The Mess That is the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Rumor Mill

tmroper

EOS 80D
Sep 22, 2016
142
45
slclick said:
tmroper said:
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?
Not everyone's needs are the same. For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal). People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.
So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards? Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"
By the more pixels the better, I meant easier. You just have more to work with, and run into fewer problems when retouching skin. And yes, standards have changed over the years with digital, especially with beauty advertising, which is different from fashion (think make-up vs clothes). But like I said, the main issue is, it's just easier, quicker and therefore cheaper when working with more pixels (assuming hardware capable of it). Personally, I'd be happy still shooting film and doing hardly any retouching. But that's not what most clients want. Things are trending a little more toward natural, un-retouched style ("don't retouch me!"), so we'll see about that in the years to come.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,942
490
rjbray01 said:
Anyone itching to buy a FF Mirrorless would compare such an offering Sony's range and, pretty much regardless of price or mount, would find it very difficult not to go for the Sony ...
Unless they own EF glass and want it to work natively, reliably, consistently, etc. in which case they'd wait for the Canon product to arrive.

That doesn't seem very difficult to me.

- A
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,942
490
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Agree. But like it or not, it's the easiest way to differentiate your product on the market and to ask for a higher price.

- A
 

cpreston

EOS T7i
Mar 22, 2014
79
22
I am an actual videographer who uses the Canon Cinema line of cameras and generally has no interest in high megapixel cameras outside of photos and timelapse. I stick with Canon because I generally don't care about the video features of their photo cameras, but I like their lenses and DPAF. That being said, if they produced a small mirrorless camera that had decent resolution without a crop, I would upgrade from my current EOS-M1's that I use. I don't think any of the video people care whether they reuse the 5D IV sensor, or even the 5D II sensor. They just want some type of decent 4K, with a log profile (unneeded IMHO), in a crop that is at least as large as S35.
 

Joatamos

I'm New Here
Feb 10, 2016
12
1
Last time I checked, this site is called CanonRUMOURS.com .... not canon.com, nor canonfact.com.

I won't presume to speak for others, but I come here for the rumours, the "we think", "maybe", "looks like" etc. Keep the information flowing please.

Can't wait to hear glorious detail about the FF mirrorless Canon models, but in the meantime, please don't hold back on unsubstantiated mutterings.. 8)
 

Uneternal

EOS M50
Jan 25, 2016
49
23
tmroper said:
slclick said:
tmroper said:
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past?
Not everyone's needs are the same. For those doing a lot of retouching, especially skin retouching, the more pixels to work with, the better (everything else being equal). People shooting sports on a 1DX wouldn't care about that one bit, while someone shooting beauty shots would care about that a whole lot.
So were fashion shots simply unusable until the newer high MP bodies of the past couple years? I cannot believe that. Or are you saying current fashion and portrait studios hold themselves to different standards? Your response was bordering on the tired premise that you can't do anything good unless you buy _____ product. (Which disregards 100+ years of incredible photography with older gear) I didn't say you said exactly that just that you didn't convince me with your reasoning. Maybe if you just said pixel peepers with money created a market, then I'd say "ok"
By the more pixels the better, I meant easier. You just have more to work with, and run into fewer problems when retouching skin. And yes, standards have changed over the years with digital, especially with beauty advertising, which is different from fashion (think make-up vs clothes). But like I said, the main issue is, it's just easier, quicker and therefore cheaper when working with more pixels (assuming hardware capable of it). Personally, I'd be happy still shooting film and doing hardly any retouching. But that's not what most clients want. Things are trending a little more toward natural, un-retouched style ("don't retouch me!"), so we'll see about that in the years to come.
I think there was a dedicated site saying you don't need anything over 12 megapixels, and everything over it actually decreases quality because the sensor pixels get too small. Well that was like 10 years ago and technology got better, we have BSI and other stuff allowing sensors to catch more photons, so manufacturers were able to increase the megapixels without wasting quality. Thats why a Sony a7 III, although having better resolution doesn't give you more grain than a 1DX in high ISO. At the same time you can have cameras like the A7S II which give you those 12 megapixels but look a lot better than what we've been used to in the past.
Personally, as I do a lot of retouching, I must say I can never have enough megapixels. I just love to crop pictures afterwards or those extra megapixels of texture I get out of the 5DIV at work compared to my 6D at home. Of course, for the ordinary shooter, 20 MP should be enough.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
903
129
ahsanford said:
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Agree. But like it or not, it's the easiest way to differentiate your product on the market and to ask for a higher price.

- A

Yup. Another one of the magic numbers. More is always better.
 

rjbray01

EOS T7i
Jan 19, 2017
88
38
ricardoko said:
Let's say canon came out with FF mirrorless with the same sensor and features as the 5DIV. Would there be any reason to still get DSLRS? assuming same price
poor EVF latency and resolution leads to a poor experience
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
818
327
noms78 said:
Was really expecting the FF mirrorless to have 38MP.
Why 38? For quad-pixel 4k cropped from a 3:2 stills frame you need around 45Mpixels.

38 just make no difference. Could as well be 30.
 

AlanF

5DSR
Aug 16, 2012
4,871
1,530
ahsanford said:
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Agree. But like it or not, it's the easiest way to differentiate your product on the market and to ask for a higher price.

- A
If you are not resolution limited then you don't need more Mpx. If you just use the whole of the frame and do not crop, then maybe you don't need high MPx. If you are not interested in fine detail, then maybe the same. But, if you are resolution limited, then more MP are important. Like many wildlife and bird photographers, I find that high MPx FF sensors with the same pixel density as APS-C extremely useful. Personally, I don't want more than 50 Mpx full frame as f/5.6 is on the borderline of being diffraction limited for the small pixels,
 

Canoneer

EOS T7i
Sep 6, 2017
73
3
Etienne said:
"Development announcement." Yippeeee

I have a "development announcement" of my own: my teleporter / time machine is in development. It should be ready for production about 15 years after Sony has released their Mark IV teleporter.
I would be satisfied with just a Mark III teleporter from Sony.
 
Oct 14, 2014
7
2
As sad as it makes to me say, Canon can still afford to wait a year or two (maybe even three?).
They hold current Canon users by the balls with their lenses and they still sell tons of Rebels to newbies who don't know what a mirrorless is and who want a big "DSLR" camera to take good photos. Because we all know that the bigger the camera, the better the photos right?

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't hear anything from Canon until at least May 2019, maybe even Photokina 2019.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
719
70
“Fine readers of this site?” Now that rumor is definitely not true. Most of us are bitter and angry, flame-war prone people
 

Orangutan

EOR R
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
ricardoko said:
Let's say canon came out with FF mirrorless with the same sensor and features as the 5DIV. Would there be any reason to still get DSLRS? assuming same price
It depends on what you mean by "same features" -- different people have different needs. Some features that are important to some, but irrelevant to others are:

* EVF low-light performance
* Rapid subject tracking (e.g. birds in flight)
* Battery life
 

Ian_of_glos

EOS RP
Jun 12, 2012
227
16
England
Antono Refa said:
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
There's a guy on one of the local forums. He bought a 5DmkV and the EF 24-105mm f/4L mkII to go with it. When asked why he didn't go for the mkI, he said he wanted a lens that matched his new camera's resolution. When told that it doesn't match it any better than the mkI, he went ballistic and told people to stop criticizing him.

And that's the story in three sentences. People want new, and big, and shiny, and the rest is rationalization.
It is understandable that he feels embarrassed about spending more on the lens that he needed to and probably did not appreciate having his mistake pointed out on a forum. If it is of any consolation to him, I went to the trouble and expense of upgrading my 24-105 F4L to the 24-105 F4L ii when the new lens was announced even though I was unable to see any significant improvement in the images I was able to produce. However, I justified the purchase by telling myself that the old lens had been heavily used, it has been taken around the world with me several times and it would have fallen apart quite soon had I not replaced it when I did.
On the point about wanting the latest version of a product - well I that is something that most of us do. I know many people who change their phone or their car every 2 years, even though the old one still works perfectly.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,209
Canada
slclick said:
Help me out. Why is the MP war back on...after all, all the talking heads here have argued that MP desires above the high teens are irrelevant and the 1DX was always proof of their argument. Are folks now buying bodies to support lenses as opposed to the other way around as in years past? You cannot seriously tell me it's for printing purposes, we all know the average forumite rarely prints larger than 11 x 14. YMMV of course. (99.9% of your images are for SM)
Virtually all the images that I have shot for work have gone into reports (with most of them printed at 4 or 5 inches across), or are viewed on computer monitors. Very few of them require more than a 8Mpixel camera.....