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

[dak723]

We must ask ourselves a simple question.... Why would you like to go FF instead of using a crop camera?

The almost universal answer is because we want improved image quality.....

If we want improved image quality, then we also want top quality lenses....

This is the point where the argument for thin mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distances falls apart.

To get a thin mirrorless camera with a short flange distance, you need to re-design the lenses to bend the light more sharply, and when you bend the light more sharply, you end up with more distortion and more problems with chromatic aberration. This causes you to loose image quality, and that violates the reason why you went FF in the first place. The next problem occurs at the sensor. Since the light is now at more of an angle to the sensor, there is more light lost through hitting the sides of the photocells and more light lost through vignetting. Loss of light means loss of image quality and the heavier vignetting adds in more noise when you correct for it in software.

Photography is about the capture of light. When Canon gives us a FF mirrorless, they will make sure that it is worth buying it, so expect a 5D size body and EF lenses on it.

Let us hope you are correct. If Canon listens to photographers, then they will probably get it right. If they listen to the spec lovers who dominate all the forums, they may feel pressured into putting out an inferior product before they are really ready (like Sony does, for example).

 

[Ryananthony]

We must ask ourselves a simple question.... Why would you like to go FF instead of using a crop camera?

The almost universal answer is because we ant improved image quality.....

If we want improved image quality, then we also want top quality lenses....

This is the point where the argument for thin mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distances falls apart.

To get a thin mirrorless camera with a short flange distance, you need to re-design the lenses to bend the light more sharply, and when you bend the light more sharply, you end up with more distortion and more problems with chromatic aberration. This causes you to loose image quality, and that violates the reason why you went FF in the first place. The next problem occurs at the sensor. Since the light is now at more of an angle to the sensor, there is more light lost through hitting the sides of the photocells and more light lost through vignetting. Loss of light means loss of image quality and the heavier vignetting adds in more noise when you correct for it in software.

Photography is about the capture of light. When Canon gives us a FF mirrorless, they will make sure that it is worth buying it, so expect a 5D size body and EF lenses on it.

I'm rather uneducated on the topic, but would the short flange distance be the reason why sigma hasn't simply made a mount for the Sony, it is more complicated then just changing the mount?

Edit: the sigma art line up.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

We must ask ourselves a simple question.... Why would you like to go FF instead of using a crop camera?

The almost universal answer is because we ant improved image quality.....

If we want improved image quality, then we also want top quality lenses....

This is the point where the argument for thin mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distances falls apart.

To get a thin mirrorless camera with a short flange distance, you need to re-design the lenses to bend the light more sharply, and when you bend the light more sharply, you end up with more distortion and more problems with chromatic aberration. This causes you to loose image quality, and that violates the reason why you went FF in the first place. The next problem occurs at the sensor. Since the light is now at more of an angle to the sensor, there is more light lost through hitting the sides of the photocells and more light lost through vignetting. Loss of light means loss of image quality and the heavier vignetting adds in more noise when you correct for it in software.

Photography is about the capture of light. When Canon gives us a FF mirrorless, they will make sure that it is worth buying it, so expect a 5D size body and EF lenses on it.

I'm rather uneducated on the topic, but would the short flange distance be the reason why sigma hasn't simply made a mount for the Sony, it is more complicated then just changing the mount?

Edit: the sigma art line up.

Replacing a lens mount is not enough, but all optical design has to be designed for a certain distance between the flange and the image sensor. In the specific case of the Sony A7, the optical design must juggle so that the light reaches the corners of the full frame sensor.

 

[romanr74]

In terms of Canon OR Sony satisfying their fan base, BOTH companies seem to be converging on a common consumer bracket. Right now, Canon has the edge in pro stills photography where Sony rules the roost in Smartphone sensors (their biggest market by far!) and broadcast video gear.

Careful...your bias is showing. Canon 'has the edge' over Sony in pro still photography? Sure, just like China has the edge over Zimbabwe in GDP. :

Sony 'rules the roost' for broadcast video gear? For heads, sure...but last time I checked, it was kinda hard to shoot broadcast footage with just a camera head. Who 'rules the roost' for field lenses? In the last Sony video catalog I looked through, all their cameras were mounted on DIGISUPER lenses, although Sony thoughtfully photoshopped out the Canon logos.

Canon is really just a copy, printer and industrial optics company dabbling in Cameras which are GREAT but not that much of a contributor to the bottom line as their printer/copier/optics divisions. Nikon, being part of the Mitsubishi Group keiretsu, has even BIGGER resources available to it! Nikon (aka part of Mitsubishi), being a 540 BILLION US DOLLAR company, absolutely DWARFS Sony and Canon COMBINED in term of available resources so if they wanted to, Nikon could obliterate Sony AND Canon in sheer research resources, financial and marketing power!

Ahhh, yet another armchair business expert. How do Wharton and HBS manage to stay afloat with all of you out there? It seems you don't understand how a keiretsu functions. Suffice it to say that Nikon does not have the resources of the Mitsubishi Group at their beck and call.

Did you forget to take your pills again this morning? Why don't you stick a post-it on your fridge's door to remind you!

Oh, and why don't you business expert again elaborate on how companies are legally forced to make profit? This was a wonderful laugh...

Oh, you mean the discussion where you failed to prove anything, then resorted to calling me names, exemplifying behavior typical of a petulant child? That wasn't laughable, just rather sad. :

In this case, your post implies that I'm incorrect – in which case, you appear to agree that Nikon does have access to the full resources of the Mitsubishi Group, and thus, "..if they wanted to, Nikon could obliterate Sony and Canon in sheer research resources, financial and marketing power."

If your intent is for people to find you laughable, you're succeeding. If you have different intentions, you should probably quit while you're behind. Or you could try calling me names again...much like benkam you seem to have an aptitude for that, if little else.

interesting what you brain makes up for you. again, pills might help...

 

[scyrene]

I will say this... I am thinking about the 1dX Mark II, and I'm currently borrowing one from CPS to evaluate.

These specs are impressive enough for me to think about Sony, despite my personal experience with their terrible service.

I'd need to see some weather proofing, decent AF on Canon native glass with adapter. But it's now in the consideration envelope.

Just curious, what specs/features would make you consider an a9 over a 1DxII? Both cost more than what I'm willing to spend as an amature/enthusiast, so I'm just an interested observer. But, what would the a9 give you that the 1DxII can't?

One frustration I'm seeing with the 1dx2 that I have right now (must return on Friday) is that it's only 20mp. ... Sony seems to have solved the fps issue better than anyone, and the 24mp would be more adequate.

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention: silence.

The 1DX2 and the 5D4 "silent" modes are like a Monty Python running gag. I'm trying to take pictures of quail coveys from 15 feet, and this might as well be a 20 gauge shotgun.

I took a picture of this guy below yesterday evening with the 1DX2 in "silent" mode. Think he stuck around?

Interesting. FWIW I've never had a subject flee at the sound of my shutter, although I've only used the 50D, 5D3 and 5Ds. The silent shutter is easily quiet enough in all situations I've encountered, or at least quieter than I am (but maybe there are fewer hunters here, so wildlife is less anxious?).

 

[scyrene]

Mirrorless is a big deal in the sense that there are less failure-prone mechanical parts

Although as we've discussed elsewhere on these forums, the contention that 'mechanical parts fail more than electronic ones' is surprisingly lacking in evidence. Or to put it another way, the parts that last longer (in photographic equipment) often seem to be those with the least electronic parts - old manual lenses can be adapted even after decades (/repaired more easily or cheaply/are more forgiving of moisture etc), but processors and memory fail after a few years. I'm not saying the contention is wrong, but it's not proven.

 

[HarryFilm]

Regarding Nikon and Mitsubishi from someone who knows a lot about Nikon:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html.
Quote:"But the basic answer is, no, Nikon is an independent company with its shares publicly traded on the Nikkei. "

---

Your statement is true in the sense that Nikon is LEGALLY independent of the Mitsubishi Group who is just a shareholder in it. BUT Japanese Keiretsu TEND to be Family-like in nature where there are actual blood-related family working at the executive levels in each subsidiary company OR that there is a Fraternal Affiliation
(sort of like the University-based Greek House system i.e. Phi Beta Kappa house).

This means that affiliated companies within a Keiretsu ARE allowed to use resources from other companies. Nikon could do this and use the Mitsubisihi financial arm for further funds or use the industrial electronics arm for extra research resources. Nikon could blow Canon or Sony away IF THEY WANTED TO but since Keiretsu are inherently cautious and staid, that just won't happen. To me, Nikon is turning into Blackberry where they make good products for a SMALL specific market BUT they lose the big battle for consumer marketshare.

Canon is Apple iOS and Sony is Google Android and I see a long-term duke-it-out battle where Canon keeps the really high-end customer and the premium prosumer market while Sony wins the low-to-medium range of the market with edgy and technologically advanced products that might have a few flaws in them, but for the most part work WELL ENOUGH for most peoples needs!

I just don't see Nikon being a viable Consumer Camera company by the year 2025!
It will be Blackberry all over again. If Canon actually DOES come out with its purported Medium Format Large Sensor High Speed camera, then they WILL WIN all the pros and and geeky prosumers, and if Sony bring out great mirrorless technology like the A9 into a A6300 price point then they win the midrange market!

Fuji, Pentax, Leica will STAY niche market players and will PROBABLY focus on nostalgia and styling to keep specific alternative-style customers who don't like or buy the big-two player products more for political reasons than product reasons.

Hasselblad and Phase-One WILL be bought out by either Sony OR Canon!
Neither can survive in the coming new camera market of 2025. They don't have the financial or product line to stay independent past the year 2025. Sigma is a dark horse in that its lenses will keep it afloat for a long enough time that Sony will start looking eagerly to get its Foveon Sensors and Sigma Art Lenses into Sony product via a direct buyout. ...BUT... I don't see that happening until at least 2027 when it's lens and sensor patents start running out! Canon won't buy Sigma but Sony WILL sooner or later depending upon how much it offers Sigma in buyout cash! I ALSO THINK that Sony might even take a run at Microsoft in a strategic merger or a REVERSE buyout where Sony stays legally headquartered in JAPAN but run from the USA by Microsoft who will want to merge xBox with Playstation using Windows Embedded/Mobile operating system on Sony 4K BluRay and GPU Hardware and then create a monsterly profitable super-smartphone ecosystem with 8k video and built-in VR/gaming/5G internet abilities tied to massive online gaming products!

In terms of separate audio/video/still photo products I see any potential Sony/Microsoft merger as a total convergence into super-Smartphone like devices that literally CAN do everything that a modern stills/video camera can but at a much smaller size. Sony/Microsoft would still create separate Stills/Video camera for PROS but at high price and high-end feature points and everyone else will be shoved into the gaming-and-VR-capable 8k supersmartphones running Windows Embedded/Mobile and allowing running of Android apps in an Emulator box!

 

[Loswr]

Regarding Nikon and Mitsubishi from someone who knows a lot about Nikon:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html.
Quote:"But the basic answer is, no, Nikon is an independent company with its shares publicly traded on the Nikkei. "

---

Your statement is true in the sense that Nikon is LEGALLY independent of the Mitsubishi Group who is just a shareholder in it. BUT Japanese Keiretsu TEND to be Family-like in nature where there are actual blood-related family working at the executive levels in each subsidiary company OR that there is a Fraternal Affiliation
(sort of like the University-based Greek House system i.e. Phi Beta Kappa house).

This means that affiliated companies within a Keiretsu ARE allowed to use resources from other companies. Nikon could do this and use the Mitsubisihi financial arm for further funds or use the industrial electronics arm for extra research resources. Nikon could blow Canon or Sony away IF THEY WANTED TO but since Keiretsu are inherently cautious and staid, that just won't happen.

So evidently Nikon wanted to cancel a previously announced camera line, and they also wanted to voluntary retire 1,000 employees. They didn't have to do those things, because all they would have had to do is use resources from other companies in the group, if they wanted to. But instead, they chose to lose face and chose to put 1,000 hard-working older people out of work, in a culture that reveres hard work and aging. Thanks for your explanation, which makes as much logical sense as most of your other statements.

 

[Don Haines]

Mirrorless is a big deal in the sense that there are less failure-prone mechanical parts

Although as we've discussed elsewhere on these forums, the contention that 'mechanical parts fail more than electronic ones' is surprisingly lacking in evidence. Or to put it another way, the parts that last longer (in photographic equipment) often seem to be those with the least electronic parts - old manual lenses can be adapted even after decades (/repaired more easily or cheaply/are more forgiving of moisture etc), but processors and memory fail after a few years. I'm not saying the contention is wrong, but it's not proven.

With both electronic assemblies and mechanical assemblies, there is a wide range of quality and longevity. I have 12 sets of Mil-spec HF Radio gear at work that were purchased in 1985, so far, the failure rate is zero... and we have consumer gear that is lucky to last the year.... I have quality tools that will last a lifetime, and I can go buy dollar store hammers that won't survive pounding in a spike....

As far as digital cameras go, I have only had 2 fail on me in 23 years... one was a Olympus that died the day after the warranty expired (they repaired it for free) and the other one was a Canon that died in a fall. (apparently they are not designed to withstand a 120 foot drop onto a concrete pad). I have had lots of TVs die in that time frame, three microwaves, several computers, and countless hard drives. I would have to rate digital cameras as one of the more reliable consumer products out there, and mirrorless or not probably will not make much difference to the reliability.... both will be excellent.

 

[HarryFilm]

So evidently Nikon wanted to cancel a previously announced camera line, and they also wanted to voluntary retire 1,000 employees. They didn't have to do those things, because all they would have had to do is use resources from other companies in the group, if they wanted to. But instead, they chose to lose face and chose to put 1,000 hard-working older people out of work, in a culture that reveres hard work and aging. Thanks for your explanation, which makes as much logical sense as most of your other statements.

---

Logic has NOTHING do with my writing, I am merely stating a possibility! Keiretsu are considered Family-like and in such a case, letting Nikon close parts of itself down IS considered a form of saving face within the Japanese culture. I'm no expert on Japan specifically but I have a very good idea of the concept of "Face" within Asian cultures and if necessary cutting off the gangrenous rotting body part is the better part of valor when dealing with heavy financial hits to smaller parts within a larger corporate group. To me, this really is one of Nikon's best available options, since asking for more money is PROBABLY a big no-no and I suspect overtures for research help have been rebuffed or denied.

Korea has the same issues with their Chaebol where a group such as The Hyundai Group which owns shipbuilding, electronics, cars and trucks (Kia and Hyundai), finance, etc WILL NOW ALLOW failure within their group when in past years it would have been considered "Bad Face" to let them fail!

I think those recent failures have been ALLOWED TO HAPPEN because of the infusion of American let-em-fail ideals into Japanese Keiretsu and Korean Chaebol corporate groups bu western educated executives.

That said, I still think Nikon is on the downward spiral looking more and more like Blackberry every day. I still think Canon and Sony will be top dogs in an Apple vs. Android like battle of technology vs experience. AND I still think there is going to be one or more monster mergers by the year 2025. I PERSONALLY OPINE that Sony and Microsoft will team up for Gaming and 8k super-smartphones and that Apple will probably buy Canon in its entirety for the camera and lens tech which will be merged into Apple iPhone/iPad products and various Canon 2D/3D printing technologies which will be incorporated into Apple desktop products. While those extrapolations may SEEM like fantasies, WHO KNEW that Apple would buy a headset manufacturer (Beats by Dr. Dre) and that Microsoft would by a mobile phone maker (Nokia) for billions of dollars OR that Disney would buy Star Wars (Lucasfilm)!

Stranger Things Have Happened Sooner Rather Than Later!

It has happened before and will happen again.....

 

[Luds34]

Ah, so it's not actually stopping down the lens further than that which you intend to capture the image -- it's stopping down the lens narrower than an ideal aperture during servo AF use? (Did I get that right?)

If so, thanks and interesting.

That's my understanding. But I also recall having read that with fast primes (f/1.4, etc.), it stops down for AF even with a wide open aperture selected for the shot. I'm not sure if that's true, though.

I'm sure someone who knows what is going on can actually chime in with some real specifics, but mirrorless cameras do have differences that create problems to solve that a DSLR does not. I can't tell you want my Fuji camera's are doing, but simply hitting the playback button causes the aperture to change. I'm going to guess that a DSLR is simple in that when you are not exposing for a picture the sensor is (obviously) protected as all the light bounces of the mirror. With a mirrorless camera, I've gotten the impression that the lens (depending on brand and implementation) will stop down the lens out in bright light to reduce the light that is constantly hitting the sensor. As for the aperture sounds when switching to review images on the back LCD??? My guess would be that it closes down the aperture all the way to mostly prevent light from hitting the sensor at all.

Just some random speculation on my part, but it did take some getting use to, to hear the aperture of the lens adjusting while I'm not even shooting a photo... which eventually led me to give it a little thought to why.

 

[Luds34]

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

I saw that yesterday and was tempted to comment but thought the better of it.

Either way I agree, the difference is negligible. My quick calc put it's at a little under 10% increase in resolution.

 

[privatebydesign]

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

I saw that yesterday and was tempted to comment but thought the better of it.

Either way I agree, the difference is negligible. My quick calc put it's at a little under 10% increase in resolution.

The difference is not negligable. 24mp gives you 20% more data points than 20mp, this means better color accuracy more detail and better tonality for any given output size.

 

[Luds34]

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

I saw that yesterday and was tempted to comment but thought the better of it.

Either way I agree, the difference is negligible. My quick calc put it's at a little under 10% increase in resolution.

The difference is not negligable. 24mp gives you 20% more data points than 20mp, this means better color accuracy more detail and better tonality for any given output size.

Oh, they are data points now. So we're going to get into statistics? Because you do understand that once you have well beyond (magnitude levels) a statistically relevant data set, an increase in that set will provide no more information.

Aka, a 24mp image will not provide "better color" nor "better tonality" (both highly subjective terms to begin with) because a 20mp image has enough data to capture both of those. i.e. an 85mm corporate headshot. Are you saying that the skin tones will be theoretically better (look different) in a 24mp sensor than the same tech in a 20 mp sensor??? Of course not.

The only thing a 24mp sensor gets you over a 20mp sensor (assuming all equal tech, blah blah blah) is more resolution. AND, because megapixel numbers are a simple marketing, scalar number to help sell cameras, it's not a linear relationship to resolution. Those pixels need to be pushed out along two dimensions. Hence, why a 4k screen has ~4 times the pixels, but only double the resolution of a 1080p screen.

 

[Ozarker]

So evidently Nikon wanted to cancel a previously announced camera line, and they also wanted to voluntary retire 1,000 employees. They didn't have to do those things, because all they would have had to do is use resources from other companies in the group, if they wanted to. But instead, they chose to lose face and chose to put 1,000 hard-working older people out of work, in a culture that reveres hard work and aging. Thanks for your explanation, which makes as much logical sense as most of your other statements.

---

Logic has NOTHING do with my writing..."

That is the heart of the matter. Glad you finally admitted it. :

 

[privatebydesign]

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

I saw that yesterday and was tempted to comment but thought the better of it.

Either way I agree, the difference is negligible. My quick calc put it's at a little under 10% increase in resolution.

The difference is not negligable. 24mp gives you 20% more data points than 20mp, this means better color accuracy more detail and better tonality for any given output size.

Oh, they are data points now. So we're going to get into statistics? Because you do understand that once you have well beyond (magnitude levels) a statistically relevant data set, an increase in that set will provide no more information.

Aka, a 24mp image will not provide "better color" nor "better tonality" (both highly subjective terms to begin with) because a 20mp image has enough data to capture both of those. i.e. an 85mm corporate headshot. Are you saying that the skin tones will be theoretically better (look different) in a 24mp sensor than the same tech in a 20 mp sensor??? Of course not.

The only thing a 24mp sensor gets you over a 20mp sensor (assuming all equal tech, blah blah blah) is more resolution. AND, because megapixel numbers are a simple marketing, scalar number to help sell cameras, it's not a linear relationship to resolution. Those pixels need to be pushed out along two dimensions. Hence, why a 4k screen has ~4 times the pixels, but only double the resolution of a 1080p screen.

Try printing over 20" x 30".

I never said everybody needs or will notice the difference between 20 and 24mp in their normal output, but it is a fact that 24 is 20% more sampling than 20, that gives you better tonality, detail and color. And seeing as how color is entirely the result of sampling algorithms on Bayer array sensors..... oh what's the point? You are right, there is no difference between 20 and 24, nor jpegs and RAW, nor tripods and handheld :

 

[Luds34]

More is better (in most situations), but is 24MP really that much more than 20MP? Someone do the linear maths, please!

I saw that yesterday and was tempted to comment but thought the better of it.

Either way I agree, the difference is negligible. My quick calc put it's at a little under 10% increase in resolution.

The difference is not negligable. 24mp gives you 20% more data points than 20mp, this means better color accuracy more detail and better tonality for any given output size.

Oh, they are data points now. So we're going to get into statistics? Because you do understand that once you have well beyond (magnitude levels) a statistically relevant data set, an increase in that set will provide no more information.

Aka, a 24mp image will not provide "better color" nor "better tonality" (both highly subjective terms to begin with) because a 20mp image has enough data to capture both of those. i.e. an 85mm corporate headshot. Are you saying that the skin tones will be theoretically better (look different) in a 24mp sensor than the same tech in a 20 mp sensor??? Of course not.

The only thing a 24mp sensor gets you over a 20mp sensor (assuming all equal tech, blah blah blah) is more resolution. AND, because megapixel numbers are a simple marketing, scalar number to help sell cameras, it's not a linear relationship to resolution. Those pixels need to be pushed out along two dimensions. Hence, why a 4k screen has ~4 times the pixels, but only double the resolution of a 1080p screen.

Try printing over 20" x 30".

I never said everybody needs or will notice the difference between 20 and 24mp in their normal output, but it is a fact that 24 is 20% more sampling than 20, that gives you better tonality, detail and color. And seeing as how color is entirely the result of sampling algorithms on Bayer array sensors..... oh what's the point? You are right, there is no difference between 20 and 24, nor jpegs and RAW, nor tripods and handheld :

Sigh... so you're one of those. You have no real argument so you ignore and deflect?? First the deflect... JPEGs and RAW, tripods and handheld, what does that have to do with our current discussion?

And than the "ignore". I said there was a difference, in RESOLUTION. Although it won't be noticeable in your 20x30 print.

Bottom line, a larger sensor (all things equal) will get you more resolution, this color and tone you speak of is nonsense. That is why one can shoot a 20 (or 24) MP image and then downsize it to web resolution, the 2048 px on the long end, aka ~3 MP image and guess what....? the color and tone still looks the same. Even though all those data points are lost, there are still enough of them to represent the skin tone of the subject, the color of the photo.

 

[privatebydesign]

I said there was a difference, in RESOLUTION. Although it won't be noticeable in your 20x30 .

You are wrong. I print to that size almost daily from a wide variety of cameras.

As for tonality and color, try printing a good test image at a decent size. There is a very good reason the best output of any current Canon camera is all from the 5DSR. Bayer array output quality is entirely based on sampling numbers, 20% more is 20% more, nobody ever made an effective argument about scanning film at lower resolutions.

Now how much of that 20% difference is noticeable at 'average' output sizes is moot, I agree.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Let's see how it handles in real-world use, shall we? Does it shoot 20fps in all conditions, or only compressed raw with some lenses (as the footnotes to its release statement suggest)? Its weatherproofing is ridiculously non-existent for a flagship aimed at the pro sports/wildlife. How will it handle the Canon big whites (wildlife photographers will not be happy limited to 400mm zooms?)

Canons 'consumer level ' mirrorless are gaining ground with every iteration to the point where it is almost ergonomics that make the real difference, and while I can see the A9 as a great upgrade for A7 users I am not sure it will tempt many pros to switch from Canon at that level.

Sony is a great test bed and technology leader rather than market leader. But I am sure Canon will keep closing the gap.

From Roger after a Sony lens repair:

We decided to put the lens back together, bite the bullet and see if the service center could repair it. But being a suspicious person by nature I did some checking first and found out, in typical Sony fashion, this entire assembly was considered a single part. So if we sent it in they would replace this entire assembly at a repair cost of slightly more than half the price of a new lens. Needless to say, we switched into nothing-to-lose mode and went back to looking for a way into this assembly.

I’ll repeat what I say all the time: Sony is trying a lot of new things; that’s how you advance. I completely admire the risk taking and efforts to try new things when most manufacturers are just fine-tuning what already is. Some of these new things turn out to be awesome, some don’t. It’s just as important to identify which new things are not better, or not even adequate, as it is to identify when the new thing is a dramatic improvement.

He doesn't knock Sony but certainly isn't a great fan.

Jack

 

[RGF]

I’ll repeat what I say all the time: Sony is trying a lot of new things; that’s how you advance. I completely admire the risk taking and efforts to try new things when most manufacturers are just fine-tuning what already is. Some of these new things turn out to be awesome, some don’t. It’s just as important to identify which new things are not better, or not even adequate, as it is to identify when the new thing is a dramatic improvement.

Canon has tried lots of new things - some which were "interesting" and died on the vine (eye control focus) and others which have slowly matured (DO).

Recently I have noticed that can has become more cautious, every since there were problems with the 1D Mark 2 or was it Mark 3. Whether the bad reputation was warranted or not, it seems to me that Canon is making sure new products are more solid than before (and hence fewer experiments).

Regard a FF mirrorless, someone is going to eat Canon's lunch (DSLR market), so it can does not act it will be Sony. Better Canon act and its own lunch rather than letting Sony eat it.