Canon mirrorless: Status?

[Jamesy]

I've had my M for over a year. I originally bought it as a novelty / occasional use camera and partly to see what the mirrorless fuss was all about. I recently took it to Seoul as well as my 5D2. To my surprise I ended up using the M a lot more than the DSLR simply because hauling a backpack all day long got quite painful. Maybe I'm out of shape but it's a vacation damn it and I don't need or want a workout. The M was a blessing and together with the 11-22mm lens it pretty much covered what I wanted to shoot.

Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use. Which is what a lot of people will want a camera for. I love the M as it is, even with its flaws I can work around and its still an enjoyable experience. All Canon need to do IMO really is improve upon it slightly and support the system to make it even better. Seriously, that 11-22mm lens is amazing! I highly recommend any wide angle fans to give a go! To have an image stabilized ultra wide zoom on a APS-C sensor / camera the size of your fist is incredible! Why is this not more popular??

Exactly why I picked up an M - to augment my 5D3 setup for vacations and general use. I now find myself using it far more than my FF because of the portability aspect. I just picked up the 11-22 - too early to praise or pan it - I have not even uploaded the test images as of yet.

I am looking forward to a surprise M3 from Canon for Photokina

 

[ahsanford]

there is nothing chaotic in the mirrorless market. Definitely less so than in the artificially crippled, "marketing-differentiated" world of DSLRs. Batteries, Battery grips, external WFT-Wifi bricks ... all of them totally incompatible even within one manufacturers line of cameras! Canon offering 5 different APS-C mirror-slappers in parallel - 1200D, 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D/7D II at the same time .. Nikon running 3 different APS-C DSLRs, all with the same sensor in parallel and moving towards 5 different FF DSLRs in parallel- D610, D810, Df, D4s + one new rumored. And to make the mess even worse ... all of these grandfather-DSLRs "video-optimized", although mirrorless cams will always win the video game. Naturally. No mirror to be flapped out of lights' way all the time!

Now where's the primordial ooze? The mess. The clunkiness. The mirror-slappin. Fat, greasy, old and heavy 19-century mechanical tech stuff? Looks rather like Jurassic Park to me. Soon to go extinct.

You speak as though a side needs to be taken, and that would imply you've missed my point. I'm not name-calling and pissing on mirrorless -- far from it. What I am saying is that it is a market in a very early stage and tiers/price points/styles of shooters are still being worked out.

DSLRs -- and thanks for bringing that up -- have violently clear feature sets that differentiate starter to upgrade to premium to pro to flagship. Are there too many price points? Yeah, probably. But do you know exactly why each higher line of camera commands a higher price? You betcha. That lets shooters size up who they are and what features they need. Easy peasy. It's not better and it's not worse than mirrorless. It's just a more mature market where consumers know where they stand and can opt in as best suits their budget, shooting style, and needs. (Hint: Canon and Nikon both play this arena really, really well, and they print money here as a result.)

Mirrorless, on the other hand, is still figuring out what people are willing to pay for and what matters most. It's not just sensor size (see my prior comments on point and shoot FF rigs and feature laden / pro-build m43 rigs). And until that is figured out, Canon and Nikon coming in strong wouldn't be driving the market, they would be stabbing at it in the dark, and that's not either company's style.

Canon and Nikon seem to be content to have a basic offering to appease their enthusiasts (there are strong EOS-M devotees on this very forum, even though they admit it has flaws) while the market sorts itself out. When it becomes clear what everyone wants, both will make a hard call on sticking with their mount/sensor combo and producing a ton of new lenses for it [Cough: Canon], or scrapping it for a new one that is more built for the future [Cough: Nikon].

In a sense, Canon and Nikon are waiting this market out before they are so committed to a mount/sensor combo that they have to ride it out in a poor competitive position. That's pretty wise in my book.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd love to see a mirrorless FF body that was large enough to hold, that matched the FF lenses in size and balance, that had a internal EVF, that had a battery big enough to take 900 photo CIPA rating, that had good tracking, that had fast autofocus, and so on.

We are edging closer, but its not in sight ... Yet. I'm sure its coming as soon as technology allows it. In the meantime, the compromises of a mirrorless combined with the high price do not make it attractive to me. People bought the "M" because of the low price. However, its only low because Canon is dumping them. A new improved model is going to be North of $800, and it will still be lacking.

 

[Rocky]

How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
battery life. Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.

Leica M9 or M-E

 

[justaCanonuser]

As far as sales go, I am going to suggest that mirrorless for Nikon and Canon may be slumping but Panasonic and Sony are killing it. Global sales of mirrorless are up. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/02/mirrorless-camera-sales-rising-despite-continually-shrinking-global-camera It is here in North America where adoption is slow or has slowed a lot.

If mirrorless sales really show a substantial longterm growth Canon will be forced to come up with some serious, so we customers will profit. They do have all the technical bits and pieces (dual pixel sensor) to make a decent mirrorless camera, the M was a fail because they didn't take mirrorless seriously. CaNikon only still are shitting their pants because a serious mirrorless technology may cannibalize their DSLR sales. In fact, this could indeed happen, so they finally might generate the same revenue with a much more expensive production of two lines of cameras - but also could generate new markets. That's a classic business risk, but once they will have to make a move. Nobody doubts that mirrorless is the future - as soon as fast electronic shutter systems are available. A DSLR is 100 % anachronism in digital age, but a Sony A7 type mirrorless still is 50 % anachronism with its mechanical shutter.

 

[troppobash]

"Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use."

- They absolutely do, that is why so many people own both..

+100

I went for G1X MK II for holidays and general work. Yes it only has a fixed lens and that's why I like it better than the M. I do not want to carry extra lens so I shoot with G1X II.

We live in a great time for photography....there are so many choices and one can find a camera that suits them rather than they have to suit a camera. We need to celebrate the diversity.

 

[Hillsilly]

But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.

But, but.....N-E-G-L-I-G-B-L-E! APS-C = FF

The mirrorless question doesn't have to be us vs them. As consumers, we all benefit from having a diverse range of cameras available from a wide range of innovative manufacturers. In 50 years, I'm certain people will look back at this time as a golden era of camera design.

I've got a couple of Fuji mirrorless cameras - X100 and X-E1(and previously owned an Olympus m43 camera). IMHO, they are fantastic. I still take ye olde Canons out of the cupboard when I have specialised needs, but otherwise, mirrorless cameras are more than adequate and in many cases are a much better option.

Re Canon and mirrorless - I don't think they are doing themselves any favours. If they are going to persist, they should be fully committed to the EOS-M system with more lenses being released and a family of camera bodies of differing levels of specs / price levels. Instead, currently the Eos-M is a fun accessory for a DSLR shooter rather than the stand alone system that it could be.

 

[Rocky]

Canon has all the ingrediant to make adecent mirrorless: dual pixel sensor ( from 70D or better), EVF (from 1X MK II), ability to make a smaller body ( EOS-M, SL 1), Fast processor( Digit 6) All Canon need to do is to put them together and comes up with the EOS-M3. Along with the 4 existing EOS-M lenses, that will make s decent , versatile system.

 

[Ruined]

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

 

[mackguyver]

I use DSLRs 99% of the time, but sometimes need something smaller. I've never been too happy with compacts, but the M is nice because it's the best parts of the DSLR minus some responsiveness and features. I recently considered the G1X II, but wanted something wider. It turns out that there are either no compacts wider than 24mm (equivalent), no current compacts, or if there are, they aren't easy to find via Google

My solution, the little M + 11-22 IS. I had to order it from Canada...but I'm excited to have a little 18-35 lens with IS and better IQ than most compacts out there.

 

[Tugela]

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

There isn't anything inherently inferior about a mirrorless system compared to a SLR. A7 sales may be relatively low, but that is primarily due to the fact that Canon and Nikon have market share in the high end, and brand loyalty is important in this industry.

Neither Canon nor Nikon have made the effort to make a high end mirrorless, so obviously most of the high end sales are going to be DSLRs since those companies are the ones that command brand loyalty in that segment. Cameras like the A7 are going to slowly eat into that however.

 

[ahsanford]

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

I used to feel that way -- that it was all about size -- but I really have come around that mirrorless will be our inevitable future and obsolete all but the highest end of DSLRs someday. That might be 10+ years from now due to the time needed to develop things as robust and responsive as a modern DSLR, but I think it will happen. Here's why:

• They are smaller and lighter. That's a good thing for most shooters, but not all of them.
• No mirror = no mirror slap.
• EVF have all sorts of powerful options to provide large, bright and magnified viewfinder options.
• Mirrorless makes the divide bewtween still and video a blurry and cooperative one. As every photographer will inevitably become a photographer/videographer before too long (I kid), mirrorless is better positioned to support that. Mirrorless can do all sorts of nutty things like capture video all around the time of taking a still, pull the best still from a video in post, etc. Right now, these features (yeah, like on your iPhone) are parlor tricks for photography neophytes, but in time, enthusiasts and pros will find spectacular ways to leverage this functionality to do things DSLRs cannot.
• Once the AF, EVF and shutter tech evolves sufficiently, Mirrorless is presumably far cheaper for manufacturers to make.

And all of this is coming from a guy who loves DSLRs and clings to his optical viewfinder at night. Rest assured that if mirrorless obsoletes anything, it will be to our benefit and not our disadvantage -- or we won't buy them. A high bar of happiness, control and flexibility has been set with DSLRs. Now mirrorless has to clear that bar. Their work is cut out for them, but I am geeked to see what we can do with our cameras when they finally pull it off.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

And I still see Sony's A7 as a technology project, a work in progress, etc.

Consider:

• Sony lacks many native lenses for that mount.
• They lack Canon and Nikon's massive user base.
• The tech is still being worked out -- it has a very low burst rate, the AF is not amazing, etc.
• The ergonomics and controls are functional, but certainly not loved.

Now compare that list to the 70D, 5D3 or 1DX. Those are high-performing, modern products that have been completely thought through over numerous generations and were injected into a massive user base for evaluation and improvement. So I cannot compare mirrorless to DSLRs, at least not yet. It's like comparing a polished professional with 15 of years experience against an unbelievably hard working kid that just graduated from college. Apples and oranges.

So a beast of a sensor in a tiny package is not the "pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless", it's just a beast of a sensor in a tiny package. I have not used the camera, but from reviews I've read, Sony needs to learn the demands of busy working photographers and put the knobs and switches where they ought to go, streamline the menu setup, offer more native mount lenses, and put their heads down on the AF and burst performance.

Now, when Sony has 5-10 years experience of developing these and improving them, I'd look out. They will be much better.

- A

 

[josephandrews222]

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.

I used to feel that way -- that it was all about size -- but I really have come around that mirrorless will be our inevitable future and obsolete all but the highest end of DSLRs someday. That might be 10+ years from now due to the time needed to develop things as robust and responsive as a modern DSLR, but I think it will happen. Here's why:

• They are smaller and lighter. That's a good thing for most shooters, but not all of them.
• No mirror = no mirror slap.
• EVF have all sorts of powerful options to provide large, bright and magnified viewfinder options.
• Mirrorless makes the divide bewtween still and video a blurry and cooperative one. As every photographer will inevitably become a photographer/videographer before too long (I kid), mirrorless is better positioned to support that. Mirrorless can do all sorts of nutty things like capture video all around the time of taking a still, pull the best still from a video in post, etc. Right now, these features (yeah, like on your iPhone) are parlor tricks for photography neophytes, but in time, enthusiasts and pros will find spectacular ways to leverage this functionality to do things DSLRs cannot.
• Once the AF, EVF and shutter tech evolves sufficiently, Mirrorless is presumably far cheaper for manufacturers to make.

And all of this is coming from a guy who loves DSLRs and clings to his optical viewfinder at night. Rest assured that if mirrorless obsoletes anything, it will be to our benefit and not our disadvantage -- or we won't buy them. A high bar of happiness, control and flexibility has been set with DSLRs. Now mirrorless has to clear that bar. Their work is cut out for them, but I am geeked to see what we can do with our cameras when they finally pull it off.

- A

I can add the following to your well-written post: both of my children own 'M's' (stepping up from Canon ELPHs)...and they love them. For years I tried to get them interested in my Rebel or my 40D--no luck. But they love the M+22mm combination; and one, at times, uses the 90 flash in useful ways.

As I've posted on these pages previously, my own 'M' generally has the 11-22mm lens on it. (EDIT: I do not use the supplied Canon strap; I cannibalized the connector and attached it to a Wii-type controller wrist strap...the whole thing fits in the pocket of most of my shorts. The strap also is long enough to fit around my neck.)

The M+11-22mm combination sits quite nicely on a light-and-flimsy (collapses to 12" long) four foot high tripod, a device that I would never trust any regular (I.e. heavier) DSLR to sit on. With the Canon remote, we get family vacation pix that work well in several ways...and all of the necessary gear (including the 270 flash) fits in a very modestly sized shoulder bag.

A post on this thread, I think, sort of got it right: the current M is a good daylight camera (if you accept the slow autofocus). I don't have nearly the expertise that some on this board do, but I have a bit of experience with the 5D MkIII + 35mm2.0 IS lens combo--talk about a light-gathering system!

Mirrorless isn't there yet, but I do wonder what it would take for Canon to put IS on the 22mm 2.0 M lens...and then the inevitable sensor improvement that will come with a future M (M4?!)...and if the auto-focus technology improves as well...

If Canon doesn't see this sort of thing in their future, then, in my view, their competitors will.

The future, for most photography (I think)...is sans mirror, folks. (And I LOVE my 5DMkIII!.)

 

[c.d.embrey]

Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF. No need to chimp, because you've seen the results before you pushed the button Even with something as old as my Sony NEX 5n, it's trivial to get the shot in difficult lighting I often have the 5n set-up to shoot B&W jpegs. I use a #21 Orange filter, just like I'd do when shooting film. I set the exposure by eye using the screen, try that with an optical DSLR viewfinder

 

[josephandrews222]

Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF. No need to chimp, because you've seen the results before you pushed the button Even with something as old as my Sony NEX 5n, it's trivial to get the shot in difficult lighting I often have the 5n set-up to shoot B&W jpegs. I use a #21 Orange filter, just like I'd do when shooting film. I set the exposure by eye using the screen, try that with an optical DSLR viewfinder

I agree with this post--wholeheartedly.

My very best concert shots were shot with a Canon S95 (admittedly from the front row); my wife's favorite artist (would you believe Todd Rundgren?!)...never looked so good. Making things right via the screen...in real time...nice arrangement for sure.

 

[ahsanford]

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?

- A

LOL, that seems to negate the biggest advantages of mirrorless! It's like the HDSLR video cage + accessory contraptions. I realize the price difference is huge in that case, but some of those are just ridiculous!

 

[unfocused]

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?

- A

LOL, that seems to negate the biggest advantages of mirrorless!...

I had somewhat the same reaction. What's the point? Once you put a viewfinder on a mirrorless (and I wouldn't want one without a viewfinder) they start looking a whole lot like a DSLR.

To answer the question: It might be the future, if...electronic viewfinders can improve to the point where they are actually better than optical viewfinders. But they have to be better, not just equal or comparable.

I think that when and if mirrorless cameras replace DSLRs, they are likely to look very much like DSLRs because the basic form factor (a box with a viewfinder to look directly through to see the subject) has evolved into the easiest to use format for cameras available. Stepping backwards to the old view camera model where the photographer looks at a screen on the back of the camera may be fine for subjects that don't move much, but just isn't very convenient for accurate and quick composing of photographs.

My guess is that the transition will be gradual and if I were placing bets, I'd bet we are at least two to three generations away from a 5D Mirrorless.

Alternative theory: Mirrorless will evolve into something that looks very different from today's cameras. All cameras today are based on the idea that the photographer holds it close to his face with the viewfinder to his eye. Even cameras without viewfinders are based on that model, which is why they are so clunky to use. They ask you to take a design that was meant to be held close to the face to keep steady and then hold it away from your face, making it hard to compose, hold it steady and operate the controls.

Ergonomically, a smart phone is actually better to use than a camera without a viewfinder. It's small, light, fits naturally in one hand and is a lot easier to balance. Plus, you can hold it in one hand and use a finger to touch the focus point without shaking it.

I'm thinking that an innovative camera designer ought to be look at how people hold and use their smart phones and start designing cameras to take advantage of the smart phone model. Of course, I'm guessing that for the near future, that would pretty much preclude the idea of large sensors and large or long lenses.

 

[c.d.embrey]

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?

- A

This is the future of FULL FRAME. Sooner or later Canon will build something very close to this (so will Nikon).

To me, this is a good example of be careful of what you wish for ???