Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Talk [CR2]

[SecureGSM]

yes, they do. Art glass AF consistency is superb on Canon bodies in Live View mode.

If Canon makes a FF mirrorless the first thing I would do is to buy the notorious Sigma 50 Art

I am not entirely certain if Sigma Art lenses fare better on MILCs. Will give it another try in future.

On the other hand, I find STM lenses AF very accurately (including 50 f/1.8 STM) through the OVF on my 77D. Strange

 

[Khalai]

I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.

They can keep current form-factor, just lose the mirror, lose the front prism bulge and I'm all good. Current grips on FF cameras are just about right, they can accomodate multiple card slots and most of all, large battery. Add a tilting screen while at it please. I don't want any small A7 nonsense, that camera is a pain to hold for a longer periods of time.

 

[Don Haines]

Don, Mahdi was referring to the protruding lens mount on the Sigma cam. a built in, integrated adapter to compensate the longer EF flange distance. that's all.

I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.

WOW!

A high end camera with terrible ergonomics and a striking lack of controls..... no thanks!

Yes, but look what it has bone to the grip, and there isn't the real estate for the controls that one expects on a high end camera..... the shape of cameras has evolved to where it is now for a reason. A high end mirrorless should not look much different than current DSLRs

 

[SecureGSM]

you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.

Don, Mahdi was referring to the protruding lens mount on the Sigma cam. a built in, integrated adapter to compensate the longer EF flange distance. that's all.

I believe they should go with this sigma quattro design. a built in M to EF mount. to compensate the camera flange distance of EF mounts.

WOW!

A high end camera with terrible ergonomics and a striking lack of controls..... no thanks!

Yes, but look what it has bone to the grip, and there isn't the real estate for the controls that one expects on a high end camera..... the shape of cameras has evolved to where it is now for a reason. A high end mirrorless should not look much different than current DSLRs

 

[Khalai]

you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.

No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken

 

[Bahrd]

Using JPEG-2000 4:4:4 codecs, the compression ratios are down to 10:1 to 15:1 or 370 megabytes per second or as low as 247 megabytes per second for a 50 megapixel image sequence. That is what it looks like the performance parameters are going to be for now! This would seem to indicate that there will be not only two high-speed DIGIC processors onboard but that it was mentioned that two separate FPGA chips (Field Programmable Gate Array) were added to take the compression load off the DIGICs!

Great to see a JPEG2000 resurrection! I know about a few FPGA implementations of the standard - there is likely the one made by Dr. David Taubman's team (the KAKADU provider). It was 2006 when I applied to NSF (to no avail, however) for a grant to make one using Xilinx'a FPGA with PowerPCs onboard.

Anyway, it actually makes sense - in my opinion - for Canon to create a mirrorless MF camera (rather than FF/APS-C/H) which will be used to test and implement a new tech...

 

[jolyonralph]

You loose a few a shots due to the buffer is full and you loose entire content of the card due to the card failure.

How often do you lose cards? I've got close to 280,000 shots since 1999 in my Lightroom library In the time since I've been taking it seriously (2010) I have had TWO times when cards have failed on me, and both times I was able to get back probably everything using data recovery software. I would probably go on about making sure you only use quality cards, but I've used some pretty cheap SD and CF cards too.

How many times have I failed to get a good shot because the buffer is full? Too many to recall.

Now, i'm not a professional and no-one is paying me to take these shots. If I was doing a paid wedding shoot, for example, then I'd be more paranoid and I'd prefer to record concurrently to two reliable cards.

But most photographers aren't professional. And the balance of risks for me certainly is in favour of using a staggered saving approach to increase buffer throughput performance.

As I said before, it should NOT be the default behaviour however. So, if it's not the default, what could anyone possibly have against this idea?

 

[jolyonralph]

No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken

And also, no need to have an empty box inside there. If you no longer have a mirror assembly, why not use the space for some kind of drop-down / flip down filter, eg neutral density filter?

 

[Khalai]

No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken

And also, no need to have an empty box inside there. If you no longer have a mirror assembly, why not use the space for some kind of drop-down / flip down filter, eg neutral density filter?

Neat idea

 

[Don Haines]

No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken

And also, no need to have an empty box inside there. If you no longer have a mirror assembly, why not use the space for some kind of drop-down / flip down filter, eg neutral density filter?

That is a great example of both thinking outside the box, and thinking inside the box , at the same time....

 

[jeffa4444]

Have we not been around this sandbox?

If it is full-frame and utilises EF lenses then your governed by the back focus which will set a certain size of camera and not make it massively smaller than say a 6D MKII (minus the pentaprism housing). The lenses will be no smaller so all that effort will be primarily for a small gain in camera body weight and possibly to the detriment of in hand balance.

A shorter back focus will require new lenses for full-frame for marginal savings in lens design to compliment the camera so what is the real point?

We may just see a mirrorless camera the size of a 6D MKII.

 

[privatebydesign]

Have we not been around this sandbox?

If it is full-frame and utilises EF lenses then your governed by the back focus which will set a certain size of camera and not make it massively smaller than say a 6D MKII (minus the pentaprism housing). The lenses will be no smaller so all that effort will be primarily for a small gain in camera body weight and possibly to the detriment of in hand balance.

A shorter back focus will require new lenses for full-frame for marginal savings in lens design to compliment the camera so what is the real point?

We may just see a mirrorless camera the size of a 6D MKII.

And therein lies the conundrum that is mirrorless, is the reason for its exiistance to save size and weight or is it because it does stuff better than a camera with a mirror?

Canon decided that with regards the M line of mirrorless size and weight were the critical issue so we have small, slow short registration distance lenses and smaller bodies with comparatively poor battery life. This feature set attracts a certain kind of buyer and is much more popular in emerging markets.

If they decide the reasoning behind a ff mirrorless is that it offers a feature set not possibly with a mirror, something particularly interesting to current shooters not so much forum trolls, then the size and weight is close to irrelevant. We have already seen the lenses that we want, 70-200 f2.8's, fast primes etc don't get smaller just because they are attached to mirrorless bodies, so the 20mm difference in body depth is of little consequence.

I cannot see Canon making anything but an EF native compatible ff mirrorless, nothing else makes business sense.

 

[MayaTlab]

Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.

 

[Cthulhu]

Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.

True, they really did treat the M line as something you shouldn't be picking up for serious shooting.

 

[snoke]

Professional wedding photographers are inhaling them off the shelves. Interestingly a lot of folks are leaving Nikon due to the similarities in sensor output but less so with Canon.

And why not?

Native glass = 20fps with silent shutter. Nobody hear anything in church. Big win.

Go to grand slam tennis match. Everyone must be silent for serve (and during points.) Photographers have exception. With camera like A9, this can change. Don't need 400/2.8 or 500/4 or 600/5.6 for tennis when sitting as pro.

Coincidence that this rumor arrive and you say this? I think not. Canon make defensive rumor to stop defection. If Canon smart then watching Nikon defections and be worried it next.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Given that Canon's so called "expert" mirrorless camera has an auto ISO implementation that's inexplicably worse than on their own powershots, no tethering ability of any kind, and no low consumption display, Let's hope that their "high end" mirrorless camera won't follow that trend of irrational features attribution.

True, they really did treat the M line as something you shouldn't be picking up for serious shooting.

Canon did not deny that, it was originally aimed at a small market, a very small camera for women shooters in Japan.

To me, the best feature of a mirrorless is removal of the mirror assemblies, and associated Rube Goldberg claptrap. All that complex mechanism is responsible to lens focusing errors and the need for AFMA.

Accurate autofocus every time is possible with a mirrorless.

Downside is the need for a EVF, which is a new failure point to replace the old. Electronics are generally more reliable than mechanical items, so that should still be a reliability improvement. The other negatives of a EVF remain.

I'd like to see a bridge camera with a hybrid optical / evf setup, Canon and others have plenty of patents, so we know its been considered, but that might be even more unreliable due to many more parts and failure points.

I want a reliable camera with as few failure modes as possible that autofocuses perfectly every time and uses my existing EF lenses. Fancy features like wi-fi and GPS eat up the battery, add keeping the camera in live view all the time, evf, and battery life drops even more ... A lot more!

I suspect that power management and battery life are the biggest problems Manufacturers face with mirrorless designs. A more powerful processor to manage the dual pixel autofocus at pro level speeds only adds to battery woes. A hybrid design could retain the current fast enough for many uses level of AF in mirrorless mode and not require a more powerful processor.

 

[Don Haines]

Have we not been around this sandbox?

If it is full-frame and utilises EF lenses then your governed by the back focus which will set a certain size of camera and not make it massively smaller than say a 6D MKII (minus the pentaprism housing). The lenses will be no smaller so all that effort will be primarily for a small gain in camera body weight and possibly to the detriment of in hand balance.

A shorter back focus will require new lenses for full-frame for marginal savings in lens design to compliment the camera so what is the real point?

We may just see a mirrorless camera the size of a 6D MKII.

And therein lies the conundrum that is mirrorless, is the reason for its exiistance to save size and weight or is it because it does stuff better than a camera with a mirror?

Canon decided that with regards the M line of mirrorless size and weight were the critical issue so we have small, slow short registration distance lenses and smaller bodies with comparatively poor battery life. This feature set attracts a certain kind of buyer and is much more popular in emerging markets.

If they decide the reasoning behind a ff mirrorless is that it offers a feature set not possibly with a mirror, something particularly interesting to current shooters not so much forum trolls, then the size and weight is close to irrelevant. We have already seen the lenses that we want, 70-200 f2.8's, fast primes etc don't get smaller just because they are attached to mirrorless bodies, so the 20mm difference in body depth is of little consequence.

I cannot see Canon making anything but an EF native compatible ff mirrorless, nothing else makes business sense.

I agree!

For some people, the big criteria is small, and you can't beat an "M" series camera. For others, the criteria is quality, and you can't beat a FF camera with EF lenses and the real estate to get proper controls and ergonomics...

 

[rrcphoto]

no tethering ability of any kind

mmm wrong. I can wifi tether quite easily. I literally just tap my phone to the bottom of the camera. Done.

PS I've also used auto-ISO on the M's for now what would be 100's of thousands of shots. I never felt crippled by it.

Again, I think some are way too focused on specs without actually using the products.

the M3 was IMO. a disaster. however the M5/M6's are quite good. Ergonomically the M6/5 are as good or better than any other mirrorless. tri-navigational wheels are pretty much unheard of since the NEX-7. and the M5's three navigational wheels AND exposure compensation is outlandishly good for a mirrorless. the fact that it's still smaller than most other higher end mirrorless that are APS-C is just icing on the cake.

a few authors on dpreview even commented that they'd take a M5 out versus a Sony A6x000 series body because it just works and feels better.

Again.. it's about actually using the products versus looking at specs.

 

[jolyonralph]

I feel reasonably qualified to talk about the M5/M6 vs the A6000 as I have all three here.

I was underwhelmed by the M5 at first, I thought there were problems with the ergonomics - but I have to say that over time, I have fewer and fewer problems with it, and I'm now pretty happy with the way it works.

I got the M6 thinking I may prefer it to the M5, and in general the layout is slightly better and I prefer the adjustable EVF-DC1 viewfinder to the built-in M5 viewfinder even though it's slightly slower.

Since getting the M6, I haven't used the A6000 once - in fact I have promised it to someone else now, and as much I enjoyed using it, I won't miss it.

With the M5 and M6 Canon have pretty much nailed the mirrorless APS-C cameras. Focus speed and accuracy is superb. It took them some time, but they have done it.

I'd like to see more native EF-M lenses. But then if a decent FF mirrorless camera comes out, as long as it has the 5D IV sensor not the 6D II sensor, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[dak723]

you are correct, but the photo is only to demonstrate the protruding mount and nothing else.

No need for protruding mount, if they keep the current form factor. Better rigidity, better handling, more space for buttons etc. As someone already pointed out, DSLR body design is ergonomically honed by decades. No need to fix something, which is not broken

But...if you don't change things...that's not innovative! And Canon needs to be innovative or..or...well, you know...