Canon FF mirrorless Poll
- Thread starter dak723
- Start date
I'd certainly be interested, provided I could still use my EF lenses or at least via adapter like the M mount with no penalty like loss of autofocus performance of odd image quality quirks like using UWAs on the Sony E mount via adapter.
So long as it had good functionality and battery life, I'd certainly consider it.
So long as it had good functionality and battery life, I'd certainly consider it.
Upvote
0
A time-travelling mirrorless isn't that hard in theory. Just allow the camera to retain to retain 2secs of images in its memory. At the press of a button, it generates 120 images (at 60fps). I'm sure it has even been done before. Of course you'd still have to be pointing your camera in the right direction, have things in focus etc.
Upvote
0
There have been rumors about Nikon FF mirrorless for many years now. We see no such thing. What would be the reason for Canon to launch a FF mirrorless? To compete with Sony? What Canon needs is a better sensor and some fine tuning in their current FF DSLRs. Yet another form factor with its own lineup of lenses does not seem like a good idea economically.
Canon is driven by the bottom line and they know they are on a diminishing market where all camera makers are facing losses. They'd need a new approach to social media oriented mass products. There might still be some money to be made as everybody is vlogging and YouTubing. Now look at the GoPro flock, it is enormous! Look at the shaky, vertical pixelated stuff people post...now there I see a market.
Canon thinks "camera" they should think "audience".
Canon is driven by the bottom line and they know they are on a diminishing market where all camera makers are facing losses. They'd need a new approach to social media oriented mass products. There might still be some money to be made as everybody is vlogging and YouTubing. Now look at the GoPro flock, it is enormous! Look at the shaky, vertical pixelated stuff people post...now there I see a market.
Canon thinks "camera" they should think "audience".
Upvote
0
I voted ONLY if Canon uses ANY of its existing mounts. Theoretically, if it is a new mount they could make an adapter like their current one. Or if it uses the EF mount, then many people including myself will be over the moon with happiness.
After using the M5 for the past two months or so, I REALLY want a FF Mirrorless from Canon. Although I do like optical viewfinders, I find I appreciate an EVF for it's usefulness in low light and personally wouldn't miss an OVF. Also I'm someone who never shoots anything close to action and never use video. DPAF has worked great for me so far and has made me feel like my 6D is really lacking in the AF department which I never felt before. Feature wise if I could put a FF sensor in my M5 I would be more than happy with it.
After using the M5 for the past two months or so, I REALLY want a FF Mirrorless from Canon. Although I do like optical viewfinders, I find I appreciate an EVF for it's usefulness in low light and personally wouldn't miss an OVF. Also I'm someone who never shoots anything close to action and never use video. DPAF has worked great for me so far and has made me feel like my 6D is really lacking in the AF department which I never felt before. Feature wise if I could put a FF sensor in my M5 I would be more than happy with it.
Upvote
0
I was really close to biting the M5 bullet yesterday after getting a 'better than CPW' deal from Gordon for a body and Euro style EF adapter but after sleeping on it I decided I was caving in on a couple areas.
1. That screen. I want a true flippy not just a tilty.
2. Creaky grip/plastic body issues. When you get above the $800 mark I expect something a bit more solid, Hell even an SL1 is much more robust than an M5.
All the other specs and features are great (especially a true Canon adapter for EF as the 3rd party versions all have various play) but those are two I just can't give into and accept. So, I'll wait. Blurgh.
1. That screen. I want a true flippy not just a tilty.
2. Creaky grip/plastic body issues. When you get above the $800 mark I expect something a bit more solid, Hell even an SL1 is much more robust than an M5.
All the other specs and features are great (especially a true Canon adapter for EF as the 3rd party versions all have various play) but those are two I just can't give into and accept. So, I'll wait. Blurgh.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
I'm not sure if it was a bad batch in certain markets but I haven't had any issues with a squeaky grip on mine.
Yeah I do wish it was tilty flipy but it hasn't bothered me too much, still better than a fixed screen. The detail on it is amazing too.
Upvote
0
I was on the cusp of buying the m3 a little over a year ago. They didn't have any in stock but did have a used Fujifilm X-T10 with the 18-55 kit lens at a great price. I bought that. I haven't regretted it. It's a great camera and the four lenses I have for it are excellent. I'm intrigued by the m5 and m6 but won't buy them. They'd be redundant. As far as a FF mirrorless is concerned, I'd be interested but wouldn't buy one. I've got all the camera gear I need and, truthfully, more than I need.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
Well, speaking of the plastic body, it's not as bad as you might read it on the forum.
I'd really really suggest getting the M5 into your hands and play around a little bit. If you can live with a tilting screen, it will be a great camera for you. And something I want to add; the tilting screen on the M5 feels much more solid than the one of the EOS M3 (which I've had for a day to try it out).
For you I guess, it is really more a question about IF you can work with a tilting screen only.
Upvote
0
dpc said:
Yeah if that Fuji works for you, why buy something else. You're right. Just buy the tool that works best for you and call it a day. With the M5, I'm in the same spot as you are. I'm not in need of anything "better" or different, it just works, and boy it works really well. I guess it will be my tool of choice for the next several years, same as your Fuji is the tool of choice for you. I'm glad that you've found your "love".
Upvote
0
I beg to differ. I'm one who considers the differences between FF and crop to be advantages for the FF shooter. Cleaner images at higher ISO offers more options in aperture and shutter speed choices. Deeper color depth enriches the image. In many cases, the FF sensor yeilds sharper images given the same glass. And, you have greater control of depth of field since fast glass will offer thinner DOF on FF than on crop.Luds34 said:
It's a fair point that the smaller size of mirrorless bodies is its biggest appeal. To fully realize this benefit, one would then need to consider the size advantages of smaller EF-M (or even EF-S) lenses. The total package will mean a sacrafice in image quality and creative control for the FF shooter. But, it also offers a much bigger improvement in these areas over point-n-shoot alternatives for one seeking a "travel-light" option when bringing a FF kit is overkill or inconvenient.
I purchased an SL1 for this reason. I sometimes do want a smaller system for "grab shots", but the crop sensor is the smallest that I care to use and shutter lag of non-DSLR's annoy me.
Still, if the shutter lag issue can be improved, I would consider a FF mirrorless. It has the potential of offering a relatively light system for hiking without sacraficing image quality for scenery -- and the potential to capture an image worthy of rather large wall decoration.
Upvote
0
An oddly structured poll -- it seems to blend appeal of a specific form of the product yet greatly simplify inevitable truth that most of us (perhaps not the wildlifers or sports folks) in the next 10-15 years will be forced to mirrorless instead of SLR.
If it's inevitable that mirrorless will eventually replace what we shoot today, then what we choose in the poll -- the 'I would buy' statements -- becomes a blend of desire and necessity. (Does the polar bear head south enticed by better chances at food, or is it headed south because the ice caps are melting?)
In other words, some of us will gleefully opt in to FF mirrorless -- possibly swayed by the mount decision, whether it can be made very small, whether we can use native lenses without adaptors, etc. -- while others will be forced into FF mirrorless because the next rev of the (say) 5D line won't have a mirror. These are two dramatically different buying groups -- one that will most certainly own one in the first 1-2 generations of FF mirrorless being offered, and the other may fight this market for over a decade.
- A
If it's inevitable that mirrorless will eventually replace what we shoot today, then what we choose in the poll -- the 'I would buy' statements -- becomes a blend of desire and necessity. (Does the polar bear head south enticed by better chances at food, or is it headed south because the ice caps are melting?)
In other words, some of us will gleefully opt in to FF mirrorless -- possibly swayed by the mount decision, whether it can be made very small, whether we can use native lenses without adaptors, etc. -- while others will be forced into FF mirrorless because the next rev of the (say) 5D line won't have a mirror. These are two dramatically different buying groups -- one that will most certainly own one in the first 1-2 generations of FF mirrorless being offered, and the other may fight this market for over a decade.
- A
Upvote
0
Personally I love the ability to pick up my camera, frame/focus the shot and decide if there's something there or not, all without having to wake the camera up... just like I did in film days.
Get a mirrorless to do that with no lag and I'm sold :
Get a mirrorless to do that with no lag and I'm sold :
Upvote
0
After thinking about it, this is actually pretty easy. As soon as the live view and EVF are superior to OVF, I'll ditch OVF. It is possible: if the density of the pixels exceeds my ability to discern pixels, the light sensitivity exceeds my eyes, and the lag is not discernable to my brain, I'd probably go mirrorless.
Looking at the present, the criteria basically has to be that especially in low light situations I need to be able to manually focus and compose as comfortably and effectively as I can with a top notch OVF, and it can't blow through batteries to power the body.
Looking down the future, mirrorless/no OVF would be awesome if the sensor could provide enhanced images, and non-visible spectrum; for example, infrared. It would be very cool to be able to get 20MP+ images and video of wildlife in the dark, for example. As a use case scenario, I would be prepared to light my back yard with infrared floods (which animals wouldn't see), and then use a 300mm lens to shoot fast pictures or video in near-darkness to film baby raccoons playing or owls chasing mice.
Also, if you think down the road where there's an order of magnitude more powerful processors and batteries, EVF has the potential to give a screen that is much bigger than OVF. So, if "sky's the limit", a EVF could behave more like a AR/VR helmet, and show you *every*, highlighting a box around the image your taking.
The problem is that for me TODAY, EVF/Screen is a fun gizmo that is a handicap for photography in almost every meaningful way; certainly, the two most important metrics -- what I see, and how long batteries last. When that changes and EVF/Screen can give me advantages other than good/interchangeable lens on a bigger point-and-shoot body, I'm there.
Looking at the present, the criteria basically has to be that especially in low light situations I need to be able to manually focus and compose as comfortably and effectively as I can with a top notch OVF, and it can't blow through batteries to power the body.
Looking down the future, mirrorless/no OVF would be awesome if the sensor could provide enhanced images, and non-visible spectrum; for example, infrared. It would be very cool to be able to get 20MP+ images and video of wildlife in the dark, for example. As a use case scenario, I would be prepared to light my back yard with infrared floods (which animals wouldn't see), and then use a 300mm lens to shoot fast pictures or video in near-darkness to film baby raccoons playing or owls chasing mice.
Also, if you think down the road where there's an order of magnitude more powerful processors and batteries, EVF has the potential to give a screen that is much bigger than OVF. So, if "sky's the limit", a EVF could behave more like a AR/VR helmet, and show you *every*, highlighting a box around the image your taking.
The problem is that for me TODAY, EVF/Screen is a fun gizmo that is a handicap for photography in almost every meaningful way; certainly, the two most important metrics -- what I see, and how long batteries last. When that changes and EVF/Screen can give me advantages other than good/interchangeable lens on a bigger point-and-shoot body, I'm there.
Upvote
0
Talys said:
Yep. But the 'EVF is better / worse than an OVF' can be sliced a thousand ways depending on what you shoot and what you prioritize. IMHO, it's more than just 'how laggy / big / high-res is it' before EVFs will take off. Consider:
1) If you principally shoot indoor events/concerts, EVFs' ability to amplify light and focus peak at -4, -5 EV conditions (when AF tends to whiff) is better than an OVF right now.
2) If you shoot sports/wildlife, it's going to be a very long time before the EVF outclasses an OVF setup.
3) If you often need to switch from AF to MF lenses on the same body, an EVF / peaking setup will do more than an OVF setup as peaking just a button press away with an EVF. The alternative of being able to use focusing screens in (some) SLRs is far more invasive/dedicated setup than the simplicity of a mirrorless button push.
Those are just three examples. There are dozens more where the EVF might show its upsides over an OVF despite battery life, despite lag, etc.
Standard mirrorless disclosure: I shoot an SLR and only shoot an SLR. For all my talk, I'm no mirrorless fanboy so much as I respect mirrorless' inevitability (much as one might watch global warming slowly march forward).
- A
Upvote
0
Looks like most would want a K-01 type camera. Look how well that camera did.
Just keep the mirror if you going to keep it EF mount.
Just keep the mirror if you going to keep it EF mount.
Upvote
0
I can't see the point in having anything except EF-M mount.
EF mount means you're stuck with EF lenses.
EF-M mount means you can get compact EF-M lenses, both crop and full-frame (in the future) and be able to use not just EF lenses, but Nikon lenses, old FD lenses, and pretty much any other lens you'd ever care to use with suitable adaptors.
Why cripple a mirrorless camera by enforcing a 30 year old mount on it?
However... I do think a future EF-M FF mirrorless camera should come bundled with an EF-EF-M adaptor.
EF mount means you're stuck with EF lenses.
EF-M mount means you can get compact EF-M lenses, both crop and full-frame (in the future) and be able to use not just EF lenses, but Nikon lenses, old FD lenses, and pretty much any other lens you'd ever care to use with suitable adaptors.
Why cripple a mirrorless camera by enforcing a 30 year old mount on it?
However... I do think a future EF-M FF mirrorless camera should come bundled with an EF-EF-M adaptor.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
