Canon, King in SLR Cameras, Makes Inroads Into Mirrorless

Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
I'm still waiting for a serious mirrorless rather than what amounts to a high end powershot with interchangable lenses. I purchased a SL-2 last summer over a M5 or M6 because of the powershot like interface and lack of wired tethering.

The M50 is definitely heading in the right direction, but I get the feeling that Canon does not want to compete with my 5D MK IV quite yet.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 12, 2011
760
103
Mt Spokane Photography said:
I'm still waiting for a serious mirrorless rather than what amounts to a high end powershot with interchangable lenses. I purchased a SL-2 last summer over a M5 or M6 because of the powershot like interface and lack of wired tethering.

The M50 is definitely heading in the right direction, but I get the feeling that Canon does not want to compete with my 5D MK IV quite yet.

They’ll have to soon but as usual they will drag their heals and be stubborn about it and delay it as long as possible.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
alienman said:
Wow canon behind Olympus, I understand this is my opinion but i think sony makes better mirrorless cameras than both the a9 and riii are tough to deny. How soon will it be before we see a Full Frame mirrorless from canon?

The Sony A9 is $4500 and the Sony A7R3 is $3200. That's not where most of the mirrorless sales are. I would say that if they looked at $3,000+ full frame mirrorless bodies... Sony has the market cornered :)

A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?

There are so many possibilities; who knows. One possible reason is that Sony lenses are very expensive and their selection of first party and especially third party accessories is only a tiny fraction of Canon's. Another possible reason, as I've mentioned before, is that Canon's success in mirrorless could be in part people who are already sold on Canon and EF, and want a small, secondary body that is compatible with their lens collection in a pinch.

If I ever bought mirrorless, this would be me, right up until the time that EVFs and battery life are as good as DSLRs for wildlife.

Another possibility -- I don't know how common this is, but some camera stores in my area refuse to demo Sony MILCs, especially the high end stuff (A7 and A9 bodies) and some even have a final sale policy on the full frame bodies (exchange for same model on DOA's only).


transpo1 said:
I say moniker because once people realize it has a 2.5x crop, they won’t be using it for 4K much.

Or, it could lead to a lot of EFM 11-22 sales :D And like the EFS 10-18, it's a very nice lens for a great price.
 
Upvote 0
Talys said:
alienman said:
Wow canon behind Olympus, I understand this is my opinion but i think sony makes better mirrorless cameras than both the a9 and riii are tough to deny. How soon will it be before we see a Full Frame mirrorless from canon?

The Sony A9 is $4500 and the Sony A7R3 is $3200. That's not where most of the mirrorless sales are. I would say that if they looked at $3,000+ full frame mirrorless bodies... Sony has the market cornered :)

A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?

There are so many possibilities; who knows. One possible reason is that Sony lenses are very expensive and their selection of first party and especially third party accessories is only a tiny fraction of Canon's. Another possible reason, as I've mentioned before, is that Canon's success in mirrorless could be in part people who are already sold on Canon and EF, and want a small, secondary body that is compatible with their lens collection in a pinch.

If I ever bought mirrorless, this would be me, right up until the time that EVFs and battery life are as good as DSLRs for wildlife.

Another possibility -- I don't know how common this is, but some camera stores in my area refuse to demo Sony MILCs, especially the high end stuff (A7 and A9 bodies) and some even have a final sale policy on the full frame bodies (exchange for same model on DOA's only).


transpo1 said:
I say moniker because once people realize it has a 2.5x crop, they won’t be using it for 4K much.

Or, it could lead to a lot of EFM 11-22 sales :D And like the EFS 10-18, it's a very nice lens for a great price.

It'll be interesting to see whether the a73 at $2k makes a large difference in this or not - it doesn't give much up to the classic dslr now and the pricing is more suitable for the mainstream ff market. I can't see any significant trade-offs or drawbacks over something like the 6dmk2 or even the 5dmk4.

The canon m50 looks to be a reasonable entry level mirrorless but we all really want to see how canon will meet the ff mirrorless market
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
Isaacheus said:
It'll be interesting to see whether the a73 at $2k makes a large difference in this or not - it doesn't give much up to the classic dslr now and the pricing is more suitable for the mainstream ff market. I can't see any significant trade-offs or drawbacks over something like the 6dmk2 or even the 5dmk4.

The canon m50 looks to be a reasonable entry level mirrorless but we all really want to see how canon will meet the ff mirrorless market

It depends on what you want to shoot. If your goal is to go out for a full day of wildlife photography, a 6D2 or 5D4 will easily let you spend 10+ hours looking through the viewfinder and take a thousand photos without a battery swap. Or sports, where you need to look through the viewfinder for many hours.

It'll also feel ergonomically more balanced with those telephoto lenses and -- in my opinion -- just more fun to shoot. You also pay a lot less for several lens options, plus, there are just a lot more lens options.

I haven't been able to give an A7R3 a fair shake in a studio setting, but the A7R2 EVF was pretty terrible with strobes firing all the time. It was really quite annoying for me. There are also some problems with third party accessories in this setting, like Skyport HSS compatibility with Sony (I couldn't get mine to work), and just generally a lot fewer third party accessories.

On the other hand, if your thing is event photography, and especially if you don't want to use a flash, I can totally see the EVFs being preferable. And if you want to shoot candids, like street photography or family stuff, I totally understand how a smaller camera stands out less, and how WYSIWYG EVF makes life easier.

And I think if you're a video person, mirrorless is probably better all around.

But at the end of the day, most of these sales numbers are not about flagship models and not about sales to people who are professionals or extremely enthusiastic hobbyists. What drives profits on the consumer end will be low end and midrange products, because let's be honest, not many people who don't have a passion for photography want to spend $4,000 - $10,000, even if they could afford to.
 
Upvote 0
Isaacheus said:
Talys said:
alienman said:
Wow canon behind Olympus, I understand this is my opinion but i think sony makes better mirrorless cameras than both the a9 and riii are tough to deny. How soon will it be before we see a Full Frame mirrorless from canon?

The Sony A9 is $4500 and the Sony A7R3 is $3200. That's not where most of the mirrorless sales are. I would say that if they looked at $3,000+ full frame mirrorless bodies... Sony has the market cornered :)

A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?

There are so many possibilities; who knows. One possible reason is that Sony lenses are very expensive and their selection of first party and especially third party accessories is only a tiny fraction of Canon's. Another possible reason, as I've mentioned before, is that Canon's success in mirrorless could be in part people who are already sold on Canon and EF, and want a small, secondary body that is compatible with their lens collection in a pinch.

If I ever bought mirrorless, this would be me, right up until the time that EVFs and battery life are as good as DSLRs for wildlife.

Another possibility -- I don't know how common this is, but some camera stores in my area refuse to demo Sony MILCs, especially the high end stuff (A7 and A9 bodies) and some even have a final sale policy on the full frame bodies (exchange for same model on DOA's only).


transpo1 said:
I say moniker because once people realize it has a 2.5x crop, they won’t be using it for 4K much.

Or, it could lead to a lot of EFM 11-22 sales :D And like the EFS 10-18, it's a very nice lens for a great price.

It'll be interesting to see whether the a73 at $2k makes a large difference in this or not - it doesn't give much up to the classic dslr now and the pricing is more suitable for the mainstream ff market. I can't see any significant trade-offs or drawbacks over something like the 6dmk2 or even the 5dmk4.

The canon m50 looks to be a reasonable entry level mirrorless but we all really want to see how canon will meet the ff mirrorless market

Nice points, also to mention Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina will soon offer FE mount lenses at reasonable prices. I believe this will also give Sony a huge boost in the mirrorless market. If canon decides to create a full frame mirroless are we going to see a new line of lenses? because I doubt the compatibility with EF lenses due to the flange distance.
 
Upvote 0
Isaacheus said:
Talys said:
alienman said:
Wow canon behind Olympus, I understand this is my opinion but i think sony makes better mirrorless cameras than both the a9 and riii are tough to deny. How soon will it be before we see a Full Frame mirrorless from canon?

The Sony A9 is $4500 and the Sony A7R3 is $3200. That's not where most of the mirrorless sales are. I would say that if they looked at $3,000+ full frame mirrorless bodies... Sony has the market cornered :)

A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?

There are so many possibilities; who knows. One possible reason is that Sony lenses are very expensive and their selection of first party and especially third party accessories is only a tiny fraction of Canon's. Another possible reason, as I've mentioned before, is that Canon's success in mirrorless could be in part people who are already sold on Canon and EF, and want a small, secondary body that is compatible with their lens collection in a pinch.

If I ever bought mirrorless, this would be me, right up until the time that EVFs and battery life are as good as DSLRs for wildlife.

Another possibility -- I don't know how common this is, but some camera stores in my area refuse to demo Sony MILCs, especially the high end stuff (A7 and A9 bodies) and some even have a final sale policy on the full frame bodies (exchange for same model on DOA's only).


transpo1 said:
I say moniker because once people realize it has a 2.5x crop, they won’t be using it for 4K much.

Or, it could lead to a lot of EFM 11-22 sales :D And like the EFS 10-18, it's a very nice lens for a great price.

It'll be interesting to see whether the a73 at $2k makes a large difference in this or not - it doesn't give much up to the classic dslr now and the pricing is more suitable for the mainstream ff market. I can't see any significant trade-offs or drawbacks over something like the 6dmk2 or even the 5dmk4.

The canon m50 looks to be a reasonable entry level mirrorless but we all really want to see how canon will meet the ff mirrorless market

A7III has no advantage in size and weight. Do we go mirrorless just for the sake of it? Canon/Nikon may be better off making traditional FF DSLR (which is their strength) and compete based on function and performance.
 
Upvote 0
unfocused said:
canonic said:
Canon hopes that the new product will attract demand from families, including mothers who enjoy taking pictures of their children.

Now we know what the target is ...
Now, Canon, make at least variants with some shades of pink. Those mothers will appreciate it.

Yeah, poor Mary Ellen Mark, Diane Arbus, Joyce Tenneson, Margaret Bourke White and Susan Meiselas, all they ever wanted was a pink camera.

You should have taken Lincoln's advice: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

I smile every time when someone uses quotes and names because they are not capable to use they own thoughts/ideas. Worse ... they are thinking they are smart by doing that.
Try again, this time yourself.
You are Homo Sapiens not Homo Copicus/quoticus.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
syyeung1 said:
A7III has no advantage in size and weight. Do we go mirrorless just for the sake of it? Canon/Nikon may be better off making traditional FF DSLR (which is their strength) and compete based on function and performance.

I won't go mirrorless just for the sake of it, but if Canon makes a mirrorless that I want and gives me some compelling reason to buy it, there's a good chance that I'll buy one in addition to whatever DSLR comes out next.

If Canon wants more money from me in bodies, the way to do it for an expensive flagship would be a 5D series with articulating touchscreen some of the D850 goodness. Eye AF would really help, too, even if it's only in live view mode.

On the 7D front, all they have to do to sell me one is articulating screen and better ISO 200 - 2000 performance.

But I think I'm unlikely to buy both a 5D and 7D, so it will depend on which one drops first.

On the mirrorless front, assuming that the M5 MkII has a bunch of the M50 features, Canon has a decent chance of getting me to buy one, for no particularly good reason other than that I've been looking to buy an M5 for quite a while. I don't think Canon could get me to spend big on a mirrorless FF flagship; I don't think it would fulfill my needs as a primary camera well, and I wouldn't want to spend that much money on a body, given that.

Sharlin said:
Talys said:
A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?

It may or may not do well, but it's not an entry-level camera. The A5100 is, so the question is, why doesn't it do better.

The reason I was picking A6300 is that this is much closer in price to M5/M6, which I think make up the bulk of Canon's MILC body sales.

But sure, it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why A5100 doesn't do better.

One possible reason: some people may have had poor experiences with non-camera Sony products. I know that I have, with super-expensive VAIO laptops in the last couple of years when they were made ($3000+ models). They were advertised as cutting edge machines with features like carbon fiber bodies. But they kind of sucked in more ways than I could count. I've been a bit biased against Sony ever since. I've still bought Sony stuff, just not their really expensive electronics.
 
Upvote 0

Sharlin

CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,415
1,433
Turku, Finland
canonic said:
I smile every time when someone uses quotes and names because they are not capable to use they own thoughts/ideas. Worse ... they are thinking they are smart by doing that.
Try again, this time yourself.
You are Homo Sapiens not Homo Copicus/quoticus.

If your original thought is at the level you have demonstrated, perhaps you should stick to quotes as well.
 
Upvote 0

Sharlin

CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,415
1,433
Turku, Finland
Talys said:
Sharlin said:
Talys said:
A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?
It may or may not do well, but it's not an entry-level camera. The A5100 is, so the question is, why doesn't it do better.

The reason I was picking A6300 is that this is much closer in price to M5/M6, which I think make up the bulk of Canon's MILC body sales.

Hmm, I don't see why. Like on the DSLR side, entry-level sales (read: M100 and M10 before it) most likely exceed the sales of enthusiast bodies by a large margin. (Think 10x. From now on, with the M50 released, the gap should widen even more.)
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
Sharlin said:
Talys said:
Sharlin said:
Talys said:
A better argument is that the Sony A6300 is an excellent camera. Why doesn't it do better?
It may or may not do well, but it's not an entry-level camera. The A5100 is, so the question is, why doesn't it do better.

The reason I was picking A6300 is that this is much closer in price to M5/M6, which I think make up the bulk of Canon's MILC body sales.

Hmm, I don't see why. Like on the DSLR side, entry-level sales (read: M100 and M10 before it) most likely exceed the sales of enthusiast bodies by a large margin. (Think 10x. From now on, with the M50 released, the gap should widen even more.)

You could be right. I don't know. I didn't think M100 sales were all that spectacular, but now that I think about it, I have no idea why I think that :)
 
Upvote 0
Sharlin said:
canonic said:
I smile every time when someone uses quotes and names because they are not capable to use they own thoughts/ideas. Worse ... they are thinking they are smart by doing that.
Try again, this time yourself.
You are Homo Sapiens not Homo Copicus/quoticus.

If your original thought is at the level you have demonstrated, perhaps you should stick to quotes as well.

Hehe, i haven't tried to be smart, only ironic. See the difference ?! But, how i like how many of you defend Canon. Sometimes i have the impression you have double personality and the second one is Canon 8)
This may explain why many of you defend Canon with such vehemence ;D and why you are so reticent to any word which may "hurt" Canon.
 
Upvote 0
syyeung1 said:
A7III has no advantage in size and weight. Do we go mirrorless just for the sake of it? Canon/Nikon may be better off making traditional FF DSLR (which is their strength) and compete based on function and performance.

Not for just the sake of it - I agree that the size/weight benefit is usually pretty well overstated (although it is nice to be able to chuck the 40mm pancake on with the mc-11 as a walk around, fits more easily into small bags than the 6d with the same lens, but I digress). Once you put a 1.4 prime, the difference is basically nil.

The other benefits from a mirrorless design would be good though, evf for video, focus peaking for manual focusing landscapes, zebras for highlights etc. I assume canon will continue with dslrs and that makes sense; I would like to see some feature frontiers being pushed though, decent cameras for the most part but canon has a great way of never giving all the options in one body. At the moment, they don't seem to be willing to attempt the second part of your statement, the prime example being the 6dmk2.
 
Upvote 0

jolyonralph

Game Boy Camera
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
944
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
syyeung1 said:
A7III has no advantage in size and weight. Do we go mirrorless just for the sake of it? Canon/Nikon may be better off making traditional FF DSLR (which is their strength) and compete based on function and performance.

Ah, I fear you're stuck in the old "FF Camera = big body + 24-70 2.8 zoom" mindset.

There is no advantage in size and weight if that's all you do day in day out. Perhaps the average wedding photographer wouldn't find a weight benefit in the A7III.

But attach a compact prime to the A7III, something like the 35mm f/2.8 Sony-Zeiss, or their wonderful 55mm f/1.8 portrait lens (which is an order of magnitude better than the Canon 1.4 50) and go have FUN shooting without that huge brick hanging from your neck all day.

The advantage of mirrorless in weight is this flexibility. It's no worse when you have to stick your 24-70 on for your day (or weekend) job, but when you want to have fun, stick on a light lens and it's as if it's a totally different camera.

Of course, that's not the only benefit of mirrorless.

For me they are:

1. Ability to review photos through the viewfinder.

2. Ability to manual focus with focus highlighting through the viewfinder.

3. Ditto, with zoom

4. B&W photography with the viewfinder in B&W. And on my M3 which is converted to infra-red I get real infra-red images in the viewfinder.

5. Much better idea of how your levels look on bright days

6. Automatic face focus through the viewfinder (and, on newer models, automatic eye focus). I can't stress too much how amazingly useful this is. If you're a wedding photographer it may be worth the investment in mirrorless for this feature alone.

The weight and compactness are great benefits, but far from the ONLY benefit.

Now, will canon do an EF mount mirrorless? I doubt it because:

a) If they do, they'll sell more of these bodies to EF lens owners, who won't need to buy new lenses.

b) IF they do a new mount, they'll sell fewer bodies, but those people who buy them will buy more lenses.


Now, I'm pretty sure that Canon make a higher markup on their lenses than they do on the bodies. Which way will Canon go? It's not difficult to figure out...
 
Upvote 0
alienman said:
How soon will it be before we see a Full Frame mirrorless from canon?

Possibly pretty soon for a VERY entry level camera.

But a few years away from anything close to the A7III. So far Canon hasn't demonstrated that they have the capability to produce sensors with this degree of performance (particularly readout speed, which is critical to reach the A7III's operational qualities) at a sufficiently low price point. The 6DII makes it abundantly clear that they're struggling. They have all the patents needed, but if they can't produce such sensors economically, it won't happen.

I would love nothing more than to be wrong.

Even if they could, you'll get typical Canon segmentation, such as the lack of joystick, only 1 SD card, etc... after all we're talking about a brand that omitted radio from its latest €500 flash. The latter won't change for years, it's a - irrational - business culture issue, just like the Sony A7R III's lack of weather sealing near the bottom plate.
 
Upvote 0

LDS

Sep 14, 2012
1,763
293
unfocused said:
canonic said:
Canon hopes that the new product will attract demand from families, including mothers who enjoy taking pictures of their children.

Now we know what the target is ...
Now, Canon, make at least variants with some shades of pink. Those mothers will appreciate it.

Yeah, poor Mary Ellen Mark, Diane Arbus, Joyce Tenneson, Margaret Bourke White and Susan Meiselas, all they ever wanted was a pink camera.

You should have taken Lincoln's advice: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Isn't rumored that a special edition pink M100 will be released in Japan? At who do you believed it is aimed at? Why some iPhone models are available in pink? Fuji Instax is offered in two shades of pink, plus an "Hello Kitty" model.

Some buyers - especially female - like that, and there's nothing wrong in that. Someone finds black cameras "boring" - and it looks Canon white models has been successful enough they keep on making them.

A "simplified camera for women" would be sexist and discriminatory. Outer colors, offer what people like and buy.
 
Upvote 0