Bad rumor alert: 6D2 to be abandoned in favor of FF mirrorless instead?
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
He is laughing all the way to the bank. Sending thousands to his site generates a lot of advertising revenue.
Upvote
0
I could see the 6D3 being a FF mirrorless..... but not the 6D2. Too soon, too fast. Canon is a conservative company that relies more on making a solid dependable product than being a trendsetter....
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Agreed. This late in the game I think the 6D II is highly anticipated and will sell better initially than the version 1 did as now people know what to expect. The version 1 was highly criticized because many people did not know where this fit in. Many people who adamantly said they would not purchase one ended up buying one later.
Full Frame mirror less is still too new for Canon to give up sales that are a sure thing on a gamble that many people would switch.
I, for one would not.
Upvote
0
I would switch if it was a mature product with the bugs out..... but no, not the first try.....hbr said:
Also, a lot of people seem to think that mirrorless automatically means thin cameras like the Sony..... it does not. One can make a mirrorless in the existing 6D form factor, thus keeping all the EF lenses and the ergonomics. The Sony s***s for ergonomics... to small to have a decent grip, and not enough real estate for the needed controls and displays....
Upvote
0
Don Haines said:
Canon would be wise to keep the existing form factor - especially the existing flange distance. Not just because of the popularity and huge variety of existing EF and EF-S lenses, but because - so far - the small flange distance the Sony's have is a real problem for IQ away from the frame's center. Small and thin sounds good, but so far only MFT and APS-C cameras work well with that form factor.
Upvote
0
I've been using the M3 with the EVF for a while now; it's a great little camera with a few annoying bits. Main "likes" are small size, small price, flexible and has pretty good "IQ". I've used the Sony A7 series a small amount. Main likes are..........I'll have to leave that one for a bit..
So the mirror less element equals the small size, and I suppose that small size is of a greater benefit, given the M3's use, than the slow operation is a handicap. But make the camera larger, the same size as a FF dslr due to both sensor size and flange distance on the EF mount, and I just don't get where the advantage is meant to be over a mirror at the present time.
You can't review your shot through the viewfinder without a mirror less ( at present), you can't see the actual exposure ( at present), but beyond this just what exactly is the huge appeal for still photography ? ( I can understand it for video). An optical viewfinder is real time, a good optical viewfinder is also a pleasure to use. There is no lag in changing from review to shooting, there is no lag in following actions etc. You don't need power to see through the viewfinder, so you are not draining the battery, and you don't need the camera switched on.
Once mirrorless tech allows real time in every way, from lack of any video lag to waking up instantly, then OK, we can put up with the poorer battery performance, but until then just what is the point of a FF mirror less that is the same size as a FF dslr ?
So the mirror less element equals the small size, and I suppose that small size is of a greater benefit, given the M3's use, than the slow operation is a handicap. But make the camera larger, the same size as a FF dslr due to both sensor size and flange distance on the EF mount, and I just don't get where the advantage is meant to be over a mirror at the present time.
You can't review your shot through the viewfinder without a mirror less ( at present), you can't see the actual exposure ( at present), but beyond this just what exactly is the huge appeal for still photography ? ( I can understand it for video). An optical viewfinder is real time, a good optical viewfinder is also a pleasure to use. There is no lag in changing from review to shooting, there is no lag in following actions etc. You don't need power to see through the viewfinder, so you are not draining the battery, and you don't need the camera switched on.
Once mirrorless tech allows real time in every way, from lack of any video lag to waking up instantly, then OK, we can put up with the poorer battery performance, but until then just what is the point of a FF mirror less that is the same size as a FF dslr ?
Upvote
0
+100000000000000Sporgon said:
For me the only reason for a FF EF lens compatible mirrorless camera would be to satisfy those saying that Canon hasn't one and nothing else. I remember seeing examples comparing a canon 5d series with a 2.8 zoom lens with a sony and a similar zoom lens. The difference in size (and weight) were minimal...
FF mirrorless would have an advantage if they were using smaller (mostly fixed focus) lenses.
Upvote
0
Sporgon said:
The advantages are all the features you'd expect:
- Zebras
- Focus peaking
- seeing what the sensor sees
- Faster frame rate (no need to move a mirror)
For high-end/expensive mirrorless bodies (unlikely, but still possible)
- larger sensor to cover both portrait and landscape orientation simultaneously (no need to rotate the body)
- multi-sensor design to either capture more light (by eliminating the Bayer filter), or to preserve extreme highlights
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
Focus peaking ? Meh, it sounds great in theory, in practice I have found it to be pretty useless. Only really works when there is a very, very shallow dof and even then I'm not convinced it is any improvement over an "s" screen.
See what the sensor sees ? Agreed, I include that under real exposure.
Your last two points on high end: surely the mirror isn't the limiting factor here.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
