Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

[rrcphoto]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

Oh, I thought you meant in terms of "quality of mirrorless offerings" not "directly in the m43 product space". They still might, though I agree that's less likely than sticking to FF and APS-C for their ILCs.

 

[digigal]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

I agree that Canon will never compete in the m43 market but I'd be supremely happy if they produced an APS-C camera that was as good as the the Oly -EM1-II with new small teles that are 400 mm for a crop mirrorless. That would certainly get me by for a while and keep me from looking elsewhere for weight savings which I think a lot of people are going to start doing in the next few years
Catherine

 

[Don Haines]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

 

[LonelyBoy]

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

Why would you group all the crop cameras together regardless of crop factor but leave FF separate? I could see that for the 1.5x of Nikon vs the 1.6x of Canon, but m43 is different from APS-C, even if they're both "crop".

 

[Don Haines]

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

Why would you group all the crop cameras together regardless of crop factor but leave FF separate? I could see that for the 1.5x of Nikon vs the 1.6x of Canon, but m43 is different from APS-C, even if they're both "crop".

Because they are cropped

 

[Mikehit]

Because they are cropped

So is 35mm compared to Pentax 645

 

[Don Haines]

Because they are cropped

So is 35mm compared to Pentax 645

so is Pentax compared to the old 8X10..... which weighs way too much and fortunately she has no digital back for it.....

 

[Mikehit]

Because they are cropped

So is 35mm compared to Pentax 645

so is Pentax compared to the old 8X10..... which weighs way too much and fortunately she has no digital back for it.....

as for the camera obscura....fancy that in your back pocket?

 

[100]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

An Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is a $2,000 camera
A Canon EOS M5 is a $1,000 camera
Sure, they’re both crop and mirrorless but that doesn’t mean they are competing in the same segment.

 

[dak723]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

I have both an Olympus E-M1 and the new Canon M5. Spec wise, you may be correct, Olympus has more, plus their lenses are far more Pro level than the M lenses. But lumping all the crops together is a mistake, in my opinion. APS-C is still a bit larger than M4/3 and the difference is noticeable, especially in low light. (More noticeable than the difference between FF and APS-C, in my opinion). I really love my E-M1, but find that it is being left home now for all my landscape shots. The M5 just produces better pics, in my opinion. I realize that my opinion is subjective, but if someone were to ask me what mirrorless camera I would recommend, I would say the M5.

 

[Don Haines]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

An Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is a $2,000 camera
A Canon EOS M5 is a $1,000 camera
Sure, they’re both crop and mirrorless but that doesn’t mean they are competing in the same segment.

But it does show some of what is possible.....

As thing stand now, If I were going to get a tiny ILC, it would be the E-M1 Mark II. That's what you can do now with a mirrorless camera....

Now imagine if you took those features, the superior ergonomics from Canon and the light gathering advantages of a FF sensor and larger glass..... That would be one kick-ass camera!

 

[gmrza]

To use, probably inadvisedly, the fall back car analogy.

If you want a car you can buy a Toyota or an Alfa Romeo, the Toyota will always get you there, always, it will get your kids there when you give it to them too, it will never set you on fire but it will never let you down. Or you can buy an Alfa Romeo, you will love it like you never did the Toyota. You can enjoy driving it like you never could the Toyota but you will never be able to rely on it, it will let you down, more than once!

People have different reasons for getting what they do, I'd never critisize anybody for getting an Alfa Romeo, indeed I'd smile at the sound as they pulled away at the lights. But I, personally and in a professional environment, value reliability as a must have feature, I often travel with one body and Canon have never let me down. For me that is more valuable than a hint more dr, or any other specific IQ related feature.

All that doesn't mean I wouldn't like the driving experience that Alfa Romeo would give me, and if a company that made that as well as the proven dependability made a model combining both I'd take a serious look at it, but they don't, yet. Pointing that out about

Canon products is not being defensive or delusional, it just means people have different priorities. As for Canon's sales success, it seems to me that is mainly down to extremely rigid cost controls and value for money in the lower order models. At this point mirrorless can't compete cost wise, so it doesn't.

Rightly or wrongly a lot of us are also very invested in the EOS system. The collection off Speedlites, lenses and other accessories that many of us have makes changing brands a major and costly exercise - something not to be taken lightly.

The reality is that many of us have got into that position because of the reasons you cite. Lenses generally last decades, and are a considerable investment - especially if your vices include things like photographing sport or wildlife.
If you need specialised equipment like tilt-shift lenses, there isn't much choice in the market anyhow.

When you consider the cost of putting together a camera system consisting of at least 2 bodies, multiple lenses, flash units etc. you want to go with a brand that has the likelihood of being around for a while, and which has the breadth of equipment you are looking for. You can be sure that Toyota (or was that Canon) will have the right tool for pretty much any need, that will get the job done reliably, even if not with the greatest excitement (although Toyota doesn't only sell boring cars), and you will be able to get parts for the Hilux for decades to come.

 

[100]

Canon will never compete with olympus though.

Never is a long time.

yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

An Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is a $2,000 camera
A Canon EOS M5 is a $1,000 camera
Sure, they’re both crop and mirrorless but that doesn’t mean they are competing in the same segment.

But it does show some of what is possible.....

As thing stand now, If I were going to get a tiny ILC, it would be the E-M1 Mark II. That's what you can do now with a mirrorless camera....

Now imagine if you took those features, the superior ergonomics from Canon and the light gathering advantages of a FF sensor and larger glass..... That would be one kick-ass camera!

The E-M1 Mark II is a nice camera but if you want some reach an ED 300mm f/4 is not exactly light and cheap with almost 1.5 kilo and a $2500 price tag. Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.

E-M1 Mark II specs on a full frame mirrorless camera will require a lot of power and generate a lot of heat. We’ll have to wait and see how the new full frame Sony A9 will perform but on paper the specs look impressive.

 

[LonelyBoy]

The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....

Why would you group all the crop cameras together regardless of crop factor but leave FF separate? I could see that for the 1.5x of Nikon vs the 1.6x of Canon, but m43 is different from APS-C, even if they're both "crop".

Because they are cropped

It's an arbitrary distinction, though, of which sensors get groups together. FF isn't a special category of its own.

 

[Mikehit]

Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.

Compared to which FF camera? Not the 5DSR
And f2.8 DOF does not become f8 DOF - you don't magically de-blur that background just because you are magnifying the image.

 

[100]

Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.

Compared to which FF camera? Not the 5DSR
And f2.8 DOF does not become f8 DOF - you don't magically de-blur that background just because you are magnifying the image.

E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
5DSR sensor is 24 x 36 mm = 864mm2
864 / 226.2 = 3.81 to be exact so the 5DSR gathers 3.81 times the light of the E-M1 which is 1.95 stops difference (let’s call that 2 stops).
The question “which FF camera?” is irrelevant when it comes to the amount of light hitting the sensor. I’m not talking about resolution in this case. Higher resolution will get you less light per pixel, but the total amount of light is the same because you have more pixels.

The Olympus ED 300mm is an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8. Add 2 stops to f/4 and you get f/8.
No, you don’t magically de-blur that background, it will be the same as long as you use the same lens, 300 f/4 on 5DSR cropped to MTF will get you the same (with 13mp compared to 20 on MFT). But I compared it to a 600mm lens on FF. The argument was smaller/lighter but with the same reach. 300mm on E-M1 will get you about the same FOV as 600mm on a 5DSR but you have to factor in the 2 stops difference as well, so 300 f/4 becomes 600 f/8

 

[Mikehit]

E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
5DSR sensor is 24 x 36 mm = 864mm2
864 / 226.2 = 3.81 to be exact so the 5DSR gathers 3.81 times the light of the E-M1 which is 1.95 stops difference (let’s call that 2 stops).
The question “which FF camera?” is irrelevant when it comes to the amount of light hitting the sensor. I’m not talking about resolution in this case. Higher resolution will get you less light per pixel, but the total amount of light is the same because you have more pixels.

So if you are not talking about resolution, what are you talking about? I the 5DSR has about the same resolution as the E-M1.2 (I call a 25% difference pretty much equal in resolution terms) then how is shooting 300mm on a MFT like shooting 600mm on 5DSR.

The Olympus ED 300mm is an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8. Add 2 stops to f/4 and you get f/8.
No, you don’t magically de-blur that background, it will be the same as long as you use the same lens, 300 f/4 on 5DSR cropped to MTF will get you the same (with 13mp compared to 20 on MFT). But I compared it to a 600mm lens on FF. The argument was smaller/lighter but with the same reach. 300mm on E-M1 will get you about the same FOV as 600mm on a 5DSR but you have to factor in the 2 stops difference as well, so 300 f/4 becomes 600 f/8

Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
FOV is irrelevant if you are focal length limited.

But... are you talking same framing or focal length limited? The former has some merit, the latter definitely not.

 

[Don Haines]

Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
FOV is irrelevant if you are focal length limited.

Exactly!

Look at the 1DX2, the 5DSR, and the 7D2....

Slap a 400F5.6 on each body, stand in the same spot and take a picture of the same object at F5.6....

Let's call the 1DX2 shot the "standard image" to compare against.....

The 5DSR image will have an identical field of view as the 1DX2 image and the DOF will be identical, but the image will be sampled more densely.

The 7D2 image will have only 62% of the field of view of the 1DX2 image, the DOF will be identical, and the image will be sampled more densely.

The fun part is the comparison between the 5DSR and the 7D2..... both cameras have the same pixel pitch and are approximately at the same level of sensor technology... If you crop the 5DSR image to the same field of view as the 7D2 image, the two images should be identical. Same DOF, same sampling density......

Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....

DOF does not change because you have moved between crop and FF. DOF changes when you walk closer (or further) from your subject (framing) or when you change the aperture of the lens.

 

[100]

E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
5DSR sensor is 24 x 36 mm = 864mm2
864 / 226.2 = 3.81 to be exact so the 5DSR gathers 3.81 times the light of the E-M1 which is 1.95 stops difference (let’s call that 2 stops).
The question “which FF camera?” is irrelevant when it comes to the amount of light hitting the sensor. I’m not talking about resolution in this case. Higher resolution will get you less light per pixel, but the total amount of light is the same because you have more pixels.

So if you are not talking about resolution, what are you talking about? I the 5DSR has about the same resolution as the E-M1.2 (I call a 25% difference pretty much equal in resolution terms) then how is shooting 300mm on a MFT like shooting 600mm on 5DSR.

The Olympus ED 300mm is an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8. Add 2 stops to f/4 and you get f/8.
No, you don’t magically de-blur that background, it will be the same as long as you use the same lens, 300 f/4 on 5DSR cropped to MTF will get you the same (with 13mp compared to 20 on MFT). But I compared it to a 600mm lens on FF. The argument was smaller/lighter but with the same reach. 300mm on E-M1 will get you about the same FOV as 600mm on a 5DSR but you have to factor in the 2 stops difference as well, so 300 f/4 becomes 600 f/8

Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
FOV is irrelevant if you are focal length limited.

But... are you talking same framing or focal length limited? The former has some merit, the latter definitely not.

I told you what I what talking about, light gathering, a FF sensor gathers 3.81 times as much light.

The difficulty with linear resolution is there is a difference in aspect ratio (4:3 compared to 3:2) so it’s apples to oranges. Let’s just compare megapixels: 20.1 versus 13.2 (50.3/3.81) so the E-M1 Mark II has 65% more megapixels and that’s not even close to equal. It’s about the same difference as between the original 5D and the 5D Mark II.

DOF is another thing where you need to factor in the 2 stops difference. Use the DOF calculator of your choice and compare 600mm on full frame to 300mm on MFT. You’ll see 600 f/8 on full frame has about the same DOF as 300 f/4 on MFT.

The E-M1 Mark II is a 15 fps camera (18 fps electronic with 60fps burst mode) why do you want to compare that with a high resolution slow camera like a 5DSR anyway? With that kind of speed, you’re in 1DX, Nikon D5 or Sony A9 territory which all have similar resolution. The discussion was about people wanting a smaller/lighter system compared to flag ship high speed full frame camera’s. I’m not saying a 2k MFT camera is in the same class as a 6k FF DSLR, but for a lot of people an E-M1 Mark II like system is good enough with the benefit of size/weight. The price you pay for equivalence is a two stops difference.