Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

JP said:
Watch and see what happens with Canon.. I'm guessing from experience, when Canon introduces their FF Mirrorles camera body, it will be significantly better than a Sony (or Nikon) product..

Likely true, but it depends on what you value:

Canon upsides: Ergonomics, menus, familiar controls and handling for Canon users, lenses, flashes, build quality, customer service

Sony upsides: They haven't been held back by the expectation of decades of loyal users -- this gives them some room to innovate with smaller risks of alienation -- they could roll out something nutty that turns out to be a big hit. They also have those damn good sensors.

Of course, I'll take Canon on balance.

- A
 
Upvote 0
Something like the 80D would be a good size for Canon's full frame mirrorless. There's more internal volume than the Rebels, would still be noticeably reduced in size from the 5D series and still be substantial to handle those big 2.8 zooms and 1.4/1.2 primes.

I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

It makes so much sense for Canon to develop a FF ML that would use its EF range than play catch-up creating new FF ML lenses (and of course for its user base, if they want, to just swap DSLR and ML bodies!), especially now that Sony's shown that anyway once you go 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes the lenses are a similar size.
 
Upvote 0
Mr. Shakes said:
marcel said:
The problem is this:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

I prefer the free-weight masochism of the 5D's & EF Lenses, so please keep Canon focused on making better primes!

The chart shows bad news for digital cameras in general, however, the numbers of interchangeable lens cameras are greater during the decline in total numbers than they were during the accent to the best year for digital cameras.
 
Upvote 0
bencam said:
I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

IBIS is no guarantee with a Canon mirrorless rig, if that's you meant above. (Does Canon sell a single IBIS body today with an interchangeable lens mount?) Wouldn't they just tell us to buy an IS lens for that EF mount?

- A
 
Upvote 0
bencam said:
Something like the 80D would be a good size for Canon's full frame mirrorless. There's more internal volume than the Rebels, would still be noticeably reduced in size from the 5D series and still be substantial to handle those big 2.8 zooms and 1.4/1.2 primes.

I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

It makes so much sense for Canon to develop a FF ML that would use its EF range than play catch-up creating new FF ML lenses (and of course for its user base, if they want, to just swap DSLR and ML bodies!), especially now that Sony's shown that anyway once you go 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes the lenses are a similar size.

since canon has zero IBIS patents.. I wouldn't expect it.
 
Upvote 0
An interesting article that discusses some of the shortcomings of having both a small flange distance and a narrow mount diameter. So, while those aspects may be popular to make the cameras and lenses smaller, they negatively affect image quality and make designing lenses more difficult. As I mentioned earlier, I witnessed the very poor edge performance of the Sony kit lens when using the very short flange distance of the Sony A7 and A& II. It could have been the lenses (I tried two) but when taking pics with the adapter and a Canon lens, the edge performance was greatly improved, making me believe that the problem is the short flange distance.

http://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
bencam said:
I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

IBIS is no guarantee with a Canon mirrorless rig, if that's you meant above. (Does Canon sell a single IBIS body today with an interchangeable lens mount?) Wouldn't they just tell us to buy an IS lens for that EF mount?

- A
A FF ML would be a great time for Canon to start putting IBIS in their bodies. Even Sony's IBIS-equipped ML started with the FF A7II and not with their crop A6000.

For Canon, if it starts doing IBIS, instead of saying, go buy the cheaper non-L 24/28/35 IS primes, they can instead say, go buy the L primes because IBIS "breathes new life" into the more expensive red rings or some marketing spiel. Or hey, you don't have to settle for the cheaper 24-70/105 F4 IS zooms, because now IBIS will make the more expensive 2.8 work out too for when you think you'll need IS.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
drob said:
Why is full frame mirrorless such a wanted product?

What makes you think it is? Outside of AvTvM's head, and his utterly unsupported claims of the 'millions of buyers clamoring for it', there's really no evidence for a huge demand.

I like the idea of a camera without the moving mirror, because that mechanism is a likely failure point, and because less vibration is always better.

The problem is that with the new dual pixel cameras, one only need put the camera into live view mode, and it becomes a EF mirrorless camera that has slow but accurate autofocus, and the usual poor battery life.

So, I ask myself what is the point of a dedicated mirrorless when I can have both?

Until Canon figures a way to have fast AF in a mirrorless body, having the option to use a camera as a DSLR or a mirrorless that takes EF lenses seems like what I want.

Now, a small camera like the M5 might cause me to sell my G1X II, but that remains to be seen.

I'd call a FF fixed lens mirrorless a FF point and shoot. It also might replace my G1X II.
 
Upvote 0
People say that camera sales are massively falling because of smartphone use - but nobody talks about one major difference between smartphones and DSLRs:

- With a current iPhone 7 or Samsung S7, hardly any realistic wish for features and functions is left open. It's very hard to imagine which real essential things the manufacturers should come up with in the future. If you own one of the top smartphones of one of the leading manufacturers, there are no real reasons to complain about the few specs that are better in the competitor's product. You can survive with the functions of the current smartphones for decades, and it feels like as if everything's there.

- With a Canon DSLR that is 5-10x as expensive, you can easily make a realistic future wish list of a few dozen relevant missing points, because those functions are already implemented in lots of other existing products by the competition (many in mirrorless cameras). While the quality of the cameras is great in itself and you can use them for many years to come, a lot of things are limited, and logistics and workflow are not as convenient as they can be. A lot of extras and multiple devices need to be bought to be able to have allround capabilities.

Final result is: A 2016 smartphone just feels good and not like an expensive thing to buy for what it gives you. A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.

Maybe Canon should try to release products that include all they can give at the moment, and more people than now will see the reasons why it makes sense to buy them and feel good about it, although they have a smartphone and/or an older Canon product.
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.

So that's why Sony is selling so many more ILCs than Canon. Oh, wait... ::) ::)
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
People say that camera sales are massively falling because of smartphone use - but nobody talks about one major difference between smartphones and DSLRs:

- With a current iPhone 7 or Samsung S7, hardly any realistic wish for features and functions is left open. It's very hard to imagine which real essential things the manufacturers should come up with in the future. If you own one of the top smartphones of one of the leading manufacturers, there are no real reasons to complain about the few specs that are better in the competitor's product. You can survive with the functions of the current smartphones for decades, and it feels like as if everything's there.

- With a Canon DSLR that is 5-10x as expensive, you can easily make a realistic future wish list of a few dozen relevant missing points, because those functions are already implemented in lots of other existing products by the competition (many in mirrorless cameras). While the quality of the cameras is great in itself and you can use them for many years to come, a lot of things are limited, and logistics and workflow are not as convenient as they can be. A lot of extras and multiple devices need to be bought to be able to have allround capabilities.

Final result is: A 2016 smartphone just feels good and not like an expensive thing to buy for what it gives you. A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do. That is also the main difference to Sony. An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.

Maybe Canon should try to release products that include all they can give at the moment, and more people than now will see the reasons why it makes sense to buy them and feel good about it, although they have a smartphone and/or an older Canon product.

+1 - full agreement.

No matter, how much the Canon Defense League may be in denial.

However, smartphones still have 2 major disadvantages vs. (good) dedicated cameras:
* fixed focal length or puny zoom range, no possibility to change lenses/focal lengths
* no viewfinder

yes ... many users are willing and able to live with these constraints and capture excellent images despite of it.
but ... smartphones are no truly universal photographic tool
and ... most existing cameras are neither

Thats why I am pushing for as small as possible but fully functional solid state cameras - with capable sensor, capable AF system, capable viewfinder and capable lens mount and lenses.

In APS-C sensor size Sony A6500 + E-lenses and Canon EOS M5 plus EF-M lenses and Fuji XT-2 and X-lenses are "almost there", with various deficiencies in all 3 systems.

In FF sensor size, only Sony has an entry with A7 II cameras + FE lens family. But is is still some ways off, namely: current A7 II camery bodies are too bulky [goal would be RX1R II size and form factor], UI is still far from ideal and most importantly: there are no good, small and affordable FE lenses available.

Meanwhile, in late 2016 neither Canon nor Nikon nor the rest of the industry have anything on offer in the mirrorless FF category. And if anything at all, Canon is likely to bring a *fixed-lens* FF mirrorless compact cam only, which shares ione of the 2 main deficiencies with smartphones, only at a much higher pricepoint ... stupid, Canon! Very stupid. And they don't live up to it, but prefer to attribute sinking profits to Brexit and currency fluctuations instead. Crazy stupid. ::)
 
Upvote 0
douglaurent said:
A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do.

So glad you feel you can talk on my behalf.
If I paid a shedload of money for something and felt that the company had left out a load of stuff they could have put in with no impact on cost, it would not feel expensive it would make me feel they are a load of cheapskates and I'd ditch them without hesitation.

An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.
So Sony have a AF that is clearly inferior to Canon and that is understandable because it is the best they can do. Canon leave out a few things you would really like and they are cheating you.
Peddling such biased bullshit as valid critique is ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
bencam said:
I'd expect a Canon FF ML to match Sony's in-body IS, EVF and wide AF coverage while having space to also throw in things like better battery life (the 80D already uses the same battery as the 5D's), a fully articulating touchscreen, dual card slots, maybe even a pop-up flash (for those times it'll do as fill flash).

IBIS is no guarantee with a Canon mirrorless rig, if that's you meant above. (Does Canon sell a single IBIS body today with an interchangeable lens mount?) Wouldn't they just tell us to buy an IS lens for that EF mount?

- A
Canon made Electronic 5 axis IBIS system for its latest revolutionary mirrorless. ;D
 
Upvote 0
Mikehit said:
douglaurent said:
A 2016 Canon camera feels expensive, because you know the company has left out many things and didn't even pretend to try to release the best they can do.

So glad you feel you can talk on my behalf.
If I paid a shedload of money for something and felt that the company had left out a load of stuff they could have put in with no impact on cost, it would not feel expensive it would make me feel they are a load of cheapskates and I'd ditch them without hesitation.

An A7RII or A99II feel much more as if it's the best Sony could come up with at the time.
So Sony have a AF that is clearly inferior to Canon and that is understandable because it is the best they can do. Canon leave out a few things you would really like and they are cheating you.
Peddling such biased bullS___ as valid critique is ridiculous.

Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.
 
Upvote 0
"Meanwhile, in late 2016 neither Canon nor Nikon nor the rest of the industry have anything on offer in the mirrorless FF category. And if anything at all, Canon is likely to bring a *fixed-lens* FF mirrorless compact cam only, which shares ione of the 2 main deficiencies with smartphones, only at a much higher pricepoint ... stupid, Canon! Very stupid. And they don't live up to it, but prefer to attribute sinking profits to Brexit and currency fluctuations instead. Crazy stupid."

IMHO the Leica M is a 10 year old line of FF mirrorless cameras. Cons: no autofocus, no IS, rangefinder Pros: perhaps the finest glass on the planet, very quiet, drains your wallet faster than anything else!
The one year old Leica SL is more like what the ML Canon should be: FF, world's best EVF, incredible ergonomics.
Cons: huge SL lenses (but you can use M lenses easily) -- even faster wallet draining.

Give me a 6D sized body with stellar EVF & flawless EF adapter and I'll buy it. I've shot EOS since 1987 and I know the Canon way of doing things. Plus I own good Canon glass. IBIS and Leica adapter would just be gravy on a great meal!
 
Upvote 0