency that a better 'quality' camera can give you. Otherwise a soft grad is the only option. No. A dslr cannot have face tracking while looking through the viewfinder but as I said in less than ideal conditions i am hearing that sony face tracking is not that reliable anyway. Focua peaking would not help me. I use autofocus. Don't get me wrong. I would love canon to match Sonys DR. But what else are they lacking? Really. What are canon lacking that will really cause you to miss a shot compared to a sony?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,105
543
as i said, Somehow this forum seems to be populated by large numbers of BIF shooters and [big] white tele users. In that respect not representative for the majority camera users, not even of FF camera users. :)
I know more APS-C shooter that use 100-400s, 150-600s (Sigma/Tamron), a few 120-300s (Sigma), and even a very few big whites than I do FF users who use big whites. The only FF users I know who shoot with big whites are press/sports shooters. If you want to talk about "niche", PJs are fast becoming a very small niche!

I don't personally know anyone who shoots BIF with a FF camera or that does BIF for a living (that is, for their primary income - I know a few who make money doing it on the side when they're not lawyering/architecting/CPAing during banker's hours). All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) for the reach. There are only a handful of internationally well known full time pros who shoot BIF with FF cameras.

Those who shoot FF with such lenses are a much smaller niche than those who use such lenses on crop bodies.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,227
416
I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?
Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs.

That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.
I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,617
2,097
Episode II: Attack of the DRones
To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.
The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

MrAndre

I'm New Here
Aug 12, 2018
22
14
Episode II: Attack of the DRones

The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.
Its one stop in the top of the line, like 5d M4 vs. Sony A7III. But in the 2000 $ range Canon its 2,5 - 3 stops, which is the difference between having a 3 Stop Graduated ND filter or not.

Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs.



I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.
As I said, there are situations where you cannot use filters or bracket.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,153
390
Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.
I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?

Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.



That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.

Well, for me, using the viewfinder is about using AF to shoot stills, because the camera is going to be on a tripod using Liveview if I am shooting manual or I am shooting video, not that I do either very often.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,617
2,097
I know more APS-C shooter that use 100-400s, 150-600s (Sigma/Tamron), a few 120-300s (Sigma), and even a very few big whites than I do FF users who use big whites. I don't personally know anyone who shoots BIF with a FF camera ....All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) for the reach. There are only a handful of internationally well known full time pros who shoot BIF with FF cameras.

Those who shoot FF with such lenses are a much smaller niche than those who use such lenses on crop bodies.
Maybe you don't know many people. ;) Almost all of the BIF shooters I know use FF. The couple of them that don't are hoping to switch to FF soon.

I agree that broadly speaking, more BIF shooters use crop. Why? Exactly the same reason they also use a Canon 100-400mm Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm instead of a Canon 600mm f/4 II – cost. Sure, some of them claim it's 'for the reach', but likewise some people claim they drive a Nissan Versa or a Hyundai Accent for the better fuel economy. Broadly speaking, more people use crop cameras than FF for every type of photography...because they're cheaper.

I suspect most people who can afford an actual big white (costing >$5K) also buy a FF camera to mount it on.
 

Treyarnon

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
62
36
Cornwall, UK
Visit site
That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.
Not being aggressive - but do you shoot landscapes?
Because in 15 years of shooting landscapes with Canon digital cameras I have never felt I have lost a shoot because of insufficient dynamic range. Not once.

I have read a lot of angst on fora - posts like yours "cannot shoot landscapes on Canon because of DR" - but when I look at photos taken on Sonys, Canons or Nikons - I cannot see a difference. Can you show me a shot taken on a Sony which a Canon could not achieve?
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,105
543
Maybe you don't know many people. ;) Almost all of the BIF shooters I know use FF. The couple of them that don't are hoping to switch to FF soon.

I agree that broadly speaking, more BIF shooters use crop. Why? Exactly the same reason they also use a Canon 100-400mm Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm instead of a Canon 600mm f/4 II – cost. Sure, some of them claim it's 'for the reach', but likewise some people claim they drive a Nissan Versa or a Hyundai Accent for the better fuel economy. Broadly speaking, more people use crop cameras than FF for every type of photography...because they're cheaper.

I suspect most people who can afford an actual big white (costing >$5K) also buy a FF camera to mount it on.
I will admit I don't get out as much as I used to. And I've never been in the caviar crowd that can afford just about anything they want.

I may not have been as clear as I hoped above. Some of those I know who use long focal length lenses with crop bodies also own FF bodies, but they don't tend to use the FF bodies when using the long lenses for BIF.
 

Isaacheus

EOS RP
Jun 22, 2017
207
13
New Zealand
Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.
I think people write off sony a bit quickly at times when it comes to new tech/features; I'd far rather canon put new features in, even if not perfect, and improve them slowly over newer models, than to not include them at all. The m50 is a good example of this, with its eye detect af - it's not perfect but its great to see a new feature being added.

I've had plenty of failures with my canon camera, where my sony would have/did work well. It depends on the type of shooting involved
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,177
1,730
Canada
Episode II: Attack of the DRones

The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.
Last weekend I could have used more DR, and Canon’s lack of sufficient DR cost me the shot!
I need an additional 4 or 5 stops for the highlights and another 3 or 4 stops for the shadows....

I suppose I could have set up the tripod, bracketed 5 or 7 shots, and stepped to the side before the oncoming car ran me over.... maybe.... but I'm not going to bet my life on it......
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jpcanon

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,617
2,097
Its one stop in the top of the line, like 5d M4 vs. Sony A7III. But in the 2000 $ range Canon its 2,5 - 3 stops, which is the difference between having a 3 Stop Graduated ND filter or not..
Oh, ok then. I presume you've already bought a Sony full frame camera. How are you enjoying it so far?
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,227
416
I'd far rather canon put new features in, even if not perfect, and improve them slowly over newer models, than to not include them at all.
That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpcanon