Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

[douglaurent]

Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.

To my knowledge that camera is not out yet.... so one can only imagine and look at the specs.

But douglaurent knows it's awesome and as good if not better than a high-end dSLR. He just knows. Trust him. : : :

Yes, I know the comparison. As I own the 1DX2 since day one, and did spend enough time with the A99II at Photokina.

 

[Loswr]

Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.

To my knowledge that camera is not out yet.... so one can only imagine and look at the specs.

But douglaurent knows it's awesome and as good if not better than a high-end dSLR. He just knows. Trust him. : : :

Yes, I know the comparison. As I own the 1DX2 since day one, and did spend enough time with the A99II at Photokina.

I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!

 

[Bob Howland]

Did you try the A99II AF? I guess not.

To my knowledge that camera is not out yet.... so one can only imagine and look at the specs.

But douglaurent knows it's awesome and as good if not better than a high-end dSLR. He just knows. Trust him. : : :

Yes, I know the comparison. As I own the 1DX2 since day one, and did spend enough time with the A99II at Photokina.

I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!

The subjects don't have to move if the photographer moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.

 

[Loswr]

The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.

Did you and douglaurent take the same course in logic? To you, is the ability to focus rapidly on a new subject the same as the ability to track a single subject as it moves toward or away from you? Or do you believe that moving the camera a few inches simulates a subject rapidly moving toward or away from the camera? For most of us, they're different. Standing at the corner of the field and tracking a single player running toward you as s/he passes among other players and referees on the field, for example.

 

[brad-man]

How about if you look thru the vf, run really fast and...

 

[dak723]

- 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.

Having tried the Sony A7 and A7 II (and returned them both, I certainly hope this is not the best Sony can do. EVF no where close to the quality of the Olympus E-M1, Color is bland, IQ is poor at the edges of the frame due to a too short flange distance, wide angle lenses are too difficult to make for the same reason (according to Leica execs), ergonomics are poor, etc. etc.

If you are just counting the number of specs - yes, Sony wins and Canon has left out many things. If counting specs is most important then Sony should be your choice.

As far as all around capabilities, Canon has at least 3 camera lines (1D, 5D and 7D) that can do everything anyone could want. And they do the important things (in my opinion) as well or better than anyone else: AF, exposure accuracy, color, reliability, ergonomics. I realize that isn't good enough for some folks, unless they do EVERYTHING better than everyone else.

As I've mentioned before, when people complain it tells us a lot about them and very little about Canon. You can complain about what your camera doesn't have or you can be grateful for what it does extremely well.

 

[Alex_M]

I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed).

On unrelated note, I would like to stress the point that according to multiple sources, IBIS does not work that well with longer glass. Thats where you would really like your image stabilisation to be efficient. So as far as I am aware, MILC tech is not quite ready for challenging Sports, Action, BIF segment of the market.

The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.

Did you and douglaurent take the same course in logic? To you, is the ability to focus rapidly on a new subject the same as the ability to track a single subject as it moves toward or away from you? Or do you believe that moving the camera a few inches simulates a subject rapidly moving toward or away from the camera? For most of us, they're different. Standing at the corner of the field and tracking a single player running toward you as s/he passes among other players and referees on the field, for example.

 

[Antono Refa]

Having tried the Sony A7 and A7 II (and returned them both, I certainly hope this is not the best Sony can do. EVF no where close to the quality of the Olympus E-M1, Color is bland, IQ is poor at the edges of the frame due to a too short flange distance, wide angle lenses are too difficult to make for the same reason (according to Leica execs), ergonomics are poor, etc. etc.

If I understand correctly, if the flange distance is too short, the manufacturer could compensate by making the lens longer, putting more distance between the last element and the sensor. In other words, its a trade off between lens size and IQ.

Am I missing something?

 

[Mikehit]

If I understand correctly, if the flange distance is too short, the manufacturer could compensate by making the lens longer, putting more distance between the last element and the sensor. In other words, its a trade off between lens size and IQ.

Am I missing something?

I believe that is a good summary. And it is something that has been pointed out several times - extending the distance from the last element to the sensor is the same thing as increasing the flange distance. So although the mirrorless may be made smaller, the size of the lens offsets any advantage in overall length. You are then handling a bigger lens on a small body which some find uncomfortable - or you buy the grip, and.....

 

[AvTvM]

..
I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!

AF tracking imaging gear makers' staff when they erratically run away from me as soon as I approach their stand and want to ask them something, required considerable AF capability. ;D

 

[Loswr]

..
I'm sure there were plenty of fast, erratically-moving subjects in the convention hall in Cologne. Well done!

AF tracking imaging gear makers' staff when they erratically run away from me as soon as I approach their stand and want to ask them something, required considerable AF capability. ;D

"Egad, here comes that guy who's crazy about some 85/2.4 IS pancake lens...RUN!!!" ;D

 

[jeffa4444]

I don't feel "let down" by Canon current technology in cameras & certainly not in optics. I feel however its perfectly acceptable that others would not agree and in a free society have the ability to say so. Chastising every comment someone makes we see as negative to the point of making it personal is a weakness in the person making the comment and is unhealthy. I'm guilty of this from time to time but some go too far and should read back before they post.

 

[Bob Howland]

I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed).

On unrelated note, I would like to stress the point that according to multiple sources, IBIS does not work that well with longer glass. Thats where you would really like your image stabilisation to be efficient. So as far as I am aware, MILC tech is not quite ready for challenging Sports, Action, BIF segment of the market.

The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.

Did you and douglaurent take the same course in logic? To you, is the ability to focus rapidly on a new subject the same as the ability to track a single subject as it moves toward or away from you? Or do you believe that moving the camera a few inches simulates a subject rapidly moving toward or away from the camera? For most of us, they're different. Standing at the corner of the field and tracking a single player running toward you as s/he passes among other players and referees on the field, for example.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time. There is a very strong correlation between the camera's ability to focus in that visually chaotic situation and its ability to function at Watkins Glen International or a motocross track. I'm sticking with that opinion until one of you can produce solid, replicatable data to the contrary.

 

[Luds34]

I would like to confirm what Neuro just said: there is a big difference between tracking chaotically and rapidly moving object ( background stays relatively static) or just moving camera few inches away ( both object and background moves with identical angular speed).

On unrelated note, I would like to stress the point that according to multiple sources, IBIS does not work that well with longer glass. Thats where you would really like your image stabilisation to be efficient. So as far as I am aware, MILC tech is not quite ready for challenging Sports, Action, BIF segment of the market.

The subjects don't have to move if the photographer rapidly moves the camera to focus on several subjects at widely varying distances.

Did you and douglaurent take the same course in logic? To you, is the ability to focus rapidly on a new subject the same as the ability to track a single subject as it moves toward or away from you? Or do you believe that moving the camera a few inches simulates a subject rapidly moving toward or away from the camera? For most of us, they're different. Standing at the corner of the field and tracking a single player running toward you as s/he passes among other players and referees on the field, for example.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time. There is a very strong correlation between the camera's ability to focus in that visually chaotic situation and its ability to function at Watkins Glen International or a motocross track. I'm sticking with that opinion until one of you can produce solid, replicatable data to the contrary.

That maybe worked out well enough years ago when Ai Servo was nothing more then continuous focus on a point. But to the point made by others, tracking an object, individual is more nuanced then that. With the algorithms in the cameras these days they are not expecting the subject to magically transport 10 meters to a different location. Like when tracking a player, if another player moves in front of the subject, the camera is not going to instantly change focus as it's expecting you want to continue on the subject. So while you are pointing the camera around the store, you're probably not even seeing the camera focus as fast as it can as it's delaying focus briefly before deciding it's time to acquire a new subject. Now throw those new fancy RGB meters that started showing up with the 7DII and the camera can now sort of see the subject and that aids in tracking as well.

In short, subject tracking of a subject in motion and moving around and focusing on static subjects is really more an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[Loswr]

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time.

How do you evaluate focus using your little test in a camera store? Seeing the AF point(s) jumping around in the VF or on the rear LCD? Or properly, by viewing the images at full size on a monitor (or print/projected slide, in the case of film cameras)?

An AF point lit up over a subject doesn't necessarily mean the subject is in focus. An example from my 7D...

 

[Mikehit]

We're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I've been running my little test in camera stores for about 20 years (I've owned Elan II and EOS-3 film cameras and 10D, 5D, 40D, 5D3 and 7D DSLRs.) - put the camera in Servo AI and move it around the scene, forcing it to adjust focus the whole time. There is a very strong correlation between the camera's ability to focus in that visually chaotic situation and its ability to function at Watkins Glen International or a motocross track. I'm sticking with that opinion until one of you can produce solid, replicatable data to the contrary.

My micro four-thirds cameras focus (one Olympus and one Panasonic) way quicker than my 7D, but you get an E-M5 to track anybody above walking pace...
Your test is a decent guide but as Luds34 says, the algorithms now do so much more and is as much about prediction as it is about actual tracking (which if you think about it is seeing something that has already happened).

 

[Alex_M]

This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handheld, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.

 

[Luds34]

This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handled, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.

That's a great shot Alex, love frozen action, mud in the air, buggy catching air, etc.

How is that Sigma Sport lens? Do you find AF working pretty well? In that do you get shots like that above regularly or is hit and miss sometimes? I had heard the old Sigma 120-300 struggled with tracking/action.

 

[Alex_M]

Luds34
Thank you, sir! I thought that AF being is very consistent and accurate with the lens. Nothing like the old Sigma Art line of product. I guess, thats due to the fact that Sigma used High Torque HSM motor in the Sports lens. I was getting consistenlty sharp shots with the lens. I took some 50 shots on that day and may be 2 or 3 those were out of focus. I found AF speed to be slower than of modern Canon Big Whites but acceptable. This could be also due to suboptimal AF settings on the lens but that could be adjusted via USB Dock. Image Stabiliser performance is also very very solid. I do not have first hand experience with the older lens but it seems that the current Sports model is a better performer?
I bought the lens for about A$2,350.00 ( open box, returned to store) - approx. US$1785.00 and thought that it was very reasonable price to pay at the time.
P.S. The lens is quite a challenge to handhold at approx. 3kg but manageable.

just one more fun shot taken on the same day, @300 F2.8, nothing spectacular as far as composition goes but could be useful for someone who is curious about the lens capabilities.

This little ( actually, not so little) RC buggy was moving chaotically at 50-70km/h speed. Just a fun shot @300 F2.8 (Sigma 120-300 F2.8 Sports, handled, 15m distance to subject approx.) but serves as a solid example of how good AF of modern Canon DSLR can be.

That's a great shot Alex, love frozen action, mud in the air, buggy catching air, etc.

How is that Sigma Sport lens? Do you find AF working pretty well? In that do you get shots like that above regularly or is hit and miss sometimes? I had heard the old Sigma 120-300 struggled with tracking/action.

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

I don't feel "let down" by Canon current technology in cameras & certainly not in optics. I feel however its perfectly acceptable that others would not agree and in a free society have the ability to say so. Chastising every comment someone makes we see as negative to the point of making it personal is a weakness in the person making the comment and is unhealthy. I'm guilty of this from time to time but some go too far and should read back before they post.

I would have to agree with you, people get way to defensive over something that you really don't need to. I love Canon, I've shot canon for 8 years. I've used tons of different bodies. I currently shoot with a 60D and a 24-70mm version one, and a few months ago I bought the 100-400 version 2. I LOVE this lens. Now that I own it I will probably never give it up. It's so sharp and the IS just blows me away. That being said, Canon doesn't currently have a camera I really want to upgrade to.
Part of me wants a huge sensor like the 5DSR for huge prints and the ability to crop in that much more, but the Camera feels rushed to me. The other features just aren't there.
I've been working in a camera store for awhile now and when I started I thought Canon and Nikon were the end all be all. That just simply isn't the case anymore. Canon and Nikon still have impeccable cameras and in my opinions the best lens line ups.
Now Olympus drops the EM-1 Mark II, let me tell you... If I didn't currently own and love the 100-400, I'd already have pre-ordered the thing. It's stupid fast, 60fps FULL res raw images, 121 cross-type af points, built in 5 axis stabilization, and has some crazy innovative new features that would be amazingly handy. Where Olympus is lacking in my opinion though is their lens line up. They have some good ones and they have quite a few awful ones.
Though I am going to stay loyal to Canon for a few more years and hope to hell they do something.