Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is Definitely Coming, and The Wait Won't Be as Long as We Thought

[slclick]

Have you used an M5? The EVF is pretty good imo. My opinion is based upon first using an Olympus Pen F which truly sucks big time...lag and jumpiness wise. Plus it was far too contrasty. If you are mainly shooting stills and non moving objects, the AF Touch and Drag setting of Absolute gives great control with AF of small areas. I prefer using the right side of the screen with my right thumb while using the EVF

Negative, though I'm guessing I'd be fine with it. My AF needs are modest -- spread of points I'll take as 'pro' / comprehensive as possible, but otherwise I don't really put my 5D3 AF through its paces. So I'm guessing I would have been a fine early adopter to mirrorless.

I just love my 5D3 and what has come out since isn't worth its delta in performance over what I already have, nor will it get me to shoot more and improve my game. So I'm good for now.

- A

That's my other body as well and I'm in the same boat as I don't shoot servo that often and never video so the 5D3's AF is more than enough for my needs. The M5 is a great little compliment to it as well. I'm packing my M5 travel kit now as I speak.

 

[TAF]

On the other hand, even if a mirrorless is on, the viewfinder is not powered unless I bring my eye close to it. As I'm settling in to take the shot, there are precious fractions of a second lost. If it's in sleep or just turned on, the blackout period is longer. Half or a third of a second doesn't feel like much, but every moment counts.

If Canon were to make a professional mirrorless, I hope that there is a High Performance mode, where the EVF is constantly powered. Yes, I would hate the battery draw, and I don't relish requiring 4 batteries for an afternoon. However, I hate missing shots even more.

+1. People talk about 'responsiveness of an EVF' and we get into a coarse discussion of lag that only skims the top of the need. Folks who capture action have really high expectations of responsiveness, and that includes EVF wake up time, lag, refresh rate, blackout time during burst shooting, etc.

So as much as I was surprised at how few things made my list of what an SLR does definitively better than a same mount / same form factor / same spec'd mirrorless setup, those things are absolutely vital to some folks. They are not small considerations.

- A

Thank you folks for this discussion. The VF response issue is something I hadn't given much thought to, but when laid out like this, it certainly looks like something Canon would have to take into consideration if they hope to sell the new camera to sports photographers (who, like bird is flight and air show and other highly dynamic events) who will likely be the initial market (my estimate of the situation).

 

[TAF]

My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.

What type of car was that? I don't recognize the instrument cluster.

 

[TAF]

LOL ... *few things* mirrorless cameras do better than mirrorslapping DSLRs ... well lets just start with biggest advantage: no slapping mirror in lightpath! ;D 8)

Resulting in a few advantages ... effective on every single capture!

6. significantly SMALLER CAMERA BODIES possible ... no mirrorbox, no VF prism

7. significantly LIGHTER CAMERAS possible - EVF lighter than mech mirror and VF glass prism

8. WYSIWIG VIEWFINDER possible

9. SHORTER FFD (flange focal distance) possible

1-5: great list of advantages.

6 misses the point of the original post, which was a 5DV vs 5DVm - so not applicable to the discussion.

7. Good point.

8. Good point.

9. Again, not applicable to the original postulated introduction.

Since a 5DVm would would be advantageous to me, I think I will start saving my money. I figure I have about a year to save the $3500 it will no doubt cost.

 

[Orangutan]

I have a smartwatch that allows me to choose an analog-style clock face, a digital clock face, or a combination display, as I choose.

Wouldn't it be great if my ILC offered a mirror and OVF for quick response, tracking, and better battery life, but could also get the mirror out of the way to show the sensor feed for a WYSIWYG display, enhanced brightness in dim light, and information overlays? Yeah...I'd really like an ILC like that!!

There was discussion of this a while back when the rumor floated that a "hybrid" VF was in the works. I agree, this would be a nice transition.

Forgot my disingenuous [sarcasm] tag.

Forgot my [playing the straight man] tag.

No transition needed. Think dSLR + Live View.

How about hybrid through the VF? How about HUD (optional/configurable) on the OVF view? It is a transition. This is one area where I agree with AvTvM: the mirror will eventually go away, I've just given up predicting when.

 

[zim]

My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.

What type of car was that? I don't recognize the instrument cluster.

KITT

 

[Talys]

My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.

What type of car was that? I don't recognize the instrument cluster.

KITT

hahaha

The first car I had with a digital odometer was a Corvette LT-1. I absolutely despised that odometer; it was by far the worst part of the car.

 

[Don Haines]

My first own car had a digital speedometer ... with those shiny red LED figures. No needle moving. Just those number racing from 0 to 200 in one smooth rapid flow when accelerating. LOL. Loved it.

What type of car was that? I don't recognize the instrument cluster.

KITT

hahaha

The first car I had with a digital odometer was a Corvette LT-1. I absolutely despised that odometer; it was by far the worst part of the car.

I has a pinto once..... a very underpowered car.....

It would have been great with a digital dash, and even better with audio output.....

That thing was so slow you could have used the voice from "the Count" from Sesame Street to yell out the speed when accelerating.
ONE! ha ha ha ha
TWO! ha ha ha ha
THREE! ha ha ha ha

 

[AvTvM]

car with digital dashboard was a (ultra-)compact, ultra-light Fiat Uno Turbo i.e. (Mk. I series) ... must have been 1986 when i bought it. Accelerated and handled like a go-cart. Especially fun on narrow, winding mountain roads (in dry conditions ... lol). Really fun little car. Digital Dashboard worked quite well and attracted quite a bit of attention at the time.

Would ofc have preferred a digital HUD ... with "analog", non-numeric display ... virtual dials and needles

 

[stevelee]

I had a 1989 Nissan Maxima. Great car until I totaled it. The digital clock kept perfect time. However the display of the time rarely worked. Twice a year sometime when I could see it, I would change it to standard or daylight time as the case might be, but the minutes reading was always right. It was generally worthless for telling time, of course, since you usually couldn’t see it.

For years I wore $25ish Cassio or Timex watches. I didn’t use most of the functions, but did enjoy having two or more time zones to switch between at the touch of a button when traveling. When I retired, I was given a golden Seiko. It looks nice, but I have to set the date manually after months with fewer than 31 days and the time when changing zones or DST. If I set it carefully, it is never a whole second off with that frequency of reset. When the battery needs replacing, the second hand moves in two second skips.

I have the GPS set the time on the 6D2, but I have to set DST manually. Even my house thermostat does that on its own. If I ever take it to another time zone, I guess I’ll have to tell it that.

It’s not very sophisticated as a clock, but more on topic, I really like using the OVF, so even after reading these mirorless threads, I still don’t have any interest in getting one. I do use live view as needed and like having the moving screen. And if I want to use a camera that is small and light (and doesn’t have a mirror), there’s my G7X II.

 

[pj1974]

On page 20 of this (long!) thread, I posted my experience and observations of phase detect AF speed with various lenses
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34742.msg714836#msg714836

I am now following up (as I had indicated) with the AF speed of various lenses in Dual Pixel Auto Focus (DPAF) Live View based on my Canon 80D which I have had for around a year. I have not used as many lenses in DPAF, nor as extenisvely in DPAF as I have with phase detect, hence the list is shorter below.

The lenses listed below are lenses I have used sufficiently in order to have a good understanding of their speed in Live View using Canon's DPAF.
I will 'loosely' use the same 'numerical' rating and grouping that I used before. That is, 1 is the quickest, and higher numbers are slower. Gaps in numbers indicate larger speed differences.

Please note the following for reference: the Canon 18-13mm nanoUSM was "1." in my earlier previous / listing - in phase detect AF. Meaning it was the clear winner (the quickest auto focussing lens) I have used on a 80D. Noteably quicker than the 70-200mm f/2.8 ii.
The 18-135mm nanoUSM is still the quickest AF lens when it comes to Live View (DPAF) - but not quite as quick as in it was in phase detect. Hence I give it a numerical rating of 3. That means I experience it about as fast as my Sigma HSM lenses (in phase detect), and also as fast as Canon's fastest EF-S STM lenses e.g. 55-250mm STM (in phase detect AF).

3.
Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM

5.
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM

7.
Canon 18-135mm STM
Canon 55-250mm STM

8.
Canon 35mm L f/1.4 USM
Canon 18-55mm STM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

9.
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM
Sigma 8-16mm EX HSM

10.
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM

12.
Canon 18-55mm IS ii
Canon 55-250mm IS ii
Canon 18-200mm IS

13.
Canon 18-55mm ii

14.
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii

In Live View on the 80D, the Tamron lenses (Tamron 18-250mm and Tamron 60mm f/2) were very inconsistent to focus. Sometimes they would give the 'red square' (unable to focus) even in good light with decent contrast, but the subject was in focus. Other times they would rack back and forth and 'stutter' near the point of correct focus... so I cannot really include them. Just shows that some of the (at least older) 3rd party lenses won't AF well in PDAF. However my Sigma 8-16mm HSM is actually very good (smooth, relatively quick and accurate).
(I probably should have placed the Tamron 60mm f/2 (macro) lens in the same category as my Canon macro lenses...) :

Quick note about my methodology of autofocus 'testing' / user experience... I am talking about having the lens (manually) focussed to infinity and a subject around 2 metres from me. Then separately, also manually focussing to the minimal focussing distance (MFD).. and focussing on a subject about 10 to 20 metres away... and I 'average out' these. Some lenses take longer one way than the other, whereas other lenses (particularly most of Canon's true ring USM) seem about equally as quick.

I have found the (live view) AF speed of my M5 may be marginally slower with the same lenses (using my 3rd party / Andoer) EF to EF-M lens adapter, but there is not much in it.
The EF-M lenses natively mounted on my M5 are indeed quick.

As a final note... even before DPAF the AF speed in Live View on successive Canon cameras has consistently become faster, e.g. my 700D and 100D focussed notably quicker and more consistently and accurately than my 7D or 600D did in Live View. But DPAF trumps all Canon's previous Live View AF versions!

Regards

PJ 8)

 

[Talys]

@pj - I would definitely concur that the EFS 18-135 USM (Nano) on the 80D using PDAF is the fastest autofocusing lens I have ever seen -- period. It's so damned fast that many times in continuous autofocus I don't even notice the focus shift. For me, this is the gold standard of autofocus, and I wish all other lenses could be this fast.

However, three negatives about nano:

1. The EFS17-135 isn't as consistent as L lenses, sadly -- at least not my copy, based on FoCal. It's still very good, mind you, and near the top of the pack of non-L lenses.

2. The EF70-300 USM II (the nano one) is not anywhere near as fast. It's much faster than the old 70-300, but it's slower than current generation f/4 L's and f/2.8 L's; also, the consistency on my copy was horrible.

3. They're both focus by wire, and unfortunately, I think that's the fate and nature of Nano USM. Crocodile tears here, over that one.