Canon mirrorless: Status?
- Thread starter canonvoir
- Start date
canonvoir said:
If they don't then Rebel series cameras will become the bulky alternative to Fuji/Sony/Olympus/etc. The separate EVF for the G1X II shows that they have another ingredient in place for future mirrorless models. It reminds me of the messing around with autofocus before Eos was launched in 1987.
It will happen, it's just a question of when.
Upvote
0
I am giving the a7s a very serious look. I have accepted that no mirrorless will work for sports at the moment nor would I want to switch systems where there are limited lens selection. But for vacations, landscape, it could be a fun endeavor to play with and low light night photos are the ones I take the most of.
I was really hoping Canon would step up with something. My original M is ok for a day camera but that is about it and by ok I mean I have accepted the slow AF.
I was really hoping Canon would step up with something. My original M is ok for a day camera but that is about it and by ok I mean I have accepted the slow AF.
Upvote
0
yes at this stage one of life's great mysteries seems to be Canon's future plans re product releases...nobody really knows whats potting...so wait and see 
Upvote
0
All of the pieces of the puzzle are there. Besides the existing tech and lenses, there's:
Additional lens patents - obviously they won't all show up but Canon is still working on things...
DPAF from the 70D
EVF-DC1 - the EVF from the G1X II
Hinged touchscreen from the G1X II
I think it would be a HUGE mistake not to put those pieces of the puzzle together for consumers to purchase. The EOS M form factor, the 20mp DPAF sensor, an optional (or perhaps integrated) EVF, a hinged touchscreen (I think an articulated TS like on the 70D would be a mistake and would increase the size too much), a fantastic converter for using EF/EF-S lenses, and the now 4 native Canon M lenses covering from 11-200mm (17-320 in FF) with stabilized high quality glass plus a fast wide-ish/normal prime. IMO, all they need are a few primes (30 or 35 and 50) and it's a complete system for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users.
Now, I think the biggest question is whether the focusing speed of the system is related more to the lenses, or the sensor. My 35mm f/2 IS USM focuses pretty quickly on the EOS M, it's definitely faster than the native 22/2. To me, that means the limitation in that equation (M + 22) is NOT the camera, it's the lens' focusing motor. DPAF won't cure that.
Additional lens patents - obviously they won't all show up but Canon is still working on things...
DPAF from the 70D
EVF-DC1 - the EVF from the G1X II
Hinged touchscreen from the G1X II
I think it would be a HUGE mistake not to put those pieces of the puzzle together for consumers to purchase. The EOS M form factor, the 20mp DPAF sensor, an optional (or perhaps integrated) EVF, a hinged touchscreen (I think an articulated TS like on the 70D would be a mistake and would increase the size too much), a fantastic converter for using EF/EF-S lenses, and the now 4 native Canon M lenses covering from 11-200mm (17-320 in FF) with stabilized high quality glass plus a fast wide-ish/normal prime. IMO, all they need are a few primes (30 or 35 and 50) and it's a complete system for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users.
Now, I think the biggest question is whether the focusing speed of the system is related more to the lenses, or the sensor. My 35mm f/2 IS USM focuses pretty quickly on the EOS M, it's definitely faster than the native 22/2. To me, that means the limitation in that equation (M + 22) is NOT the camera, it's the lens' focusing motor. DPAF won't cure that.
Upvote
0
You only need to look at the public sales figures for mirrorless cameras to see why Canon is not pushing one. Sales are poor and dropping rapidly. Canon and Nikon executives have admitted this, and the sales figures bear it out. We do not know other than statements made saying that buyers in the US and Europe prefer DSLR's to Mirrorless, buyers see mirrorless as just another point and shoot.
Manufacturers who produce products that don't sell are going to be in big trouble. There are some that produce a relatively few cameras for high prices to serve the niche market.
Sony sales of Digital cameras are plummeting like everyone else, they do not give information about specific types, but point and shoot cameras are certainly the biggest part of the drop. Their push for mirrorless cameras provides buyers with options, but don't forget... Sony drops divisions that are losing money and leaves buyers stranded. No more Sony PC's or Laptops, they exited that business. Sellers still have them in inventory, but Sony wrote them off.
With the Camera business hurting, they might be next.
Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.
Canon is doing relatively well due to strong sales in industrial segments, they were stung severely by the poor "M" sales, they will not send good money after bad.
Manufacturers who produce products that don't sell are going to be in big trouble. There are some that produce a relatively few cameras for high prices to serve the niche market.
Sony sales of Digital cameras are plummeting like everyone else, they do not give information about specific types, but point and shoot cameras are certainly the biggest part of the drop. Their push for mirrorless cameras provides buyers with options, but don't forget... Sony drops divisions that are losing money and leaves buyers stranded. No more Sony PC's or Laptops, they exited that business. Sellers still have them in inventory, but Sony wrote them off.
With the Camera business hurting, they might be next.
Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.
Canon is doing relatively well due to strong sales in industrial segments, they were stung severely by the poor "M" sales, they will not send good money after bad.
Upvote
0
The Youtube videos of the M2 show that the sensor went a looooong way in speeding up AF. Probably a bit of both the lens and sensor working on the speed. Doesn't have to give me 11 fps in continuous focus, just not hunt forever for focus in low light/indoor.
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.
Can you blame us? Canon's first release of a piss poor implementation of such a camera would stunt growth all day long. Who operated the M and said, "We are good. Ship it. That AF will get better over time."? I won't rehash the issues but no tethered shooting is
.
Would be nice to have a smaller body camera that doesn't advertise "mug me for my gear" a lot of times.
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.
Can you blame us? Canon's first release of a piss poor implementation of such a camera would stunt growth all day long. Who operated the M and said, "We are good. Ship it. That AF will get better over time."? I won't rehash the issues but no tethered shooting is
.Would be nice to have a smaller body camera that doesn't advertise "mug me for my gear" a lot of times.
Upvote
0
e17paul said:
Yeah, I was stunned to see Canon's first ever consumer EVF head to a high end point and shoot line like the G1X II and not be offered for the EOS-M.
I don't believe mirrorless is such a certain and imminent part of our future that Canon and Nikon will be overrun by it someday (as pundits at many photo blogs would believe), but both have tremendously underwhelmed with their mirrorless offerings to date.
Canon has to decide if they want to risk cannibalizing SLR sales and offer a more comprehensive mirrorless system. So far, the answer has been a resounding 'No'. They still lack:
- An EVF
- Native EF-M mount lenses
- High quality lenses with USM (no, on an adapter does not count)
Until those things are offered, EOS-M will only be a second/third body for people with tons of Canon glass or a first body for people who don't know how much better their other options are.
- A
Upvote
0
canonvoir said:
...without needing an adapter. Adapters are a bridge to EF/EF-S glass until more EF-M lenses are made. But buying an EOS-M and then slapping an adaptor on it is a fail. The killer app for this system is size, and when you bolt the old mirror box distance back on, what's the point?
Small EF-M high quality primes with USM, an EVF, and DPAF would make this go from a no way to a no brainer for me. I don't need L primes --> just make them as good as the recent non-L IS USM lenses we've seen recently. I'd be ecstatic with that in a small EF-M form factor.
But the minute it looks like this (see attached), I'll stay with my proper SLR.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
I use the M lenses. So the point is I want a smaller body and package. Having an adapter has its advantages. The M is currently a C sensor so I get a nice 1.6x multiplier. But the main use of my M is done in daylight. Higher ISO ability means Canon can stick with f/4 glass and not resort to larger lenses. I am all about a smaller package.
I won't be sticking on my 300 2.8 unless I need that reach in the day time on something that is not moving. ;-)
I won't be sticking on my 300 2.8 unless I need that reach in the day time on something that is not moving. ;-)
Upvote
0
Canon hopefully have learned their lesson. Do NOT bring sub-par specced gear (EOS-M) to market, asking WAY TOO HIGH PRICES for it (EOS-M).
I definitely expect an
* EOS M3
body size like EOS-M2, AF as good as Sony A6000/5100, sensor equal, Wifi built in, flash built-in priced competitively [i.e. around USD/€ 650 including EF-M 18-55]
plus additionally
* a much better specced EOS M "Pro 1"
with kick-butt 7D II sensor, mirrorless class-leading DP-AF, fully articulated touch-screen 1920x1080 Full-HD res, WiFI, GPS and RT-Commander built in; 4k video like pany GH4, body size slightly smaller than Fuji XT-1, 1 thumb/select wheel in back, plus 1 dial close to shutter, priced competitively at around USD/€ 1299,-
any time soon.
Followed somewhat later by the announcement of the Canon FF EOS XL1" and "XL 3" mirroless cams plus new short-back lens mount Canon EF-XL and initial native lens selection of 24-70/4.0 plus pancake set of 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75/2.8. 8) 8) 8)
Guess, which one I will pre-order!
I definitely expect an
* EOS M3
body size like EOS-M2, AF as good as Sony A6000/5100, sensor equal, Wifi built in, flash built-in priced competitively [i.e. around USD/€ 650 including EF-M 18-55]
plus additionally
* a much better specced EOS M "Pro 1"
with kick-butt 7D II sensor, mirrorless class-leading DP-AF, fully articulated touch-screen 1920x1080 Full-HD res, WiFI, GPS and RT-Commander built in; 4k video like pany GH4, body size slightly smaller than Fuji XT-1, 1 thumb/select wheel in back, plus 1 dial close to shutter, priced competitively at around USD/€ 1299,-
any time soon.
Followed somewhat later by the announcement of the Canon FF EOS XL1" and "XL 3" mirroless cams plus new short-back lens mount Canon EF-XL and initial native lens selection of 24-70/4.0 plus pancake set of 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75/2.8. 8) 8) 8)
Guess, which one I will pre-order!
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
The point is very simple. I want ONE fully capable camera system only. ONE battery type, ONE charger. ONE lens mount. ONE user interface to learn and know by heart and blindfolded.
Whenever possible, I like to go really small and light. Small and light camera body plus one or a few small + light native short-flangeback lenses. I am willing to limit myself to and including 200mm on APS-C [witness the EF-M 55-200] or about 85mm focal length on FF.
Only ocassionally my shooting situations will require larger gear. Either studio (lights) or events in darkish places (speedlites plus fast glass), or a "longish tele" [in my case max. 400mm] or a Tilt-Shift or some other more "special" lens (fisheye 8-15, 100 Macro etc.],
In many of these shooting situations - especially with larger lenses) I also carry along and use a tripod and have my DSRLs in LiveView mode. So I do not use or need any of the mirror or OVF. I would be much better served by a small and light mirrorless camera. Especially if it had a fully electronic shutter without any vibrations and any noise. Plus EVF. E.g. for use at concerts (classical music).
I have no need whatsoever for a mirrorslappin' DSLR ... IF and when I get a fully capable (FF-sensored, 6fps, tracking AF as good as or better than Sony A6000 Fuji XT-1) small and light mirrorless camera. I'd be willing to bridge the time until then with a really good Canon EOS M3 ("Pro") with APS-C sensor.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Sorry, what do you consider "junk levels?" There is no such thing as "junk stock" and if there were such a thing, a stock with a 590.7 billion dollar market cap and a 12.5 P/E ratio would certainly not be one of them. Nikon is nowhere near its lowest stock price. Just because its stock has been on a slow steady marginal decline for a few month does not mean that Nikon is in any kind of long-term trouble.
Upvote
0
I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately. Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions. They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities. Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.
I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost. Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with. In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps. Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.
I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?
This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales. Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options. Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now: "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent. If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."
But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now. Won't happen for years and years. Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options. You'll find more joy there.
- A
I also do not understand why folks want reach for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost. Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with. In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps. Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.
I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?
This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M in an intelligent way to protect SLR sales. Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options. Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now: "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent. If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."
But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve all their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now. Won't happen for years and years. Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up their mounts with more options. You'll find more joy there.
- A
Attachments
Upvote
0
Nothing can stop mirrorless. Only open question is how fast it's goint to happen. Some DSLRs will be avalaible for a long time, similar to MF cameras todays and vinyl records.
It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect" DSLR sales by NOT offering the most attractive possible mirrorless camera systems. Economies are much better for mirrorless bodies. They can be produced quite a bit cheaper than correspondingly featured DSLRs [due to lack of mechanical elements needing very careful alignment and adjustment] .. but can be sold at rather similar prices. For that reason alone mirrorless will succeed.
If Canon does not start to offer these soon and "in earnest", they will loose out. Including FF (135 format) sensors and lenses. No matter what their analysts may say. Others will offer these cameras and there will be market share losses.
Yes, a 70-200/2.8 will always be a fairly sizeable lens. But most amateurs and pro's do not NEED a 70-200/2.8 ALL THE TIME. When more than 300mm focal length are used - especially with a fast tele lens, it is more often than not used on a tripod/gimbal or on a monopod. A small camera body will not hurt handling then ... all that's reuqired is to shift the lens-camera combination a bit backwards on the Arca plate attached to the lens collar foot to get it nicely into balance on the pivot point.
It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect" DSLR sales by NOT offering the most attractive possible mirrorless camera systems. Economies are much better for mirrorless bodies. They can be produced quite a bit cheaper than correspondingly featured DSLRs [due to lack of mechanical elements needing very careful alignment and adjustment] .. but can be sold at rather similar prices. For that reason alone mirrorless will succeed.
If Canon does not start to offer these soon and "in earnest", they will loose out. Including FF (135 format) sensors and lenses. No matter what their analysts may say. Others will offer these cameras and there will be market share losses.
Yes, a 70-200/2.8 will always be a fairly sizeable lens. But most amateurs and pro's do not NEED a 70-200/2.8 ALL THE TIME. When more than 300mm focal length are used - especially with a fast tele lens, it is more often than not used on a tripod/gimbal or on a monopod. A small camera body will not hurt handling then ... all that's reuqired is to shift the lens-camera combination a bit backwards on the Arca plate attached to the lens collar foot to get it nicely into balance on the pivot point.
Upvote
0
I agree with this statement 100%. When long focal lengths are required you will see everyone grab their DSLR for the foreseeable future. Producing 300 2.8 + type lenses is so specialized I doubt Canon/Nikon make any real margin on those products.
You want to be where the masses are. You need more affordable options for the economy of today. You need higher ISO performance to take advantage of f/4 glass instead of 2.8/2/etc. to reduce cost to consumers and get them in on your lenses. It is not only coming, mirrorless is here and Sony is hitting it hard. I am just deciding between the a6000 and a7s to tide me over until next year when things get real serious for mirrorless FF Sony cameras. I am going to try and wait for Photokina announcements but you know how us camera guys are about the opportunity for new gear. In the meantime, I have my first two Sony Zeiss lenses picked out and ready to order.
Be ahead of the curve. Canon is so far behind I am not sure wtf they have been doing. I still can't believe we are left with an M in North America after all this time. One would surely realize the shortcomings of the M and fix them to pick up better sales.
You want to be where the masses are. You need more affordable options for the economy of today. You need higher ISO performance to take advantage of f/4 glass instead of 2.8/2/etc. to reduce cost to consumers and get them in on your lenses. It is not only coming, mirrorless is here and Sony is hitting it hard. I am just deciding between the a6000 and a7s to tide me over until next year when things get real serious for mirrorless FF Sony cameras. I am going to try and wait for Photokina announcements but you know how us camera guys are about the opportunity for new gear. In the meantime, I have my first two Sony Zeiss lenses picked out and ready to order.
Be ahead of the curve. Canon is so far behind I am not sure wtf they have been doing. I still can't believe we are left with an M in North America after all this time. One would surely realize the shortcomings of the M and fix them to pick up better sales.
AvTvM said:Nothing can stop mirrorless. Only open question is how fast it's goint to happen. Some DSLRs will be avalaible for a long time, similar to MF cameras todays and vinyl records.
It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect" DSLR sales by NOT offering the most attractive possible mirrorless camera systems. Economies are much better for mirrorless bodies. They can be produced quite a bit cheaper than correspondingly featured DSLRs [due to lack of mechanical elements needing very careful alignment and adjustment] .. but can be sold at rather similar prices. For that reason alone mirrorless will succeed.
If Canon does not start to offer these soon and "in earnest", they will loose out. Including FF (135 format) sensors and lenses. No matter what their analysts may say. Others will offer these cameras and there will be market share losses.
Yes, a 70-200/2.8 will always be a fairly sizeable lens. But most amateurs and pro's do not NEED a 70-200/2.8 ALL THE TIME. When more than 300mm focal length are used - especially with a fast tele lens, it is more often than not used on a tripod/gimbal or on a monopod. A small camera body will not hurt handling then ... all that's reuqired is to shift the lens-camera combination a bit backwards on the Arca plate attached to the lens collar foot to get it nicely into balance on the pivot point.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I like the option of reach — I'd be very happy to see mirrorless shrink some big lenses. A 70-200/2.8 is a bear to carry (3.28 pounds!), not to mention even larger telephotos. By comparison, a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 weighs just 13 ounces and provides the same reach. Similarly, an Olympus 75/1.8 is tiny when compared with a Canon 135/2, thought they provide about the same reach.
Canon could build some smallish lenses for a new generation of Eos M (with EVF and fast autofocus), like a 45-135mm/2.8 IS. Fuji is going to introduce a 50-140mm/2.8 lens for their X cameras, which is basically the same idea.
Upvote
0
Eagle Eye said:
As an investor, I'd say that any stock that is at only 90% of its original first-day opening price fifteen years later is a junk stock. I mean, if you played the market right, you could make money on Nikon stock by buying and selling at the right times, but as a long-term investment, a stock that isn't growing and pays minimal dividends is basically worthless.
By my back-of-the-napkin math, assuming the list of dividends is complete and accurate, if you bought a share of Nikon stock when it was first listed on the market fifteen years ago, you'd have seen an average annual growth (including dividends, but not including interest on those dividends) of about a third of a percent. If you don't include the dividends in the math, you'd have lost about 10% of your wealth. You'd just about do as well to stick the money in a savings account, or even under your mattress.
This is not saying that Nikon is in trouble, mind you—there's no reason to believe that they can't continue for a long time at these levels—but as a stock, they seem pretty uninteresting.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
That's what I did...I have two MFT cameras that complement my 5DIII.
I have two "full" kits...and let me say that my MFT kit is more than adequate for a LOT of my photography. It is high quality and a pleasure to use. It is too bad that Canon does not pursue this wonderful compact solution to photography in any really meaningful way. They could lead the pack. "To me" the M is not much of a camera.
..but I know that everyone does not feel that way..and that's ok.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Deleted member 399245
- EOS R
