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

[djkraq]

As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.

Will a FF cinema camera actually be an industry 'workhorse'? I'm not sure that's true...

Even if it does become true, the number of FF MILCs sold to consumers will vastly dwarf the number of $33K C700FFs sold, so suggesting that the C700FF reflects the FF MILC mount choice sounds like the tail wagging the dog.

Well, you seem to be neglecting rental houses for Cinema Cameras and Cinema Lenses. There is NO WAY Canon is going to develop a new Full Frame Cinema Camera and OBLITERATE compatibility with old lenses from their EF System, regardless of high/low end lenses. THAT is ESSENTIALLY what Canon is known for. THAT, color science, menu design and DPAF are what is still making Canon competitive and I highly doubt they are going to release a brand new Cinema Camera with EF Mount (which is essentially mirrorless in design) and then TOTALLY revamp and invest into a brand new camera mount system. Just doesn't seem like Canon. Doesn't seem like a smart move at all if they create something new like that.

 

[Loswr]

As I said earlier, it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras. No way they be so stupid to create a new system (new FF Mirrorless) just to abandon their newly released cinema committed workhorse.

Will a FF cinema camera actually be an industry 'workhorse'? I'm not sure that's true...

Even if it does become true, the number of FF MILCs sold to consumers will vastly dwarf the number of $33K C700FFs sold, so suggesting that the C700FF reflects the FF MILC mount choice sounds like the tail wagging the dog.

Well, you seem to be neglecting rental houses for Cinema Cameras and Cinema Lenses. There is NO WAY Canon is going to develop a new Full Frame Cinema Camera and OBLITERATE compatibility with old lenses from their EF System, regardless of high/low end lenses. THAT is ESSENTIALLY what Canon is known for. THAT, color science, menu design and DPAF are what is still making Canon competitive and I highly doubt they are going to release a brand new Cinema Camera with EF Mount (which is essentially mirrorless in design) and then TOTALLY revamp and invest into a brand new camera mount system. Just doesn't seem like Canon. Doesn't seem like a smart move at all if they create something new like that.

Rental houses? Their very existence means fewer units sold, not more units sold. Why buy the cow when you cam borrow some milk for a relatively low cost?

How would a FF MILC with a new mount obliterate anything? Do you suppose Canon will just stop making FF dSLRs and EF lenses when a FF MILC is launched or soon thereafter? Given that dSLRs still outsell MILCs 2:1, that there are no EF-S lenses beyond 250mm, and that all EF lenses also mount on APS-C dLSRs, that idea is patently asinine. Moreover, if Canon goes with a shorter flange focal distance for the FF MILC, there will clearly be a mount adapter available at launch to maintain full compatibility with EF lenses.

Incidentally, the C700FF also comes in a PL mount. Do you have any idea whether the EF or the PL mount versions of current C-series cameras? I don't, but it's clear that the line is not dependent on the EF mount (the C700 mount can even be switched).

Also, developing a new MILC camera without native compatibiilty with the EF lineup is exactly what Canon did with the EOS M line – new mount, and an adapter for EF-S/EF lenses.

FWIW, I personally hope Canon's FF MILC uses the current EF mount. But honestly, your C700FF-based arguments in favor of them doing so simply don't hold water.

 

[slclick]

I canno

 

[slclick]

I cannot imagine Canon seeing a need to accommodate EF-S lenses outside of crop bodies.

 

[unfocused]

...it seems like with the release of the C700 FF, Canon seems to be keeping the EF Mount for future FF cameras...

Will a FF cinema camera actually be an industry 'workhorse'? I'm not sure that's true....

...There is NO WAY Canon is going to develop a new Full Frame Cinema Camera and OBLITERATE compatibility with old lenses from their EF System...

...How would a FF MILC with a new mount obliterate anything? ...your C700FF-based arguments in favor of them doing so simply don't hold water.

Given the cost and specialized design of Canon's cinema lenses, I don't see how on earth anyone could believe that the release of a full frame cinema camera would have any relationship to whatever mount might end up on a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

I believe it will likely be an EF mount, but I don't see any reason to read the release of a new full frame cinema camera as having any relevancy.

 

[Talys]

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

Yeah, the thing is, a lot of these factors aren't really immediately obvious. I mean, I tried a demo of the a7r3 in a store, and used and a7r2 previously for a few hours. But it wasn't really until I 'lived' with and a7r3 for an extended time that I picked up on these things.

I think that the A7R3 made a big jump in EVF usability, but the problem is. The viewfinder is so critical to successful photography that even small compromises can be impactful. I just hope that Canon's semi-professional product takes all that in mind, and at least gives the user the ability to make those choices.

Going back to the question of what an OVF system can do over an EVF one, if it comes down to "take a picture before it's gone" does matter!

 

[pj1974]

For the purpose of discussion about AF speed, and particularly as I see this being a major aspect of Canon’s more serious (future) FF MILC models, I will post a few replies in this thread.
My replies will mainly relate to my experience of using several lenses on Canon DSLRs over the past 14 years, and also more recently with my Canon mirrorless cameras.
I undertake a variety of photography, from birds in flight (BIF) to some sports, to active children, to wildlife, etc. So I have a reasonable ‘base’ from which to present these findings… though please note below, my ‘method’ is not as scientific as if I had equipment to measure AF speed of the various lenses (and then indeed, to test on various DSLR bodies).

In this first thread, I will “categorise” the speed of various lenses. I will list numbers, to provide the ‘groups’ … with 1. Being the speediest lens I have ever used, to 10. being the slowest.
Note there are some numerical ‘gaps’ between the groups, representing bigger differences in speed. (i.e. the difference between 1. and 2. Is ‘less’ (or at least less in my experience) to the difference between 6. and 8.
Within each ‘group’ – I will list the lenses in order, where there are feelings of ‘fastest at the top and slowest at the bottom’ – but each group feeling very ‘close’ to each other.
I would love to have equipment to do the AF speed test scientifically… but alas, I do not have the equipment for that.
I hope that someone else can contribute here. I recall reading the beautifully detailed Lens Rentals article about AF speed, accuracy and consistency that was written some years ago. The reassuring thing was, that my experience (prior to reading the article) matched what the article found.

The lenses listed below are lenses I have used sufficiently in order to have a good understanding of their speed. Most of these lenses I have owned for periods of years (some of them I have sold in the meantime, as I ‘upgraded’ my lenses, and generally succumb to G.A.S.) ;D
So, without further ado, here is the order of speed, from fast to slow, using the phase detect – through a DSLR’s dedicated AF sensor, based on my 7D / 80D.

1.
Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM

2.
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L ii
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM
Canon 16-35mm f/4 L USM
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

3.
Sigma 8-16mm EX HSM
Sigma 10-20mm EX HSM
Canon 18-135mm STM
Canon 55-250mm STM
Canon 35mm L f/1.4 USM

5.
Canon 18-55mm STM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

6.
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM

8.
Canon 18-200mm IS
Canon 18-55mm IS ii
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon 18-55mm ii

10.
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii
Tamron 18-250mm
Tamron 60mm f/2

There are a few Canon macro lenses I own (or have owned) that are worth a final mention, and I feel cannot really be placed in any group above, because of their unique characteristics.
As macro lenses are designed to focus down very close, the way they focus at close distances vs further distances varies more than the average lens.
Hence, it means in some instances they will act like lenses in the 2. Group (when smaller changes in focus distance are required), but when they have to ‘rack through’ a larger focus distance change, they might be more around a number 4. according to the above schema.
Canon 100mm macro L f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)
Canon 60mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)
Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)

I will say (write) here, that like another person who posted in this thread, the first time I picked up the Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM lens on a brand new Canon 80D in store, I was totally impressed at the AF speed. I couldn’t believe how quick it focussed. I had the 18-135mm STM, and several USM lenses, and this lens was notably quicker. I did a direct comparison between it and the 35mm f/1.4 USM in the store – and it won hands down. I then compared it against other lenses at a later stage, and it still impressed as a super fast AF’ing lens. The 18-135mm nanoUSM in phase detect was blazingly fast, and also very fast in DPAF Live view.

Next, I will post my experiences about the lenses I have tried in Live View – I will limit this to DPAF in my 80D (and M5). The subset of lenses that I have used extensively enough in (DPAF) Live View to make a comparison against each other, is smaller than the list above.
While I have had other / older Canon cameras (e.g. 7D, 700D, 100D, etc) – that had varying speeds of Live View AF- none come close to that of the 80D and M5. I will say here, the 80D and M5 are actually very close to each other in terms of DPAF (Live View) speed.
I will also add a note about using EF to EF-M lens adapters, and how my experience with that has played out (albeit in a more limited capacity again). I have used a EF to EF-M adapter on my M5 (and also on my M10… but that’s another story! Lol)

I trust that my post here is somewhat helpful, and can generate more discussion – particularly as I share about my experiences in Live View, as I expect Canon will refine and improve the speed and sensitivity of DPAF moving forward, both for their FF mirrorless, but also for other cameras (e.g. DPAF Live View in DSLRs, and smaller mirrorless cameras, e.g. the successors to the M5, etc).

Regards

PJ 8)

 

[Ian_of_glos]

For the purpose of discussion about AF speed, and particularly as I see this being a major aspect of Canon’s more serious (future) FF MILC models, I will post a few replies in this thread.
My replies will mainly relate to my experience of using several lenses on Canon DSLRs over the past 14 years, and also more recently with my Canon mirrorless cameras.
I undertake a variety of photography, from birds in flight (BIF) to some sports, to active children, to wildlife, etc. So I have a reasonable ‘base’ from which to present these findings… though please note below, my ‘method’ is not as scientific as if I had equipment to measure AF speed of the various lenses (and then indeed, to test on various DSLR bodies).

In this first thread, I will “categorise” the speed of various lenses. I will list numbers, to provide the ‘groups’ … with 1. Being the speediest lens I have ever used, to 10. being the slowest.
Note there are some numerical ‘gaps’ between the groups, representing bigger differences in speed. (i.e. the difference between 1. and 2. Is ‘less’ (or at least less in my experience) to the difference between 6. and 8.
Within each ‘group’ – I will list the lenses in order, where there are feelings of ‘fastest at the top and slowest at the bottom’ – but each group feeling very ‘close’ to each other.
I would love to have equipment to do the AF speed test scientifically… but alas, I do not have the equipment for that.
I hope that someone else can contribute here. I recall reading the beautifully detailed Lens Rentals article about AF speed, accuracy and consistency that was written some years ago. The reassuring thing was, that my experience (prior to reading the article) matched what the article found.

The lenses listed below are lenses I have used sufficiently in order to have a good understanding of their speed. Most of these lenses I have owned for periods of years (some of them I have sold in the meantime, as I ‘upgraded’ my lenses, and generally succumb to G.A.S.) ;D
So, without further ado, here is the order of speed, from fast to slow, using the phase detect – through a DSLR’s dedicated AF sensor, based on my 7D / 80D.

1.
Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM

2.
Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L ii
Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 L USM
Canon 16-35mm f/4 L USM
Canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 USM
Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM

3.
Sigma 8-16mm EX HSM
Sigma 10-20mm EX HSM
Canon 18-135mm STM
Canon 55-250mm STM
Canon 35mm L f/1.4 USM

5.
Canon 18-55mm STM
Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM
Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

6.
Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM

8.
Canon 18-200mm IS
Canon 18-55mm IS ii
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon 18-55mm ii

10.
Canon 50mm f/1.8 ii
Tamron 18-250mm
Tamron 60mm f/2

There are a few Canon macro lenses I own (or have owned) that are worth a final mention, and I feel cannot really be placed in any group above, because of their unique characteristics.
As macro lenses are designed to focus down very close, the way they focus at close distances vs further distances varies more than the average lens.
Hence, it means in some instances they will act like lenses in the 2. Group (when smaller changes in focus distance are required), but when they have to ‘rack through’ a larger focus distance change, they might be more around a number 4. according to the above schema.
Canon 100mm macro L f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)
Canon 60mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)
Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 USM (depends where focussed)

I will say (write) here, that like another person who posted in this thread, the first time I picked up the Canon 18-135mm nanoUSM lens on a brand new Canon 80D in store, I was totally impressed at the AF speed. I couldn’t believe how quick it focussed. I had the 18-135mm STM, and several USM lenses, and this lens was notably quicker. I did a direct comparison between it and the 35mm f/1.4 USM in the store – and it won hands down. I then compared it against other lenses at a later stage, and it still impressed as a super fast AF’ing lens. The 18-135mm nanoUSM in phase detect was blazingly fast, and also very fast in DPAF Live view.

Next, I will post my experiences about the lenses I have tried in Live View – I will limit this to DPAF in my 80D (and M5). The subset of lenses that I have used extensively enough in (DPAF) Live View to make a comparison against each other, is smaller than the list above.
While I have had other / older Canon cameras (e.g. 7D, 700D, 100D, etc) – that had varying speeds of Live View AF- none come close to that of the 80D and M5. I will say here, the 80D and M5 are actually very close to each other in terms of DPAF (Live View) speed.
I will also add a note about using EF to EF-M lens adapters, and how my experience with that has played out (albeit in a more limited capacity again). I have used a EF to EF-M adapter on my M5 (and also on my M10… but that’s another story! Lol)

I trust that my post here is somewhat helpful, and can generate more discussion – particularly as I share about my experiences in Live View, as I expect Canon will refine and improve the speed and sensitivity of DPAF moving forward, both for their FF mirrorless, but also for other cameras (e.g. DPAF Live View in DSLRs, and smaller mirrorless cameras, e.g. the successors to the M5, etc).

Regards

PJ 8)

Thank you - that is a very interesting comparison. Unfortunately I cannot say how your results compare with mine as I don't own any of the lenses in your list. It is an impressive collection though.
Would you say that, generally speaking the lenses focus more quickly on your 7D and 80D than they do on your mirrorless camera with an adapter or is there little difference?

 

[AvTvM]

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!

1. far LESS VIBRATION possible ... when combined with a decent mechanical shutter unit; ZERO VIBRATION with fully electronic solid-state global shutters

2. far LESS NOISE possible ... even less than any "quiet mode" on any DSLR ... ZERO NOISE with global electronic shutter

3. much SHORTER EXPOSURE TIMES possible

4. much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second possible

5. NO FRONT- / BACK FOCUS possible
AF functionality on sensor = no front and no backfocus, at any aperture, at any focal length, no need for pesky"Micro-AF Adjustments" ...

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 = more lens designs possible, more compact lenses possible
much wider design space for lens designs than on any longer FFD DSLR. Everything that is possible with a DLSR and then a lot on top of that ... no problem to make short FFD longer on a MILC if/when needed [just look at those Sony FE lenses with their hollow extension tubes towards mount ... : ] ... but no chance to make FFD shorter on a DSLR ... with a swingin'-slappin' mirror just waiting to hit rear lens elements ... in short: short FFD makes very compact lenses for the most frequently used focal length range possible [provided lens mount parameters are "wisely chosen"]

10. plus a whole slew of additional advantages possible with damn mirror(s) cleared out of lightpath for good ... I don't list here, since i am not much interested in them [especially video capture stuff]

8) ;D

 

[pj1974]

Thank you - that is a very interesting comparison. Unfortunately I cannot say how your results compare with mine as I don't own any of the lenses in your list. It is an impressive collection though.
Would you say that, generally speaking the lenses focus more quickly on your 7D and 80D than they do on your mirrorless camera with an adapter or is there little difference?

Hi Ian_of_glos

Thanks for replying... and reading through a pretty epic-length (almost epistle-length) post.

Just clarifying, I do not currently own all those lenses now... I have upgraded a few lenses over the years... I have bought several quality lenses 2nd hand at great prices.

I will post more details in a later (thread... it's bedtime soon here in Australia) - but to summarise, with a third party EF to EF-M adapter, most of my EF. EF-S lenses focus somewhat (slightly) slower on my Canon M5 compared to the same lenses in DPAF Live View on my 80D. There is a slight difference noticed when trying both next to each other. Slight, not huge difference.
(Bear in mind that Live view on my 7D is MUCH slower, as it is not DPAF - and it hunts much more).

"Native" lenses, i.e. my EF-M lenses (e.g. Canon EF-M 15-45mm, Canon EF-M 18-150mm and Canon EF-M 18-55mm) on my M5 focus slightly quicker than the EF/EF-S STM lenses do (with my 3rd party / Andoer adapter). I would be curious if the Canon adapter is any quicker. (Some reports I have read say there is little difference between the Andoer and the Canon EF to EF-M adapter in terms of AF speed).

In all but the lowest of light, the STM lenses on my 80D with DPAF live view, and the EF-M lenses on my M5 seem to have a 'quick and smooth certainty' in obtaining focus, something I really like. I can see Canon improving an already very good DPAF system (speed, consistency and perhaps even smoothness) as their DPAF technology matures, which will likely be implemented in a FF MILC.

Here's to the (bright!) future!!

Paul 8)

 

[3kramd5]

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!

1. far LESS VIBRATION possible ... when combined with a decent mechanical shutter unit; ZERO VIBRATION with fully electronic solid-state global shutters

2. far LESS NOISE possible ... even less than any "quiet mode" on any DSLR ... ZERO NOISE with global electronic shutter

3. much SHORTER EXPOSURE TIMES possible

4. much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second possible

5. NO FRONT- / BACK FOCUS possible
AF functionality on sensor = no front and no backfocus, at any aperture, at any focal length, no need for pesky"Micro-AF Adjustments" ...

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 = more lens designs possible, more compact lenses possible
much wider design space for lens designs than on any longer FFD DSLR. Everything that is possible with a DLSR and then a lot on top of that ... no problem to make short FFD longer on a MILC if/when needed [just look at those Sony FE lenses with their hollow extension tubes towards mount ... : ] ... but no chance to make FFD shorter on a DSLR ... with a swingin'-slappin' mirror just waiting to hit rear lens elements ... in short: short FFD makes very compact lenses for the most frequently used focal length range possible [provided lens mount parameters are "wisely chosen"]

10. plus a whole slew of additional advantages possible with damn mirror(s) cleared out of lightpath for good ... I don't list here, since i am not much interested in them [especially video capture stuff]

8) ;D

The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
[A mirrorless has] much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second [sic] possible [than an SLR].

That’s clearly not true. Everything which facilitates the frame rate of a mirrorless camera can be put into one with a mirror. In case you weren’t aware, it moves, and can be held out of the way when desired. The same is true for vibration, exposure time, noise, and front/back focus.

You could have #8 too if you added another (e)VF for use in lockup mode.

 

[ahsanford]

The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
[A mirrorless has] much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second [sic] possible [than an SLR].

That’s clearly not true. Everything which facilitates the frame rate of a mirrorless camera can be put into one with a mirror.

Yes, this is murky because you could just lock up the mirror and shoot in liveview. I always hate that rebuttal as it is technically true but highly impractical -- one presumes high fps shooters prefer to work through a viewfinder.

You could re-rack AvTvM's statement a different way. Without a mirror, the mirror is no longer rate-limiting the burst speed. So for a fixed cost you could expect higher framerates with the camera held up to your eye than an SLR, especially as time goes on* and higher framerates start to be offered on mid-level cameras.

*In other words, in 10 years, a $2k FF mirrorless very well might have 20 fps performance. I just don't see SLRs being able to do that in such a price point. I could be wrong.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

The first half of your listing (1 through 5) are not advantages to mirrorless. You state it as if, for example:
[A mirrorless has] much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second [sic] possible [than an SLR].

That’s clearly not true. Everything which facilitates the frame rate of a mirrorless camera can be put into one with a mirror.

Yes, this is murky because you could just lock up the mirror and shoot in liveview. I always hate that rebuttal as it is technically true but highly impractical -- one presumes high fps shooters prefer to work through a viewfinder.

Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.

 

[ahsanford]

Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.

Seems like a super luxe / complicated option for the 1-series crowd someday. In 10-15 years: "There there, your next 1-series won't have an OVF, but you get two with this one to soften the blow!"

Speaking of dual/hybrid VFs, does anyone know how well does the XPro-1,2 + X100 line sell vs. the EVF only Fuji rigs?

Do those hybrid VFs work well? Never tried them myself.

- A

 

[Talys]

1. far LESS VIBRATION possible ... when combined with a decent mechanical shutter unit; ZERO VIBRATION with fully electronic solid-state global shutters

2. far LESS NOISE possible ... even less than any "quiet mode" on any DSLR ... ZERO NOISE with global electronic shutter

Silent Shooting on Sony today causes fierce distortion on anything that moves. It's like using a product in beta.

3. much SHORTER EXPOSURE TIMES possible

4. much HIGHER FRAME RATES per second possible

Because, 1/8000 is just not fast enough.

5. NO FRONT- / BACK FOCUS possible
AF functionality on sensor = no front and no backfocus, at any aperture, at any focal length, no need for pesky"Micro-AF Adjustments" ...

But, AF functionality on sensor = inferior AF. Find me a mirrorless that autofocuses as quickly as a 1DXII or 850D in both things that move quickly and when it's even a little darker.

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

Camera bodies CAN be smaller, yes. But to make them ergonomically comfortable to use, you have to bulk them back up again. And you've been shown time and again that as an aggregate weight, it's not lighter in any meaningful way. Yes, you'll save the weight of the mirror and prism, you'll even save the weight of an autofocus sensor! But how many grams is that?

8. WYSIWIG VIEWFINDER possible

Yes, this is true.

9. SHORTER FFD (flange focal distance) possible = more lens designs possible, more compact lenses possible
much wider design space for lens designs than on any longer FFD DSLR. Everything that is possible with a DLSR and then a lot on top of that ... no problem to make short FFD longer on a MILC if/when needed [just look at those Sony FE lenses with their hollow extension tubes towards mount ... : ] ... but no chance to make FFD shorter on a DSLR ... with a swingin'-slappin' mirror just waiting to hit rear lens elements ... in short: short FFD makes very compact lenses for the most frequently used focal length range possible [provided lens mount parameters are "wisely chosen"]

Yes, a shorter FFD is possible, but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea. Sony has been showing us why it hasn't for a few years now.

10. plus a whole slew of additional advantages possible with damn mirror(s) cleared out of lightpath for good ... I don't list here, since i am not much interested in them [especially video capture stuff]

Yes, we know that you only care about focal lengths up to 100mm, don't like lens controls like focus and zoom, and you care more about the size of your full frame camera than pretty much anything else.

But that doesn't describe a viable professional photography market, so you'll need to keep dreaming about your dream camera. Most people who have those sorts of criteria are over the moon with something like a Galaxy S9.

 

[3kramd5]

Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.

Seems like a super luxe / complicated option for the 1-series crowd someday.

I don’t think it would be significantly more complicated than having an OVF and a rear LCD like all modern DSLRs. You would need the EVF optics, but there’s plenty of room for that.

I’m not claiming it’s a *good* approach, but it’s certainly doable to achieve both OVF and EVF in one body without a weird hybrid approach which impairs both.

 

[Talys]

Two viewfinders - one optical for use with mirror down, and one electronic for use when mirror up (perhaps off to the left rangefinder style) - might look weird, but it wouldn’t be impractical.

Seems like a super luxe / complicated option for the 1-series crowd someday.

I don’t think it would be significantly more complicated than having an OVF and a rear LCD like all modern DSLRs. You would need the EVF optics, but there’s plenty of room for that.

I’m not claiming it’s a *good* approach, but it’s certainly doable to achieve both OVF and EVF in one body without a weird hybrid approach which impairs both.

The coolest mechanism would be something you could twist to give you optical or electronic; either a viewfinder that you could reverse, or something that could flip a EVF into place.

I do think that eventually, EVFs can be indistinguishable from OVFs, and that the autofocussing issues I'm unhappy with can be resolved. But because of factors like battery, OVFs will be a reality for a while yet. Keep in mind that even after all this time, automatic, mechanical watches are not only still produced, but are considered luxury items at the top of the food chain -- some cost as much or more as folks' houses. And mechanical watches still serve a practical purpose, for example, with sailors who use them to navigate.

 

[AvTvM]

mechanical watches. lol. luxury accessories, nothing else. a 10 dollar electronic watch shows time more accurately than any mechanical watch. for 1 or 2 years, not for 1 or 2 weeks.

mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol

 

[ahsanford]

mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol

Remind me, good sir: how many awards were won in 2017 with the solid state rigs you claim have relegated SLRs to luxury toy status?

https://petapixel.com/2017/02/16/cameras-captured-winning-shots-world-press-photo-2017/

You see, AvTvM, sometimes I agree with you in what you think will happen over time. But then you write posts describing the world like it's actually the year 2038, and then I wonder if you were sent back in time to lecture us. Because only then would your last post make any sense.

- A

 

[Talys]

mechanical watches. lol. luxury accessories, nothing else. a 10 dollar electronic watch shows time more accurately than any mechanical watch. for 1 or 2 years, not for 1 or 2 weeks.

mechanical shenanugans are nothing but luxury toys today. slapping mirrors and submirrors ... lol. soon only to be seen behing glass in museums and private collections. next to their red- dotted rangefinder brethren. lol

Dude, you took that hook, line, and sinker. Mechanical watches accounted for 77% of the wristwatch marketshare, versus electronic watches, and that's with smartwatches factored in. The two largest watchmakers are Swatch/Omega, at $8.8 billion in sales a year, and Rolex at $4.5 billion.

Nobody questions that a quartz (electronic) watch keeps time better than a mechanical one. But people buy mechanical watches for a whole slew of other reasons -- just like, people don't just choose cameras because of their size or weight, dynamic range, or ability to masterfully record test posters.

Wristwatch industry stats: https://www.statisticbrain.com/wrist-watch-industry-statistics/


Now, I'm not criticizing Casios or Seikos or championing Rolexes or Apples -- No more than I am Sonys or Leicas. But they don't solve everyone's need in every situation; quite to the opposite, the needs of the market are broad as they are deep, and there is a place for all sorts of cameras, just as there is for watches, even if it's a watch or camera you'd never personally be interested in.