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

[ahsanford]

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

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

Curious to see if this announcement, presumably to be followed with a slower fps A9R @ 50+ MP (the rumor is 72 MP, I believe) will put any wind in the sails of a 1Ds3 successor, i.e. dropping either the current or next-gen 5DS R sensor into a 1D body.

Presently, the 1Ds3 camp has to choose between the 1-series goodies they love OR a high res sensor. They presently cannot get both in the same rig.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

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

As we move through our day, priorities shift. In the morning it can be low light performance that is all important, in the afternoon it can be ease of use in confined spaces, in the evening it can be AF tracking, and at night it can be all about the system flash.... Personally, I find that lens choice is more important than camera choice, but in the end it all has to work together as a system, and to me, that is the strength of shooting Canon.

As to the earlier 20FPS, I would rarely use it, but when I do, 20 isn't enough and for those times I would gladly accept sorting through way too many frames to find the right one.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Won't get arguments from me Don. Glass is #1 and Canon is #1 in quantity and quality combined. The cameras obsolete so quickly. 4K @60 p could be useful except for AF issues in our situations. I have yet to try it.

Jack

 

[Luds34]

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

Amen. I use to own a lowly 70D that could only do 7 fps. I recall one morning going out with a wildlife buddy and we shot some deer. It was a lot of fun and even though there was a lot of poor light and color in the middle of winter in the woods I came away with some pretty okay shots.

However, the pain I had to go through just deleting photos out of light room was tedious. Just far too many of the "same shot" but you have to go through them and find the "best one" and delete the others.

 

[Luds34]

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

Easy there, the point is valid, but the hyperbole is getting strong with this post.

 

[Larsskv]

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.

A little reminder.... The 1DXII lets you do frame grams of the 60 frames/sec 4K video, thus providing 8megapixel jpg in 60 frames/s.

Edit: this feature is a Sony spec type of feature. Sounds impressive but is sort of naaah in real world use.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

The A9 looks like a nice new toy, unfortunately there are no lenses available that make it relevant for me.

Sony make some interesting cameras but their lens range is has little to do with my photography so Sony is simply a no go for me.

When they get around to making a system rather than some cameras and a couple of lenses then they will get much more interesting................

 

[dak723]

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

And you probably won't get 3 photographers to agree on exactly what constitutes high IQ. For some IQ means DR, for others sharpness, for others accurate color, for others it's contrast...or some combination of these or other factors...etc, etc.

I would argue that what makes a good photo is composition, mood, atmosphere, subject. Every camera is capable of taking a good photograph if it has reliable AF, reliable exposure metering, and good lenses. That's why I would never consider Sony at present.

 

[Cthulhu]

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.

That'd be a nightmare choosing keepers.

 

[Cthulhu]

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.

XT-2 is nice, but maybe your 100-400 just isn't. There are more elements involved than just the AF system. Mine works great on my 1dx mk2, but is 50/50 on my 7dmk2

 

[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.

XT-2 is nice, but maybe your 100-400 just isn't. There are more elements involved than just the AF system. Mine works great on my 1dx mk2, but is 50/50 on my 7dmk2

Mine 100-400 II is the other way round. On my 7DII superfast and accurate. But on my 5DIV it often slows down. Dont´t know why. But CPs will take a look on it in somw eeks, befor i go on holiday.

I mentioned the 100-400 from Fuji. This lens is not as abd as we think and the body is working quite well too...

 

[Hflm]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

 

[Jack Douglas]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

Most of us are dazzled by numbers. Like when I saw the shutter speed max but what about the reality of natural lighting, the F stop and ISO needed to use these high speeds. Use flash, ah, but what about recycle times if you want FPS, etc. etc. The caveats matter.

I have verified many times over that my 1DX2 can't AF track small birds as they take off. The focus point will be exactly where it should be but no focus. My camera is a dud - I kind of doubt it - I think my expectations are too high.

Jack

 

[rrcphoto]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

and then on top of that you have the potential for e-shutter distortion. sounds like a winner to me.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

and then on top of that you have the potential for e-shutter distortion. sounds like a winner to me.

Updates AF 60 times per second so now I more fully appreciate the challenges real action presents.

Jack

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

Most of us are dazzled by numbers. Like when I saw the shutter speed max but what about the reality of natural lighting, the F stop and ISO needed to use these high speeds. Use flash, ah, but what about recycle times if you want FPS, etc. etc. The caveats matter.

I have verified many times over that my 1DX2 can't AF track small birds as they take off. The focus point will be exactly where it should be but no focus. My camera is a dud - I kind of doubt it - I think my expectations are too high.

Jack

Your flash at max shutter speed isn't down to recycle time, at those low powers they will easily output 20 flashes a second, but at 1/32000th of a second flash power output is practically zero. Even the PCB Einstein, one of the fastest t.1 time flashes out there, is 1/13,500 sec at 2.5Ws, or 1/256 power! At 1/32000 sec you are relying on constant light sources as even the biggest and best studio flashes are way outside their operational specs.

So you are back to iso performance (and /or a ton of constant light sources) to get anything meaningful at those shutter speeds. The one area I can hit 1/8,000 and want more is f1.4 or wider portraits in direct sun, two stops (1/32,000) would make that more workable, as would an iso 25 or 12 setting, or a built in ND filter as almost every video camera has.

 

[rrcphoto]

Interesting comment from T. Northrup: "Re: 20 FPS, that only happens when you're not tracking focus. Like the Canon & Nikon cameras, it slows down when tracking focus, and often dropped to 10-12 FPS (but generally slightly more than the Canon & Nikon got in the same scene)."

and then on top of that you have the potential for e-shutter distortion. sounds like a winner to me.

Updates AF 60 times per second so now I more fully appreciate the challenges real action presents.

Jack

60 times a second is good, but at 100mph for instance that's around 2.5 feet of movement.

we have no idea how often canon/ nikon look at the PDAF sensors.


Canon as of the IIN and III 1D cameras suggested they can track a 31MPH target at 26.2 feet away using a 300mm 2.8

that's 4 inches of movement for DOF and the target moving at 45 feet per second. so that has to be around 130 to 260 AF checks per second and that was with the IIN or Mark III cameras.

so while the A9 *sounds* impressive, the top of the line cameras from Nkon and canon probably check AF 4++++ times as much as that nowadays.

There's a reason Canon has a separate DIGIC just for AF/AE.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Scot, interesting.

rrcphoto it'd be nice to have some more examples of tracking capability relating to the newer cameras. Shooting an otter running towards a person somehow seems antiquated! Or a galloping horse. It should be relatively easy for the camera reviewers to set up a servo system that could present controlled targets with different velocities and accelerations. They could even have the camera with controlled panning parameters.

It occurred to me that it is all but certain that Sony has pushed this camera out as fast as possible and as such I wouldn't be surprised if there are some issues, including servicing and all that stuff that has been thrown around in the past. One thing for sure, you can bet your bottom dollar Canon is well aware of everything Sony is doing.

Jack

 

[Crosswind]

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.

That'd be a nightmare choosing keepers.

You could implement an in-camera process which - on demand - automatically looks through a selected set of images and highlights only those pictures with the highest achieved micro-contrast/sharpness compared to all the other images in this set. I think such a technology is possible to implement but I wonder why noone hasn't done it yet.

 

[Jack Douglas]

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.

That'd be a nightmare choosing keepers.

You could implement an in-camera process which - on demand - automatically looks through a selected set of images and highlights only those pictures with the highest achieved micro-contrast/sharpness compared to all the other images in this set. I think such a technology is possible to implement but I wonder why noone hasn't done it yet.

Probably because there are a lot more subjective factors than contrast and sharpness.

Jack