Canon Full Frame Mirrorless to use Dedicated Sensor [CR2]

[Ian_of_glos]

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game?

You're right...everyone and their brother makes tilt-shift-macro lenses. There are lots of rectilinear FF lenses that 'go to 11' (mm), and fisheye zooms are a dime-a-dozen. Meanwhile, all those companies to which you think Canon must play a catch up game, are losing ILC market share...to Canon. Fiasco, indeed.

Well to be fair, those are all niche products that would probably only be of interest to photographers specialising in that area. I think the point of the remark was that Canon often appear to be catching up with the competition. If you take mirrorless cameras for example, where it has taken Canon a long time to come up with some credible products, or video where Panasonic and Sony seem to be quite a long way ahead.
For stills photography - fine I think Canon has an excellent choice of products, but these days consumers expect something more than that.

 

[scyrene]

Canon would get publicly devastated in camera forums and enthusiast photography websites for putting 6DII sensor into the mirrorless whatever. We can bet on that. Everyone knows they can do better than the 6DII sensor and we are talking a camera at least one year away. I can guarantee you, that FF mirrorless is so important to them, that there is exactly a zero chance for them to do such a marketing design decision mistake again ....

Amended that for you.

....

In full disclosure, I continue to shake my head that the on-chip ADC hotness worthy of an 80D appears to have been left out of the 6D2 sensor. I believe it was a poor decision for that market segment. But I have yet to see any negative sales numbers from Canon or big price reduction that would imply the sensor inside is hurting its sales.

- A

Thank you for amending my main point!

As for the rest - we might not see any negative sales numbers, but that does not mean it went unnoticed. IIRC it was Marco Nero on DPR, who talked to some Canon rep, stating, that they "did not expect the sh*tload they received".

And that says it rather well imo. One could call Canon being just arrogant thinking that users are stupid, but I actually think, that it is even worse - Canon are just dinosaurs. They thought that it is OK to go into a basemend, dig-up the old sensor tech, usb 2.0 micro connector, etc., just to clear-up some old stock left.

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game? 300D, 5D2, 7D2, 70D (first DPAF) ... anything else? I don't mind Canon being conservative and not living on the bleeding edge, but the 6DII was just too much to swallow.

With the FF mirrorless, they can't do such a compromise as on the 6DII. It would be a fiasco.

With the 6D2 they gave people almost everything that had been asked for as an improvement on the 6D (flexible screen, more AF points, more resolution, higher fps, etc - even a lower price!). I think you're missing the wood for the low ISO DR tree.

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game?

You're right...everyone and their brother makes tilt-shift-macro lenses. There are lots of rectilinear FF lenses that 'go to 11' (mm), and fisheye zooms are a dime-a-dozen. Meanwhile, all those companies to which you think Canon must play a catch up game, are losing ILC market share...to Canon. Fiasco, indeed.

It's just a question of perception. You most probably belong to the apologist gang

And you clearly belong to the exaggeration gang.

 

[scyrene]

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game?

You're right...everyone and their brother makes tilt-shift-macro lenses. There are lots of rectilinear FF lenses that 'go to 11' (mm), and fisheye zooms are a dime-a-dozen. Meanwhile, all those companies to which you think Canon must play a catch up game, are losing ILC market share...to Canon. Fiasco, indeed.

Well to be fair, those are all niche products that would probably only be of interest to photographers specialising in that area. I think the point of the remark was that Canon often appear to be catching up with the competition. If you take mirrorless cameras for example, where it has taken Canon a long time to come up with some credible products, or video where Panasonic and Sony seem to be quite a long way ahead.
For stills photography - fine I think Canon has an excellent choice of products, but these days consumers expect something more than that.

Market leaders don't need to innovate as much, that's just how it is. But as others have said, they do innovate, just not in the way you or some other vocal critics want. No company can be all things to all people

 

[Mikehit]

Well to be fair, those are all niche products

You mean like 4K video and 13-stop DR sensors? Nice if you have them....but need them? That is niche.
Pekr is right - it is perception. But perception has become increasingly important. Can you imagine the reaction if Canon released a 'pro grade' camera body for the die hard wildlife photographer and said 'by the way, guys, it is not very well weather sealed and we don't have any lenses you need so you will have to use someone else's. But you can take great video'.
Sony has been into making cameras for over a decade. They bought Minolta who have been in the industry for nigh on a century - and they still don't know how to build a camera system? Yet somehow Sony get a free pass.

 

[BillB]

Well to be fair, those are all niche products

You mean like 4K video and 13-stop DR sensors? Nice if you have them....but need them? That is niche.
Pekr is right - it is perception. But perception has become increasingly important. Can you imagine the reaction if Canon released a 'pro grade' camera body for the die hard wildlife photographer and said 'by the way, guys, it is not very well weather sealed and we don't have any lenses you need so you will have to use someone else's. But you can take great video'.
Sony has been into making cameras for over a decade. They bought Minolta who have been in the industry for nigh on a century - and they still don't know how to build a camera system? Yet somehow Sony get a free pass.

Free pass from some of the internet crowd, not all of whom put their money where their mouth is.

 

[bokehmon22]

I shoot mostly wedding and I know alot of wedding photographers who haven't made the switch to Sony yet because we value reliability, dual SD, and ergonomic. Other haven't switch because of glasses. Sony lens are expensive especially if you buy Canon L used/refurbish. A9 was an viable alternative but only recently, but it is still expensive, and AF performance with adapter lens or buy expensive native lens. Maybe the A7III or future Sony camera may address these concerns.

I see Sony as the Borg from Star Trek on their mirrorless ambitions. They are not nuanced and they are not crafty, but they systematically try to eliminate the reasons why you wouldn't try the A7 platform:

(move from A7 I bodies to A7 II bodies) You want better AF? Here's four jillion AF points.

(at first) Want more lenses right now? We'll work with the adaptor folks and drive EF lenses' AF.

(later) Want more pro speed zooms and primes? Here you are. (At staple/modest FLs, of course, this is clearly a long climb to EF/FX parity.)

So you lens adapting folks and videographers want IBIS? Here you go.

Oh, you want a camera with everything? Meet the A7R II.

Want a pro body with two cards? Here's the A9.

However, nowhere in there are they applying any wisdom or accumulated experience of working photographers. I expect the A7 III platform to have another round of Borg-like feature-based reasons why people don't use the system -- better performance with glasses, more lenses, more tech/MP/fps/video features, etc. But I still think they'll drive past things that matter useability / ergonomics-wise to Canon and Nikon folks. So I believe the A7 III platform will be droolworthy hardware with frustrating inherited DNA (focus by wire pro glass) and inexplicable design decisions (grip, finger spacing, interface, etc.), but I could be wrong.

- A

I have no idea what is taking Sony so long to deliver the death blow to Canon if they address things that's important to working professional such as ergonomic, reliability, dual SD, and increase AF performance with adapter lens. A9 showed they listened but it's too expensive. They need a camera around 5D Mark IV price point to address all these problem instead of $4500 camera.

If the Sony A7III series can deliver most of these points at $3000 price point, alot of people like myself would switch and put pressure on Canon.

 

[unfocused]

...Market leaders don't need to innovate as much, that's just how it is. But as others have said, they do innovate, just not in the way you or some other vocal critics want. No company can be all things to all people

This is a very valid point, but can be easily distorted. Market leaders do innovate. In fact, they are often the most innovative in their field. But, at the same time, new innovations tend to build on past innovations and have a cumulative effect. So, each successive generation of innovation may slip under the radar screen.

Companies that are struggling to gain market share need to focus on attention-grabbing innovations, even at the risk of releasing products that are not quite ready for prime time.

 

[Jopa]

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game?

You're right...everyone and their brother makes tilt-shift-macro lenses. There are lots of rectilinear FF lenses that 'go to 11' (mm), and fisheye zooms are a dime-a-dozen. Meanwhile, all those companies to which you think Canon must play a catch up game, are losing ILC market share...to Canon. Fiasco, indeed.

Well to be fair, those are all niche products that would probably only be of interest to photographers specialising in that area. I think the point of the remark was that Canon often appear to be catching up with the competition. If you take mirrorless cameras for example, where it has taken Canon a long time to come up with some credible products, or video where Panasonic and Sony seem to be quite a long way ahead.
For stills photography - fine I think Canon has an excellent choice of products, but these days consumers expect something more than that.

ILCs now became niche products. Smartphones are the cameras for the masses

 

[Loswr]

I have no idea what is taking Sony so long to deliver the death blow to Canon...

It may take Sony quite a long time to deliver that death blow, given their 'weapons'...

 

[Jopa]

When was it for the last time the world was excited for Canon actually innovating, not playing just a catch up game?

You're right...everyone and their brother makes tilt-shift-macro lenses. There are lots of rectilinear FF lenses that 'go to 11' (mm), and fisheye zooms are a dime-a-dozen. Meanwhile, all those companies to which you think Canon must play a catch up game, are losing ILC market share...to Canon. Fiasco, indeed.

You forgot DPAF - there is no better AF solution for video, stellar lightweight DO optics, highest resolution FF sensor on the market. It's all BS, hard to call it innovation

 

[Jopa]

I have no idea what is taking Sony so long to deliver the death blow to Canon if they address things that's important to working professional such as ergonomic, reliability, dual SD, and increase AF performance with adapter lens. A9 showed they listened but it's too expensive. They need a camera around 5D Mark IV price point to address all these problem instead of $4500 camera.

If the Sony A7III series can deliver most of these points at $3000 price point, alot of people like myself would switch and put pressure on Canon.

The A9 doesn't even support a flicker detection, how can it be a pro camera?

Can someone please explain me what's the benefit of switching one brand FF camera to another brand one besides losing money spent on lenses and repurchasing another set of lenses?

 

[dak723]

Well to be fair, those are all niche products

You mean like 4K video and 13-stop DR sensors? Nice if you have them....but need them? That is niche.
Pekr is right - it is perception. But perception has become increasingly important. Can you imagine the reaction if Canon released a 'pro grade' camera body for the die hard wildlife photographer and said 'by the way, guys, it is not very well weather sealed and we don't have any lenses you need so you will have to use someone else's. But you can take great video'.
Sony has been into making cameras for over a decade. They bought Minolta who have been in the industry for nigh on a century - and they still don't know how to build a camera system? Yet somehow Sony get a free pass.

Sony gets a free pass from the those interested primarily in tech - because they include all the tech bells and whistles.

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, but rather interested mainly in what my photos look like, I am most interested in the quality of the color. Since this is subjective, it can't be debated with numbers and there can't be a "winner." Having winning numbers, whether it is DR, or MPs is important to techies.

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, but rather interested mainly in what my photos look like, I am most interested in the tonal curves and contrast. Since techies love to do lots of post production, this doesn't matter to them. For those that don't want to do any or much PP, it is important what a companies tonal algorithms are.

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, I want good, solid, lenses that are sharp (not necessarily the sharpest, but good overall sharpness) and offer really good color and contrast. Not sure what the techies are looking for here as lenses haven't changed that much in decades.

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, I want a camera that is easy to use and easy to hold, has a good viewfinder that is not too cluttered. Apparently techies don't notice such things.

All of the above reasons are why I would never choose Sony (having bought and returned both the A7 And A7 II). Canon beats them (in my opinion) in color, tonal curves, ergonomics, viewfinder and lenses - in some cases it is not even close.

 

[AvTvM]

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, I want good, solid, lenses that are sharp (not necessarily the sharpest, but good overall sharpness) and offer really good color and contrast. Not sure what the techies are looking for here as lenses haven't changed that much in decades.

: ;D ;D ;D

Lenses have changed A LOT over the last years. Anything from Zeiss Otuss, f/2.8 Mk. II zooms, 11-24 zooms, fisheye zooms, macro T/S lenses, Sigma ART series, down to "kit lenses" like an EF-S 55-250 or a pancake Canon EF-M 22/2.0 would have been "impossible" only 10 years ago.

None of the old shards can hold a candle to current version of the respective lenses. None.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

*snark*

I can see it now. A beautiful plaque will be engraved on each FF Canon Mirrorless that dedicates their wonderful new device to the many years it took to design, fabricate and bring to market after the mirrorless market segment was first opened.

Perhaps something like "Artisanal Hand-crafted" and "Assembled by..."

Heck, it might even take a decent picture. Only time will tell.

*snark off*

...Canon’s first foray into a full frame mirrorless camera will use a dedicated CMOS sensor...

 

[TAF]

Form factor...if they try to squeeze a FF mirrorless into a tiny body, they get the worst of all worlds.

But if they try a totally different form factor, they can overcome all the problems in one quick pass.

Think Hasselblad or Rollei. Something like an SL3003 shape would be ideal. EF mount, plenty of space for heat sinking, batteries, and memory cards, and with the EVF on the top, the ergonomics would be excellent, albeit totally different from what most people are used to.

I would pay good money for that body to use all my nice L glass.

Because nothing says "ergonomics" like shooting hunched over looking towards the ground? While they are at it, they could charge more if it comes complete with firmware that sets the image to be flipped L-R like a proper waist level finder
Seriously, if they make this any bigger than it needs to be (determined mostly by flange distance and mount diameter) it's dead in the water. Those that like a bigger grip or more battery life can add an accessory grip, like we used to in the film days.
As for heat sinking, can we please all stop with the "bigger = better" fallacy? Cameras run into heat issues primarily through poor thermal transfer (i.e. they can't move heat away from the sensor fast enough), not a lack of thermal mass. IBIS would be a particular constraint in this regard, because the sensor module needs to be able to move relative to the rest of the body (which requires a low sensor module mass so the actuators can move it, and an air gap, seriously compromising the thermal path). Increasing the total camera mass will slightly extend the time you can run the camera before it overheats - but if the bottleneck is the thermal path from the sensor, the gain may not be that great. Making a camera more brick shaped is an extremely inefficient way to increase the thermal transfer capacity, because what you need (in the absence of active cooling) is radiant surface area.

And all of those issues with heat transfer get easier to deal with when you have more space to work within.

So yes, bigger does indeed equal better cooling, given equivalently competent engineers.

(I can honestly say I have never had a designer tell me that he wished he had less volume to work with)

And as for ergonomics, yes, a TLR form factor would perhaps not be ideal for some people (although as someone who still uses one, they can indeed be much stabler than holding something to your face - try it some time). Which is why I mentioned the SL 3003.

You might want to actually take a look at that model...it can be used from above, or from the back with a more typical viewfinder. Your choice.

 

[dak723]

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, I want good, solid, lenses that are sharp (not necessarily the sharpest, but good overall sharpness) and offer really good color and contrast. Not sure what the techies are looking for here as lenses haven't changed that much in decades.

: ;D ;D ;D

Lenses have changed A LOT over the last years. Anything from Zeiss Otuss, f/2.8 Mk. II zooms, 11-24 zooms, fisheye zooms, macro T/S lenses, Sigma ART series, down to "kit lenses" like an EF-S 55-250 or a pancake Canon EF-M 22/2.0 would have been "impossible" only 10 years ago.

None of the old shards can hold a candle to current version of the respective lenses. None.

Believe what you will. Lots of folks using old lenses with excellent results.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

As a photographer that is not interested in tech, I want a camera that is easy to use and easy to hold, has a good viewfinder that is not too cluttered. Apparently techies don't notice such things.

I get it, ummm no I don't. It is only through all that tech that you have a digital file to then apply all kinds of algorithms to create an analog image. Not being interested in the tech side is the equivalent of not being interested in the ISO of the film, the temp of the developer, the contrast of the paper, and other "analog" events from the old film days that you had to know in order to have predictable results.

I am an OLD dog, and new tricks come hard to me. I have own tons of Canon gear, rented Sony gear, "back in the day" when I worked for a high end camera store that had view cameras, Leica, Rollei, Blad all in stock (and had the borrow it for free, buy it if you scratch it hands on learning policy - we had to know the camera to sell it...)

I have fantastic images from every camera/lens combo I have ever used. I have plenty of crap too. Quality seems highly correlated to the effort I put into the capture.

I vote for the largest image capture envelope I can get, its like an airplane - the only altitude you can't use is that which is above you.

 

[KevinP]

<p>We’re also told that a higher end APS-C based mirrorless camera above the EOS M5 is not in the cards.</p>

That's disappointing. I'm not really hoping for something fancier, but I'd love an SL2 sized version of the M5 with the EF-S mount. Bonus if they used the extra space for a bigger battery. I already have five lenses in EF-S and EF, and the adapter seems like an irritation. I'm not sure a smaller system would entice me to carry it out the door more often, and I like the idea of a fast standard zoom next to replace the kit lens, which isn't a thing in EF-M.

 

[bf]

<p>We’re also told that a higher end APS-C based mirrorless camera above the EOS M5 is not in the cards.</p>

That's disappointing. I'm not really hoping for something fancier, but I'd love an SL2 sized version of the M5 with the EF-S mount. Bonus if they used the extra space for a bigger battery. I already have five lenses in EF-S and EF, and the adapter seems like an irritation. I'm not sure a smaller system would entice me to carry it out the door more often, and I like the idea of a fast standard zoom next to replace the kit lens, which isn't a thing in EF-M.

Your comment made me thinking if they offer a battery grip for this family.

I'd like a high speed mirror-less body with EF mount equipped towards action and wildlife. I prefer the full-frame version rather than APS-C. The fact is Canon has not offered any glass other than in EF mount for this application.

 

[AvTvM]

I'd like a high speed mirror-less body with EF mount equipped towards action and wildlife. I prefer the full-frame version rather than APS-C. The fact is Canon has not offered any glass other than in EF mount for this application.

so .. what about all that FD glass - including long and fast tele lenses - sold until 1987
And of course Canon has not launched a new lens mount for FF mirrorless since they have not launched any FF MILC yet either.