Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Talk [CR2]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

That's just a completely dumb, idiotic and patronising comment to assume that only tethering from a computer is proper.

For tasks such as automated macro stacking, Wifi tethering doesn't work. You can only do this with USB tethering [edit: apparently wireless on the DSLRs seems to work, just not the wireless on the EOS M series - possibly due to the limitations of the powershot-derived firmware?]

The lack of wired tethering is, for me, the most serious drawback of the EOS M system. Which is a shame because a lighter, mirrorless camera should be ideal for macro work.

Magic Lantern folks looked at this with the original M. from my recollection the problem is not just the usual "nerfing" but EOS utility itself. the M's run liveview at different framerates (most likely to speed up AF) than the DSLR's. EOS utility is pretty basic and only allows one framerate. To stop this, canon just decided to block the entire thing on the M side to prevent problems.

whether or not this is true, or not. who knows. however liveview on at least the M5 goes all the way up to 120hz. certainly more than the traditional 30.

That might explain the lack of wired tethering, a frame rate that fast might slow down a wired connection. However, they still manage to have wireless tethering at a slower frame rate, I think it was just one of those tradeoff's based on Canon's perception of the target users. They did not want to spend $$ on hardware or software to add wired tethering. I passed on the M and ordered a SL-2 three days ago because of the lack of wired tethering. I use it a lot, so in my case, its a big deal.

 

[eosuser1234]

It will be EF-M mount on a full frame. When current Ef-M lenses are used, it will crop to APS-C automatically. New EF-M mount full frame lens will be released, but those who want EF glass will use the adaptor. Canon wants to make it a small, lightweight option. By doing this, they keep the overall footprint of the camera small.

 

[Cthulhu]

Not sure about auto ISO, but WiFi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.

I've been checking out WiFi tethering on my MK IV. The speed is very dependent on how its done. When I use the camera as a access point, connect a phone or tablet to it, it works as well as could be expected. But, when connecting thru my very fast WiFi access point and gigabit home network, its painfully slow tether to my PC. I have not tried to tether my PC directly to the camera, but it will likely be similar to the phone connection.

I don't understand why its so slow to tether via my access point and wired network, I have a Eye-Fi card that downloads via my access points fast and efficiently, I'd use it for just plain wireless downloads if I needed it done wirelessly.

It's all about the code. I don't think Canon has the proper focus on software engineering, based on their DPP and how their AF algorithms lag behind Nikon and apparently now Sony with the A9.

 

[Jopa]

It's all about the code. I don't think Canon has the proper focus on software engineering, based on their DPP and how their AF algorithms lag behind Nikon and apparently now Sony with the A9.

Take a look at Sony's IDC. Same ugly crap but also crashes a lot on PC. The Mac version is more or less stable.
I was also wondering if Sony make such advanced cameras why they can't make decent software?

 

[snoke]

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

Yes, that may be true, but I own about nine thousand dollars worth of square pegs, and will be severely unhappy if Canon tells me that I can't use any of them and have to buy a bunch of round pegs to replace them.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

Canon has already patented a ff mount for mirrorless. So, yes, it can be made. The real issue is that pro level users know that high end lenses do not get any smaller for mirrorless bodies, so any overall size reduction is minimal. I shudder at the thought of having Canon slowly bringing out new FF mirrorless lenses over the next 10 years before a reasonably complete set is available, when they can add a few mm to the body thickness and let us use our EF lenses natively.

I think that one reason for them doing it involves patents, the EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.

 

[rrcphoto]

That's just a completely dumb, idiotic and patronising comment to assume that only tethering from a computer is proper.

For tasks such as automated macro stacking, Wifi tethering doesn't work. You can only do this with USB tethering [edit: apparently wireless on the DSLRs seems to work, just not the wireless on the EOS M series - possibly due to the limitations of the powershot-derived firmware?]

The lack of wired tethering is, for me, the most serious drawback of the EOS M system. Which is a shame because a lighter, mirrorless camera should be ideal for macro work.

Magic Lantern folks looked at this with the original M. from my recollection the problem is not just the usual "nerfing" but EOS utility itself. the M's run liveview at different framerates (most likely to speed up AF) than the DSLR's. EOS utility is pretty basic and only allows one framerate. To stop this, canon just decided to block the entire thing on the M side to prevent problems.

whether or not this is true, or not. who knows. however liveview on at least the M5 goes all the way up to 120hz. certainly more than the traditional 30.

That might explain the lack of wired tethering, a frame rate that fast might slow down a wired connection. However, they still manage to have wireless tethering at a slower frame rate, I think it was just one of those tradeoff's based on Canon's perception of the target users. They did not want to spend $$ on hardware or software to add wired tethering. I passed on the M and ordered a SL-2 three days ago because of the lack of wired tethering. I use it a lot, so in my case, its a big deal.

I don't know. I seem to recall comments along the lines that to change EOS utility would be a big deal. I honestly don't know.

it's probably the most harped thing about the M's since the original really.

 

[rrcphoto]

Not sure about auto ISO, but WiFi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.

I've been checking out WiFi tethering on my MK IV. The speed is very dependent on how its done. When I use the camera as a access point, connect a phone or tablet to it, it works as well as could be expected. But, when connecting thru my very fast WiFi access point and gigabit home network, its painfully slow tether to my PC. I have not tried to tether my PC directly to the camera, but it will likely be similar to the phone connection.

I don't understand why its so slow to tether via my access point and wired network, I have a Eye-Fi card that downloads via my access points fast and efficiently, I'd use it for just plain wireless downloads if I needed it done wirelessly.

based on their DPP

DLO is amazing, you've obviously not used DPP in a while.

 

[rrcphoto]

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

sure it is. the grip depth is far more than whatever the registration distance depth would be, making the need for a different mount meaningless to the size or even really the weight of the camera.

you put canon's fit / feel and ergonomics on a mirrorless and it's going to be the same size regardless.

 

[SecureGSM]

EF mount patent expired about 10-15 years ago??, yet BlackMagic is the only third party manufacturer so far that developed a camera with EF mount. Lens manufacturers seems to doing away reverse engineering EF mount protocols just fine. well, sort of..
My impressions though that if Canon photogs had to rebuild their lens arsenal from scratch in new mount, there is a very good chance in my humble opinion for them to start looking elsewhere ) Sony A9 II, III or whatever that may be by then. I certainly would if I had to. And my investment in EF mount is only under $20K so far. peanuts, nothing in comparison with how much some senior forum members investment in EF mount. I hate to think about all this drama. It gives me shivers

I feel that if I was forced to

he EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

Canon has already patented a ff mount for mirrorless. So, yes, it can be made. The real issue is that pro level users know that high end lenses do not get any smaller for mirrorless bodies, so any overall size reduction is minimal. I shudder at the thought of having Canon slowly bringing out new FF mirrorless lenses over the next 10 years before a reasonably complete set is available, when they can add a few mm to the body thickness and let us use our EF lenses natively.

I think that one reason for them doing it involves patents, the EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.

The thing I don't understand is why full frame lenses are so much larger now than they were 20 years ago. Has some law of physics changed which means you now need a much larger lens in order to project an image onto a full frame sensor?
I have attached a picture of my Olympus 100mm F2.8 zuiko lens standing alongside my Canon 100 F2.8L IS USM macro to illustrate how much a typical 100mm F2.8 lens has grown over the years.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I always assumed it was just the fact that more and more scrutiny on the quality of lenses and the sharpness they produce has driven lenses that have a lot more complicated and therefore larger optical designs than older lenses. Look at a Canon 50mm 1.4 vs something like a Sigma 50mm art.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that you now have to squeeze in all of the autofocus motors, circuit boards, electronic aperture controls, and then build a lens durable enough to protect all of those tiny and fragile parts.

And lastly, you're comparing a macro lens to a non-macro, so there's definitely some length built into the lens for it to achieve close focus.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, these are just my assumptions.

 

[hmatthes]

Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Wanted!

With all the debate about mounts, let's think about only two things:
1. What photographers need
2. What is possible to build at similar price points

What photographers need:
I use Canon FF cameras. With a collection of L glass, some over 20 years old. Would I abandon these... hell no!
I also use a Leica Q: FF 24meg with outstanding IQ (designing lens & camera in one project eliminates error)
My perfect camera would be the 5D-IV with an EVF at least as good as Leica's ...
1. My investment in glass is protected for the next ten years or more!
2. My hand memory is retained so that I can shoot while concentrating on my subject, not buttons & menus.
3. My workflow would remain identical. Folks, these are important things in the real world.
Why EVF? When I first picked up the Q I was blown away by seeing everything just like OVF but better!

Canon could add to their viewfinder:
1. Focus peaking for MF.
2. Wall-to-wall focus points for AF via DPAF.
3. Focus zoom on MF, tied to focus point on AF?
4. Instant feedback on exposure compensation changes!
5. Instant feedback on depth of field when running in Av or M (even Tv or P by the way)
6. Choices on composition tools like grids, pitch/roll, Maybe even guides if desiring APSc, 16x9, square, 4x3 etc.
7. Post exposure "Chimping" without taking camera from your eye could be an option.
8. Near-silent operation without mirror noise and vibration -- just the shutter moves.
9. Higher frame rates since there is no mirror actuation delay.

What is possible to build at similar price points:
EVF would probably cost no more, perhaps less, removing non-DPAF AF system and the mirror/pentaprism/screen etc.
The body need not change! The prism area could contain the wifi, GPS, bluetooth electronics. The mount/sensor are unchanged.
The lenses do not change.

So if you want smaller, get the SLx or Canon M series. Or all the other APS-c mirrorless cameras. Y'all know that a Sony system is no smaller with real glass attached. Only the body is smaller/cramped/confusing.

 

[HarryFilm]

EF mount patent expired about 10-15 years ago??, yet BlackMagic is the only third party manufacturer so far that developed a camera with EF mount. Lens manufacturers seems to doing away reverse engineering EF mount protocols just fine. well, sort of..
My impressions though that if Canon photogs had to rebuild their lens arsenal from scratch in new mount, there is a very good chance in my humble opinion for them to start looking elsewhere ) Sony A9 II, III or whatever that may be by then. I certainly would if I had to. And my investment in EF mount is only under $20K so far. peanuts, nothing in comparison with how much some senior forum members investment in EF mount. I hate to think about all this drama. It gives me shivers

I feel that if I was forced to

he EF patent has expired, so a new patent for a mirrorless mount gives them a reboot of patent protection.

You're not kidding there! Unless it's for new larger sensor, we ain't changing
our lenses. You may buy a camera every 4 years but you buy a lens for life!

After seeing what's in our alarmed safe-room, I would say as a company,
we probably have $750,000 worth of EF, B4 and PL mount lenses from multiple
manufacturers! We ain't throwing away that sort of investment for a mirrorless
camera UNLESS the sensor that said new camera has is something MUCH MUCH
BETTER than what we have now!

So whatever camera gets pushed out the door, it better be able to take
all the EF lenses we have OR the camera has to be so good that it would
make business sense for us to make additional investments into a new
series of lenses! The ONLY way that is going to happen is if Canon goes
to a 65mm+ Medium Format sensor on a Stills and/or Cinema EOS camera!

 

[Loswr]

The thing I don't understand is why full frame lenses are so much larger now than they were 20 years ago. Has some law of physics changed which means you now need a much larger lens in order to project an image onto a full frame sensor?
I have attached a picture of my Olympus 100mm F2.8 zuiko lens standing alongside my Canon 100 F2.8L IS USM macro to illustrate how much a typical 100mm F2.8 lens has grown over the years.

So you're saying Canon's 100mm Macro lens is a 'typical 100mm lens' of today? Did you miss the word 'macro' in the name of the Canon lens? Does the Oly 100/2.8 you show deliver 1:1 (life size) magnification? That makes a difference...

If you're going to make comparisons, comparing apples to trucks isn't going to effectively make your point.

 

[jolyonralph]

Canon has every reason to produce a mirrorless camera with a FF EF-M mount rather than EF.

Firstly, with an adaptor you essentially have a standard EF mount on your camera anyway. If you only want EF lenses then leave the adaptor on your camera all the time. Maybe they need to ensure that their new adaptor is robust enough for this to work (and weathersealed!) and maybe they should include it in the box with the new camera.

And then Canon can release a range of lighter high-quality lenses specifically for the EF-M FF mount. L lenses.

They will be optimised in terms of size/weight and more importantly focus performance with the new mirrorless bodies, because we all know that some EF lenses will be fine, and others will be not so good, when used with a mirrorless camera.

But. You can have your old lenses too. Except Canon get to sell you brand new lenses and make even more money, because even if you buy it telling yourself you'll just use your old lenses, if these new lenses are good enough you know you're going to be tempted to get one or more....

There have already been several patents for Canon FF mirrorless lenses, so we know they've been working on it.

 

[dak723]

Canon has every reason to produce a mirrorless camera with a FF EF-M mount rather than EF.

And repeat Sony's mistake? No thank you. With that short of a flange distance you have problems for the new native lenses. Unless, like Sony realized, you need to make the lenses even larger to add distance in the back of the lens to make up for the too short flange distance. Check out reviews of their kit lenses if you aren't sure about the poor IQ away from the center.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-24-70mm-f4-za-oss-zeiss-vario-tessar-t-sel2470z/review/

If you need an adapter to get good results with the increased flange distance (as Sony owners often do), then it makes more sense to use a larger flange distance without an adapter. Which brings us back to the EF mount.

 

[Cthulhu]

Not sure about auto ISO, but WiFi tether is painfully slow on my 5dmk4 and even worst on my 1dxm2 with a ridiculously expensive dongle. Can't imagine it being any better or very usable on the m5.

I've been checking out WiFi tethering on my MK IV. The speed is very dependent on how its done. When I use the camera as a access point, connect a phone or tablet to it, it works as well as could be expected. But, when connecting thru my very fast WiFi access point and gigabit home network, its painfully slow tether to my PC. I have not tried to tether my PC directly to the camera, but it will likely be similar to the phone connection.

I don't understand why its so slow to tether via my access point and wired network, I have a Eye-Fi card that downloads via my access points fast and efficiently, I'd use it for just plain wireless downloads if I needed it done wirelessly.

based on their DPP

DLO is amazing, you've obviously not used DPP in a while.

I use it every day, mostly for culling these days. It's painfully slow, buggy, has horrible memory management, is not optimized for current technology and super easy to make it crash, specially if you use multiple monitors. I actually subscribed to adobe CC just because I got tired of DPP crashing. I do miss DLO though and Adobe colors are often times not quite there.

 

[snoke]

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

Canon has already patented a ff mount for mirrorless. So, yes, it can be made. The real issue is that pro level users know that high end lenses do not get any smaller for mirrorless bodies, so any overall size reduction is minimal.

Both Canon EF 11-24 and Sony 12-24 pro level, yes?
What is size difference?

Size not make lens "high end." "High end" lens not need be big. F-number and focal length determine size. Leica have high end lens. Leica lens not big. Are Leica lens for pro?

See lens on front large format camera? This for pro? How big?

Lens size result of many things. Size not requirement for pro.