Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Sony's new A9 is killer

[Luds34]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Here is what you're missing. Wildlife often moves and acts with extreme speed and one may be quite unaware of what one is missing. There is a lot that goes on in 50 or 20 ms. If you've never seen it then presumably you don't care but it is an eye-opener for me. Here is and example of 14 FPS giving me the tongue lick. What tends to happen is that you see or sense something is about to happen and nail maybe 4 to 6 shots and of course hope.

Jack

 

[sanj]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.

 

[HarryFilm]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.

---

I AGREE !!!

Even TWO MORE FRAMES per second is a big deal.
In the image below I took 24 photos in rapid succession but ONLY ONE IMAGE had just the right focus, perfect animal positioning and rushing water look I wanted in this type of Rugged Wild West Coast of British Columbia, Canada imagery.

I wish the weather was better (it's almost ALWAYS stormy and grey!) but this image tells the story of just how rugged the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America can be. Only because of HIGH FRAME SPEED, can I capture this type of image easily!

---

So the more frames per second I have the better!

(p.s. It really did look that weird overall blue tone colour...it was like a blue mist all around me!)

 

[Don Haines]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.

---

I AGREE !!!

Even TWO MORE FRAMES per second is a big deal.
In the image below I took 24 photos in rapid succession but ONLY ONE IMAGE had just the right focus, perfect animal positioning and rushing water look I wanted in this type of Rugged Wild West Coast of British Columbia, Canada imagery.

I wish the weather was better (it's almost ALWAYS stormy and grey!) but this image tells the story of just how rugged the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America can be. Only because of HIGH FRAME SPEED, can I capture this type of image easily!

---

So the more frames per second I have the better!

(p.s. It really did look that weird overall blue tone colour...it was like a blue mist all around me!)

Ok.... but now think about small birds.... they move FAST!!!!!!!!! Even 20 FPS isn't enough for them...

I hope that when Canon comes out with a FF mirrorless it gives us a 60FPS (or faster) mode, even if it means a reduction of resolution.

 

[Orangutan]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.

---

I AGREE !!!

Even TWO MORE FRAMES per second is a big deal.
In the image below I took 24 photos in rapid succession but ONLY ONE IMAGE had just the right focus, perfect animal positioning and rushing water look I wanted in this type of Rugged Wild West Coast of British Columbia, Canada imagery.

I wish the weather was better (it's almost ALWAYS stormy and grey!) but this image tells the story of just how rugged the Pacific Northwest Coast of North America can be. Only because of HIGH FRAME SPEED, can I capture this type of image easily!

---

So the more frames per second I have the better!

(p.s. It really did look that weird overall blue tone colour...it was like a blue mist all around me!)

Ok.... but now think about small birds.... they move FAST!!!!!!!!! Even 20 FPS isn't enough for them...

I hope that when Canon comes out with a FF mirrorless it gives us a 60FPS (or faster) mode, even if it means a reduction of resolution.

Of course you're joking, but in 10 years we may all shoot 60fps-120fps "raw" video; you'll touch the spots on one frame that you'd like to have in focus, and the software will use face recognition to select the best 5 frames of the 7,000 you shot of that hummingbird.

 

[scyrene]

I feel like there has been too much made of this FPS talk. Disclaimer, frame rate is lost on me a bit as most of the time my style photography doesn't require it (and I very very rarely have done spray and prey). However, with all that said this 20 FPS (with all the asterisks and caveats) seems to be hooking too many on pure specmanship alone.

How many frames per second does one need to accomplish their task? I'd argue that you hit diminishing rates of return very quickly beyond 10. Even in the very demanding sports or wildlife photography, how many here would accept the excuse for a missed (or not hitting the) shot from one who claimed they just didn't have enough fps when they were shooting with a camera capable of 10?

Go from 5 fps to 10 fps and that is a huge difference. But after that it's just icing on the cake. What is the 1D at now? 12 or 14 (depending on shooting config) and if you can't capture your shot is it really the camera at point?

Again, once you hit 10+ fps rates, the important parts become, the focus tracking ability, blackout and ability to follow the subject, etc.

For sports and wildlife, more the better. Even 2 fps increment helps. 12 to 14 is better in real world. In next version on 1d it may go up to 16 and that will be even better.

More is better, but in most other areas, you get diminishing returns for the same increment. 50mm focal length from 50 to 100mm makes a much greater difference than 450-500mm; 5MP from 10-15MP is a bigger difference than 30-35MP. Is fps different somehow? I'd imagine the step of e.g. 2fps from 2-4fps is bigger than 12-14fps - or is that not so?

 

[Sabaki]

Alternatively one can learn their gear, observe animal behaviour and grab excellent images with 7, 8, 10, 14 fps.

I'm not sure what the masses think but I enjoy the idea that I deliver some skill in getting a good image. Would we want a 100fps to guarantee a shot?

 

[jayphotoworks]

Alternatively one can learn their gear, observe animal behaviour and grab excellent images with 7, 8, 10, 14 fps.

I'm not sure what the masses think but I enjoy the idea that I deliver some skill in getting a good image. Would we want a 100fps to guarantee a shot?

I would say that any real change in the market won't happen for at least 5+ years. Making any system change decisions today based on the multitude of comments and white noise about the DSLR mainstays going away are premature. If you consider the next winter Olympics is in 2018 and the next summer Olympics is in 2020, Sony will probably not have the momentum needed at that point to convert pros en masse. Nikon, a powerhouse in itself wasn't even able to catch Canon over a number of iterative releases and they have a FULL complement of super telephotos and service way beyond what Sony has today. Sony can't simply compete at par, they need at a hole in one to have a chance at convincing people to change. That is assuming that Canon waits until signs of market share erosion to throw their r&d into a response.

It would be great if Canon could be a one-stop shop for me, but it just isn't in their product dna/roadmap currently. If Canon continued to path started by the 5D2 years ago, and offered a more competitive product in the EOS Cinema lineup vs the competition, I would probably be shooting some mythical mirrorless 8Dc 5K+C450 6K today and not have to learn 3 systems and manage 2 sets of lenses. Would probably be the same amount invested overall.

But I would have to say in terms of video, unless you are willing to be stuck in the Sony Ecosystem, those FE lenses won't mount anywhere else. The flange distance precludes the design of any adapters which means these lenses have no value when you work in a team that uses different equipment.

 

[davidhfe]

Alternatively one can learn their gear, observe animal behaviour and grab excellent images with 7, 8, 10, 14 fps.

I'm not sure what the masses think but I enjoy the idea that I deliver some skill in getting a good image. Would we want a 100fps to guarantee a shot?

Are you asking if I'd want a camera that can shoot 100fps with full AE/AF at full resolution? Yes. Absolutely.

 

[Jack Douglas]

And when it's all said and done, the higher the FPS the more time wasted weeding. I try to restrain my trigger finger. As mentioned the speed of AF just doesn't presently cut it so what good is higher speed if the focus can't adapt when there is serious movement.

Jack

 

[davidhfe]

And when it's all said and done, the higher the FPS the more time wasted weeding. I try to restrain my trigger finger. As mentioned the speed of AF just doesn't presently cut it so what good is higher speed if the focus can't adapt when there is serious movement.

Jack

Storage space aside (since we're doing a bit of handwaving here), weeding wouldn't have to be a huge issue. The iPhone does a great job of stacking bursts; you can easily go in and select which one photo out of the burst is the keeper.

 

[Jack Douglas]

And when it's all said and done, the higher the FPS the more time wasted weeding. I try to restrain my trigger finger. As mentioned the speed of AF just doesn't presently cut it so what good is higher speed if the focus can't adapt when there is serious movement.

Jack

Storage space aside (since we're doing a bit of handwaving here), weeding wouldn't have to be a huge issue. The iPhone does a great job of stacking bursts; you can easily go in and select which one photo out of the burst is the keeper.

Any suggestion for my situation?

Jack

 

[XL+]

Here is what you're missing. Wildlife often moves and acts with extreme speed and one may be quite unaware of what one is missing. There is a lot that goes on in 50 or 20 ms. If you've never seen it then presumably you don't care but it is an eye-opener for me. Here is and example of 14 FPS giving me the tongue lick. What tends to happen is that you see or sense something is about to happen and nail maybe 4 to 6 shots and of course hope.

Jack

Not only more fps are needed, but also an faster AF system. I know, everyone will bash me, but the AF accuracy in moving subjects is not top.
Shooting BIF at an "airshow" where the birds do fly from one stand to another caused a lot of shots that were out of focus with the 5DIV, lesser with my 7DII and also more lesser with the XT-2. Shot with the 100-400 from both companies. The AF system of the XT-2 ist superfast and creats a lot more sharp shots than my Canon gear. MLS cams maybe have an advantage over our SLRs, as there are no moving parts.
So, our favourtite brand would do best, if they react on the coming threats (A99II,7RIII), so the leading position on the market would not be lost.

 

[ahsanford]

Not only more fps are needed, but also an faster AF system. I know, everyone will bash me, but the AF accuracy in moving subjects is not top.
Shooting BIF at an "airshow" where the birds do fly from one stand to another caused a lot of shots that were out of focus with the 5DIV, lesser with my 7DII and also more lesser with the XT-2. Shot with the 100-400 from both companies. The AF system of the XT-2 ist superfast and creats a lot more sharp shots than my Canon gear. MLS cams maybe have an advantage over our SLRs, as there are no moving parts.

Ah yes, that would explain all the Fuji X rigs being used on the sidelines at sporting events.

- A

 

[hmatthes]

Re: Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Regardless of Sony's new A9

I've been shooting Canon EOS almost exclusively since 1988. My 1988 vintage 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 just went to my grandson's kit for a birthday gift. I love using his SL/1 and his images are fantastic.

Let's cut to the chase: A camera is a recorder of light and IQ is everything. It exists to use our glass.

Mirrorless?
Hell Yes I Want One -- IF:
It natively uses my EF glass
It has the 5D-4 user interface
the EVF equals (exceeds?) the Leica SL or Q
Exp Comp is instantly reflected on both EVF and Live View

My Leica Q reawakened my art. EVF to my eye, simple, logical controls that are right under my fingers,
I can see/adjust/compose in real-time and capture exactly what I feel.

Even though Aperature/Shutter/ExpComp/ISO are easy to control, my EOS bodies seem awkward in comparison to the Q. But my glass collection is timeless perfection -- more costly than cameras.

Leave Canon for another system - Never.
Use my EF glass on a EOS mirrorless 5D/6D - Nirvana!

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Regardless of Sony's new A9

Let's cut to the chase: A camera is a recorder of light and IQ is everything.

Respectfully:

1) Go tell a birder (or even a guy chasing his kids in the backyard) that 'IQ is everything' when the camera's AF misses the shot.

2) Go tell a photojourno that 'IQ is everything' as he fumbles through a camera's awkward controls/interface to get the setting he wants only to end up missing the shot.

3) Go tell a wedding photographer that 'IQ is everything' while his older DSLR shutter sounds like a percussion instrument while the ceremony is happening.

4) Go tell a mother or father shooting their kid's first steps that 'IQ is everything' when their memory card dies and there is no backup due to their camera having a single card slot.

I could do this all day.

We don't all shoot with NASA toleranced manual glass on a bellows large format rig because -- perhaps -- there are realities other than IQ and some folks really care about those realities.

- A

 

[Jack Douglas]

Re: Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Regardless of Sony's new A9

Let's cut to the chase: A camera is a recorder of light and IQ is everything.

Respectfully:

1) Go tell a birder (or even a guy chasing his kids in the backyard) that 'IQ is everything' when the camera's AF misses the shot.

2) Go tell a photojourno that 'IQ is everything' as he fumbles through a camera's awkward controls/interface to get the setting he wants only to end up missing the shot.

3) Go tell a wedding photographer that 'IQ is everything' while his older DSLR shutter sounds like a percussion instrument while the ceremony is happening.

4) Go tell a mother or father shooting their kid's first steps that 'IQ is everything' when their memory card dies and there is no backup due to their camera having a single card slot.

I could do this all day.

We don't all shoot with NASA toleranced manual glass on a bellows large format rig because -- perhaps -- there are realities other than IQ and some folks really care about those realities.

- A

Fair enough but when my resulting IQ is less than my finicky nature tolerates, it's in the bin; meaning I have nothing. I'm sure you agree we need it all.

Jack

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Regardless of Sony's new A9

Fair enough but when my resulting IQ is less than my finicky nature tolerates, it's in the bin; meaning I have nothing. I'm sure you agree we need it all.

Jack

Sure. We each have our own chain of priorities, and they are based on what we think we need to get the output we need.

But I think very few of us, if any, are truly 'one issue voters' when it comes to buying gear. Everything is a trade off, and we count on many more of a camera's features that we might prioritize in an internet forum.

- A

 

[Jack Douglas]

Re: Canon must hurry up on FF mirrorless, Regardless of Sony's new A9

Fair enough but when my resulting IQ is less than my finicky nature tolerates, it's in the bin; meaning I have nothing. I'm sure you agree we need it all.

Jack

Sure. We each have our own chain of priorities, and they are based on what we think we need to get the output we need.

But I think very few of us, if any, are truly 'one issue voters' when it comes to buying gear. Everything is a trade off, and we count on many more of a camera's features that we might prioritize in an internet forum.

- A

Of course, and the biggest personal trade off so far in my DSLR existence has been giving up 30 MP to have 1 series 20 MP performance. That stung. Of course, I want just one camera to do as much as possible for portability reasons.

Jack