Canon Asking Select Professionals What They Want in a Mirrorless Camera

[goldenhusky]

Good story. Canon see threat in A9/GFX50?

A9 no shutter noise. Perfect many places. Church. Wedding. Tennis.

Why GFX50? Cant understand it. Color? Noise? Controls?

Who they ask important. Explorer of Light/professional = 1DX & 1DX Mark II. Not small body.

I own an a9, 80d, 5D4 and M5. I am fairly confident that a9 will not replace any Canons in the sports and wildlife because there is no native lenses. Sure enough the a9 and a7r3 are threat to some Canons especially with wedding, studio photographers, photo journalists, etc but has some pretty serious down sides.

1) A9 cannot trigger any flashes while using electronic shutter. Most likely one would need some form of lightning when shooting indoor especially inside a place like a Church which makes the silent electronic shutter useless.

2) I had a6300, a6500 in the past and now an a9, one other problem I have seen with all these Sony's are inconsistent white balance between shots. I know it is easily correctable but because of the inconsistency between shots (in the same lighting conditions) each shot needs to be corrected with a different value which often takes a lot of time to get all shots to look pretty much similar in color but at least Sony's black looks black in a9. It using to look greenish in the older cameras.

3) When using auto ISO and flash Sony cameras are inconsistent with the ISO selection. I usually shoot in manual mode, with flash in E-TTL mode (if required) and leave the ISO in auto. In any Canon camera it will try to optimize a low enough ISO and brighter flash to get a decent image with low noise. Even though ISO varies by shot there is not much swing Vs when I do that in any Sony the ISO is all over the place. For e.g. one shot it will pick ISO 1000 the next shot it will pick ISO 3200 and randomly one shot will be in ISO 6400. This is indoor when lightning is not changing at all. When lighting condition changes it is even worse with Sonys

4) Based on a recent low light focus test I did DSLRs still have an edge when it comes to AF in low light. My 5D4 and 80D were able to acquire focus while the M5 and a9 completely failed.

These may sound like nitpicking but these are annoyance with Sony and processing taking longer in real world usage.

 

[Hector1970]

Sound like easily fixable issues and the Sony lens range will expand . Canon can’t rest in its laurels and the first mirrorless they produce needs to be good. I’d buy it if it had a high frame rate and reasonably good overall. By the time it comes out Sony will probably have 400/500/600 F4s. It would be a decision point on my future purchases. Preference would be Canon but if it’s a weak offering it won’t be a good sign.

 

[scyrene]

Does Canon often make stupidly impossible cameras to hold?

That would describe the entire EOS M line until you get to the M5. It would also describe many of the P+S line. And I have pretty average American sized hands (glove size 9).

Of course Canon sells much of their products in Asia, where hand sizes are a bit smaller.

Ergonomics are very challenging on an international level; there really is a significant difference in size around the world.

This is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand, but I must ask - do we have any data on this? It's often repeated, but are there any empirical surveys of hand size across different nationalities? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[scyrene]

Sound like easily fixable issues and the Sony lens range will expand . Canon can’t rest in its laurels and the first mirrorless they produce needs to be good. I’d buy it if it had a high frame rate and reasonably good overall. By the time it comes out Sony will probably have 400/500/600 F4s. It would be a decision point on my future purchases. Preference would be Canon but if it’s a weak offering it won’t be a good sign.

I still don't understand the blind faith people have in Sony addressing every criticism of their devices and lineup. Why should we be certain they'll release a 600mm lens, for example? Whereas the same people always assume Canon will never do what they want. Where's the balance?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does Canon often make stupidly impossible cameras to hold?

That would describe the entire EOS M line until you get to the M5.

I disagree. I have average-sized hands (7.5" base of palm to tip of middle finger, average is 7.44"), and have no trouble holding smaller M-series (I had the M, have the M2 and M6)...with the native lenses. Where they get 'stupidly impossible to hold' is when I mount a 'typical' high quality FF zoom lens via adapter onto the small M body.

In the context of a FF MILC, typical high quality zooms won't be much (or any) smaller.

 

[Don Haines]

sigh.......

Perhaps Canon has figured it out already.....

If you want small size in a mirrorless camera, you want short flange sizes and above all else, TINY LENSES! This means a decided lack of F1.4 primes.... and by using a crop sensor, you can keep those F5.6 lenses small. Such a camera will still take great quality pictures..... and so came the "M" series.

If you are after the ultimate in quality from your mirrorless camera, then you want FF and you are going to want big fast lenses. You will avoid short flange distances because of the chromatic aberration problems of bending the light too sharply to fit that short flange. These are the people who are going to want lots of controls and shoulder displays on their camera, so you end up with a body the size of a 5D series camera to fit it in. Any camera designed to meet such criteria will not be tiny like a Sony.

Everything comes at a price. You can not have best quality with great ergonomics, and small size in the same package. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[dak723]

Sound like easily fixable issues and the Sony lens range will expand . Canon can’t rest in its laurels and the first mirrorless they produce needs to be good. I’d buy it if it had a high frame rate and reasonably good overall. By the time it comes out Sony will probably have 400/500/600 F4s. It would be a decision point on my future purchases. Preference would be Canon but if it’s a weak offering it won’t be a good sign.

I still don't understand the blind faith people have in Sony addressing every criticism of their devices and lineup. Why should we be certain they'll release a 600mm lens, for example? Whereas the same people always assume Canon will never do what they want. Where's the balance?

Seriously? Balance? On an internet forum? It would be nice, but probably 75% of the people on internet forums are not interested in the truth or accuracy, but merely to advance their own agenda. A few of us who have actually used cameras of different brands and try to give informed opinions are usually ignored or ridiculed. Anyone buying a camera based on internet information is bound to be disappointed, if not totally misled.

 

[Talys]

sigh.......

Perhaps Canon has figured it out already.....

If you want small size in a mirrorless camera, you want short flange sizes and above all else, TINY LENSES! This means a decided lack of F1.4 primes.... and by using a crop sensor, you can keep those F5.6 lenses small. Such a camera will still take great quality pictures..... and so came the "M" series.

If you are after the ultimate in quality from your mirrorless camera, then you want FF and you are going to want big fast lenses. You will avoid short flange distances because of the chromatic aberration problems of bending the light too sharply to fit that short flange. These are the people who are going to want lots of controls and shoulder displays on their camera, so you end up with a body the size of a 5D series camera to fit it in. Any camera designed to meet such criteria will not be tiny like a Sony.

Everything comes at a price. You can not have best quality with great ergonomics, and small size in the same package. They are mutually exclusive.

The Sony equation "works" for a certain customers.

1. Have a small camera, with a few mediocre but small zooms. That's "good enough" to wow people looking for a tiny full frame camera.

2. Have a large, pro-quality zooms and primes that take away any size benefits of the small camera. They're already invested in the body, so now they'll rationalize the big lens with other benefits from the body.


So the small, sexy package and the high-end optics are not mutually exclusive in the Sony system; you just can't pair them up -- you CAN have both, just not operate them at the same time -- and that's just fine with some people.

It is totally pointless for people like me, because usually I mount telephoto lenses. A 70-200/2.8, 100-400, or 150-600 feel terrible handheld on a small body, because when it's a sensor floating on a lens, the camera is very front-heavy. While manually focusing, it is difficult to "hold" the mount-end of the camera with your right hand, because (a) the grip is lousy and (b) all the weight falls on your left hand, which is trying to be precise.

I'm not lucky enough to own a big white, but I can just imagine that it would feel ridiculous on a small mirrorless (since an adapted 150-600 already does -- even on a gimbal).

Basically, my opinion is that any camera/lens combo that you can shoot one-handed for an extended period of time feels great if the body is pint-sized. Any lens/camera combo that requires 2 hands to hold steady and shoot feels like poo if the body doesn't have full-sized ergonomics.


So, I'm the furthest thing from a professional, but what I want in a full-frame mirrorless, if Canon is to convince me to purchase one, is:

1. A device that can attach big, pro lenses and feel as or more comfortable than current bodies.
2. A device that works will with telephoto lenses
3. An EVF that doesn't feel like a handicap with fast moving objects

Probably, the maximum price I would pay is in the price range of an A7RIII or D850; it would have to provide tangible benefits for the kind of photos I like to take, though -- wildlife, mostly -- and body size is unlikely to be one of them.

 

[Gino]

I am not a Pro, but I do have the means to purchase nice gear. Personally, I like the current size and feel of the 5D MKIV and 1DX MKII bodies, but I would welcome a reduction in weight...even if it was a small reduction of 100-200 grams. The Sony mirrorless cameras feel too small in my hand, and they do not feel very comfortable.

I hope when Canon comes out with Pro Mirrorless cameras, they keep the current size of the 5D & 1D bodies that they have now, but Canon is able to reduce the weight.

Also, I hope Canon can provide autofocus point coverage across the entire sensor in the mirrorless bodies, with the same type of red translucent LED autofocus points that are currently in the 1D MKII, which are easy to view in low lighting conditions!

Thanks

 

[Don Haines]

sigh.......

Perhaps Canon has figured it out already.....

If you want small size in a mirrorless camera, you want short flange sizes and above all else, TINY LENSES! This means a decided lack of F1.4 primes.... and by using a crop sensor, you can keep those F5.6 lenses small. Such a camera will still take great quality pictures..... and so came the "M" series.

If you are after the ultimate in quality from your mirrorless camera, then you want FF and you are going to want big fast lenses. You will avoid short flange distances because of the chromatic aberration problems of bending the light too sharply to fit that short flange. These are the people who are going to want lots of controls and shoulder displays on their camera, so you end up with a body the size of a 5D series camera to fit it in. Any camera designed to meet such criteria will not be tiny like a Sony.

Everything comes at a price. You can not have best quality with great ergonomics, and small size in the same package. They are mutually exclusive.

The Sony equation "works" for a certain customers.

Yes, it does work.

The Sony system is a "medium size" solution. It is a very good compromise between small size and quality/ergonomics... Canon already has a successful "small" system (M series) and the lenses for a "large" system (EF mount). It makes much more sense for them to come out with a "large" mirrorless body and to offer the public both a large and high quality/ergonomic system and a small system, than it does to invent a whole new medium sized system that leaves thier current high end users dngling....

There are 140 million EF lenses out there... a mirrorless FF EF mount could use them all. take FF images when a EF lens is mounted, and crop the sensor when EF-S is mounted.....

 

[ahsanford]

I disagree. I have average-sized hands (7.5" base of palm to tip of middle finger, average is 7.44"), and have no trouble holding smaller M-series (I had the M, have the M2 and M6)...with the native lenses. Where they get 'stupidly impossible to hold' is when I mount a 'typical' high quality FF zoom lens via adapter onto the small M body.

In the context of a FF MILC, typical high quality zooms won't be much (or any) smaller.

+1. This is the heart of it. M5 is fine for the glass it natively works with. Even a 1.2x-1.3x scaled up version of the EOS M5 design will not work for FF mirrorless as the lenses simply get huge/heavy quickly. Canon could only go with a dainty body with FF if it kept its lenses to f/2.8 primes and f/4 zooms, which only a small portion of the market would be happy with (ask Sony), and we know folks will mount EF glass on these new FF rigs on day one, so who are we kidding?

That doesn't mean the body needs to be thick or thin mounted. Either will work, so I'd de-couple that from your thinking. Canon simply needs a chunky grip that is appropriately spaced from the mount for finger space with the bigger barrel f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes. I think that's a must for any system that has an on-ramp to the EF mount somehow.

- A

 

[tmroper]

I once took the dimensions of the original Sony A7, and compared them to my Nikon FM. Turns out they were just about the same size, and ever since I've been wondering if Sony used SLRs like the Nikon as a goal for their mirrorless camera form factor. Because millions of those film SLRs were sold, all roughly the same size, and I don't think people complained too much about their "ergonomics." On the other hand, many it's a coincidence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I once took the dimensions of the original Sony A7, and compared them to my Nikon FM. Turns out they were just about the same size, and ever since I've been wondering if Sony used SLRs like the Nikon as a goal for their mirrorless camera form factor. Because millions of those film SLRs were sold, all roughly the same size, and I don't think people complained too much about their "ergonomics." On the other hand, many it's a coincidence.

At that time, sensors came in rolls with 24 or 36 full frame sensors per roll, costing a few bucks. Film SLRs were 'consumer-level' cameras. With what lenses were those 'millions of film SLRs' generally sold? Earlier...with 50mm prime lenses. Later...with slow, variable aperture zoom lenses. Those were relatively small, light lenses...nothing to complain about from an ergonomic standpoint when used with a small body. An f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime is a different beast.

 

[Mikehit]

Sound like easily fixable issues and the Sony lens range will expand . Canon can’t rest in its laurels and the first mirrorless they produce needs to be good. I’d buy it if it had a high frame rate and reasonably good overall. By the time it comes out Sony will probably have 400/500/600 F4s. It would be a decision point on my future purchases. Preference would be Canon but if it’s a weak offering it won’t be a good sign.

If they are 'easily fixable' why was the camera released with these problems in the first place? It is like general ergonomics - Sony have been heavily criticised since the days of the first NEX camera and yet only now have they got tow cameras (A7R-III and A9) that come anywhere near people saying 'they have been fixed'. Up to now Sony have been majoring on slamming as many features as they can in their cameras in order to attract new users but where they are closing the gap on Canon regards real-world uses, Canon is catching up on sensor capability. Are you sure it is Canon who should not rest on their laurels?

 

[rrcphoto]

I once took the dimensions of the original Sony A7, and compared them to my Nikon FM. Turns out they were just about the same size, and ever since I've been wondering if Sony used SLRs like the Nikon as a goal for their mirrorless camera form factor. Because millions of those film SLRs were sold, all roughly the same size, and I don't think people complained too much about their "ergonomics." On the other hand, many it's a coincidence.

except those FM film cameras had far less control over camera operation that simply didn't exist in the days of film and manual focus, and also relied on aperture control based on the lens.

never had to flip between auto-ISO, ISO, white balances, AF modes, image controls, menu controls, AF point selection, picture profiles, special function buttons,etc.

 

[Adelino]

Why GFX50? Cant understand it. Color? Noise? Controls?

Because the price point of the rumored rangefinder (and less expensive) version of the GFX 50S body may begin to encroach on the 5DsR (and future 5Ds Mk II) price point. Also once the 100S version is released in 2019, the 50S price will drop substantially. And the GF lenses are not any more expensive than Canon's best L lenses, yet they can resolve up to 100 MP.

I went on a mini rant about medium format's appeal to FF users recently: post 1 / post 2

In my mind, it's a very hard sell to FF users. Many more takeaways than advantages, and the hotness the bigger sensor brings isn't that much hotter than what FF can deliver today.

I'm not saying that there is not benefit to MF -- leaf shutters and bigger sensors are not bad things at all. But I feel one is walking away from so much more than they are walking towards in a FF --> MF conversation.

But a total agreement / +1 on the 100 MP arriving to change things there. That's a clear selling point that FF will not have for some time.

- A

I own the GFX and 5DsR, and I can tell you the difference in the files is substantial and well worth the price difference (I got the GFX body for just over $5K). The only thing I use the 5DsR for any more is longer telephoto shots, but that will change somewhat when the GF 250 plus 1.4x comes out this year. I'll still keep the 5DsR and 100-400 II with 1.4x III for the occasional 500mm+ shot.

Beautiful photos. Santa Fe?

 

[ahsanford]

The Sony system is a "medium size" solution. It is a very good compromise between small size and quality/ergonomics... Canon already has a successful "small" system (M series) and the lenses for a "large" system (EF mount). It makes much more sense for them to come out with a "large" mirrorless body and to offer the public both a large and high quality/ergonomic system and a small system, than it does to invent a whole new medium sized system that leaves thier current high end users dngling....

Don, I think you're conflating FF and crop with these small/medium/larges above. Crop and FF are apples and oranges to me even if a crop body can use FF glass.

Consider that the A7 is smaller than any FF DSLR Canon has ever made. You say it's a medium, but for FF, I see the A7 and even the thicker A9, A7R3 designs as "Small" for that sensor size and the glass you'll put on it. You can't really make that setup much smaller without turning it into a fancy RX1R point and shoot.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

An f/2.8 zoom or f/1.4 prime is a different beast.

+1. People will put big pickle jar lenses on these new mirrorless bodies on the very first day out of the box.

Again: thick or thin mount is possible, but the grip needs to be ready for the 24-70 f/2.8s and 85 f/1.4s of the world.

- A

 

[bf]

Shouldn't Canon asked us who used its mirror-less for years instead? Man, if they had just listened!

 

[ahsanford]

Shouldn't Canon asked us who used its mirror-less for years instead? Man, if they had just listened!

If you are referring to getting input from current EOS M users, the assumption is professionals are either (a) not using that brand or (b) they may not be doing professional work on it.

In other words, and this may be unfair to professionals who use EOS M as a b-rig or 2nd body, but using EOS M5/M6 to inform future FF mirrorless designs will deliver a product that works well in general but it may not sufficiently entice professionals. (I could be wrong.)

But I understand why they did this (if indeed this rumor is accurate) -- there's more a FF mirrorless rig than saying "Merge everything mirrorless you've learned about M5/M6 with all the professional feature set of the 5D4 and boom, you're done." Canon is wise to put out feelers with as many potential markets for this camera as they can.

- A