Canon Sends Invitation to Dealers for Major Mirrorless Presentation Next Month

[slclick]

• ...has to draw the camera from a bag and put it away when you are done (or need to move to the next location)
• ...hold the camera near/around the chest in those in between moments between resting (perhaps on a BR or neck strap) and actually framing and shooting
• ...reviews / chimps / pixel-peeps their shots

And all three of those circumstances heavily rely on the primary (right) hand to do the heavy lifting.

Again, one can use Keith's setup above with an M5 no sweat -- it's a question of how long you want to shoot with that combo that concerns me. A chunkier grip will absolutely be a more comfortable shooting experience over time.

- A

It's all down to what you're used to. Yes, the M5 feels different and balances differently and it's off putting initially but you get used to it really quickly and the size is NO drawback.

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. When I bought my M5, I certainly expected to use my EF-S 55-250mm and an older 28-105mm EF lens on it, but found the ergonomics pretty much unusable. Ultimately sold the adapter and the EF-S lens. For me - and apparently others on this forum - the M5 is only comfortable to use with M series lenses and perhaps really small EF lenses. So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

After getting used to using the 18-150 lens, the adapted 50 STM, 85 1.8 and 40 pancake are all second nature on the M5. I have also used with good results the 100L Macro. Albeit a front heavy combo it is a very good pairing optically and from a macro user standpoint what with the fantastic MF abilities of the M5. I would assume the 100 f/2 and anything shorter in build length would be a nice fit as well.

 

[3dit0r]

Hm, well as others have said, my instinct because of specifically the sensor being cut out is that this camera won’t be an APS-C mirrorless. So I guess it could be the first Full Frame mirrorless.

Only the M6 body seems weird, again as others have said. My only thought is that’s just a level of disguising what’s to come - if it were an M5, it would kinda give the game away already what’s in store, right? As it is, we’re all still guessing!

I personally hope it’s a FF mirrorless at least as full featured as the 5D series, but superior in other areas (mostly video). With IBIS

 

[IglooEater]

Well now, this thread has been a very interesting read.. :

If you look carefully, you will find that you have made an error in punctuation. In case it is not jumping out at you, you have ended your sentence with neither a period nor an ellipsis, but with something in between.

;D

You’re right of course, and thank you. Also, I’d like to thank the gentlemen discussing grammar for remaining well, gentlemen. I dare say that if one w**(*) to scrutinize my own writing in as much detail, it would be found far more wanting than that of either of them. ;D

A define "was" since one Neuro has scrutinised your writing.........

Thank you, but I’ll never again be able to write the phrase without a certain amount of trepidation. I should have finished high school apparently. :'(

 

[KeithBreazeal]

• ...has to draw the camera from a bag and put it away when you are done (or need to move to the next location)
• ...hold the camera near/around the chest in those in between moments between resting (perhaps on a BR or neck strap) and actually framing and shooting
• ...reviews / chimps / pixel-peeps their shots

And all three of those circumstances heavily rely on the primary (right) hand to do the heavy lifting.

Again, one can use Keith's setup above with an M5 no sweat -- it's a question of how long you want to shoot with that combo that concerns me. A chunkier grip will absolutely be a more comfortable shooting experience over time.

- A

It's all down to what you're used to. Yes, the M5 feels different and balances differently and it's off putting initially but you get used to it really quickly and the size is NO drawback.

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. When I bought my M5, I certainly expected to use my EF-S 55-250mm and an older 28-105mm EF lens on it, but found the ergonomics pretty much unusable. Ultimately sold the adapter and the EF-S lens. For me - and apparently others on this forum - the M5 is only comfortable to use with M series lenses and perhaps really small EF lenses. So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

After getting used to using the 18-150 lens, the adapted 50 STM, 85 1.8 and 40 pancake are all second nature on the M5. I have also used with good results the 100L Macro. Albeit a front heavy combo it is a very good pairing optically and from a macro user standpoint what with the fantastic MF abilities of the M5. I would assume the 100 f/2 and anything shorter in build length would be a nice fit as well.

I found it fun and interesting to experiment with the M5 and lens combos. Photography is supposed to fun and "going outside the box" is part of it.

Canon EOS M5 Canon 300L f2.8 Canon 2X Converter © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[Talys]

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. When I bought my M5, I certainly expected to use my EF-S 55-250mm and an older 28-105mm EF lens on it, but found the ergonomics pretty much unusable. Ultimately sold the adapter and the EF-S lens. For me - and apparently others on this forum - the M5 is only comfortable to use with M series lenses and perhaps really small EF lenses. So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

I don't see how anyone can say that adapted lenses feel "great" on an M5. At best, they're usable, but unnatural.

The native M lenses feel wonderful, but there aren't any fixed 2.8 or 4.0 zooms (many of them top out at f/6.3), and there are only a couple of wideish primes. Since they only need to be APSC, if Canon made them, they'd be a lot smaller than Sony G-Master lenses, but I think they'd still be unnaturally large for the camera.

Put a EFS 17-55/2.8 onto a M5, and you'll see what I mean. It's just awkward, and if canon were to make a EFM 17-55/2.8 the dimensions don't get to be a whole lot different. The only two ways to shrink the lenses is by having smaller (like f/6.3) apertures on the tele end, or by also shrinking the sensor, like MFT.

But as it stands, nobody has figured out how to shrink the lens sizes of many popular zooms and primes while maintaining their apertures and the sensor sizes that they are meant for.

 

[peters]

Pleeeease don't suck, pleeease Canon, please!

For real; I realy hope its an high end professional camera and not something like a 6dish Sensor with no video features pressed into an unfinished mirrorless body like the m5....

I realy hope for (in this order):
- EF-Mount!!! (total deal-breaker if ot does not have that.)
- 4k FULL frame (not with useless crop like on the 5d)
- a VERY good, big, sharp, fast EV (I personaly think the Sony a7rII EV wasnt that great and for my taste to slow)
- Swivel Screen(!) with Touch and DPAF
- At least 30mp
- At least 9fps
- 4k 60fps
- An AF System that is as capable as the 1dxII / 5dIV
- Uncompressed 4k HDMI Out (why the hell didn't they put that on the 1dxII? And why does my 1D freeze frequently when I use the HDMI out?)
- LP-E6 battery
- decent battery life
- USB C Port with charging capability.
- of course Wlan and Intervalometer (why would they leave that out on the 1dxII ???)
- of course Mic input and headphone jack
- of course weather sealing (I don't understan why Sony is so far behind on that topic, its not that big of a deal to seal some buttons, is it?)

If it got that and would cost as much as an 1dxII I wouldn't care... I would order one the second its available.

 

[Adelino]

I think Canon will start at the low end of the market and move up. I think first FF mirrorless Canon will be an upgrade from the 6DII, better DR, focusing and 4K. Meeting basic 2018 specs future cameras moving up from there.

 

[Fleetie]

Would you rather that he said "if one were to wear them for a while, I believe one might well get used to them?"

There are some people on these forums who do, in fact, extrapolate, and deserve little charity for word choices; I do not believe this is one of those cases.

Sorry to come down hard on grammar but I can't resist it in a discussion of precision in use of words: "if one were" = an impossible or unreal event ("were" used as a subjunctive in a conditional clause). It should be "If one was" as one is describing a real event.
Apologies.

Rubbish. There is nothing about the subjunctive that suggests impossibility.
If you were to go to a book shop tomorrow, you could buy a book on grammar.


And "if one was" just grates.

 

[AlanF]

Would you rather that he said "if one were to wear them for a while, I believe one might well get used to them?"

There are some people on these forums who do, in fact, extrapolate, and deserve little charity for word choices; I do not believe this is one of those cases.

Sorry to come down hard on grammar but I can't resist it in a discussion of precision in use of words: "if one were" = an impossible or unreal event ("were" used as a subjunctive in a conditional clause). It should be "If one was" as one is describing a real event.
Apologies.

Rubbish. There is nothing about the subjunctive that suggests impossibility.
If you were to go to a book shop tomorrow, you could buy a book on grammar.


And "if one was" just grates.

If you wish to butt in on a polite exchange between Orangutan and me, I suggest you might take note of Iglooeater's comment:

Also, I’d like to thank the gentlemen discussing grammar for remaining well, gentlemen.

 

[AlanF]

When Canon makes a 100-400LIII for a full frame sensor that takes a uses a 58mm filter and that's 60% the length of the LII, then the 17mm flange focal distance and the 47mm throat diameter suddenly become pretty awesome.

A 58mm filter means that the f-number has to be greater than 6.9, and presumably f/8. Do you want a lens that slow and probably with slow AF as well?

 

[dak723]

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. When I bought my M5, I certainly expected to use my EF-S 55-250mm and an older 28-105mm EF lens on it, but found the ergonomics pretty much unusable. Ultimately sold the adapter and the EF-S lens. For me - and apparently others on this forum - the M5 is only comfortable to use with M series lenses and perhaps really small EF lenses. So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

I don't see how anyone can say that adapted lenses feel "great" on an M5. At best, they're usable, but unnatural.

The native M lenses feel wonderful, but there aren't any fixed 2.8 or 4.0 zooms (many of them top out at f/6.3), and there are only a couple of wideish primes. Since they only need to be APSC, if Canon made them, they'd be a lot smaller than Sony G-Master lenses, but I think they'd still be unnaturally large for the camera.

Put a EFS 17-55/2.8 onto a M5, and you'll see what I mean. It's just awkward, and if canon were to make a EFM 17-55/2.8 the dimensions don't get to be a whole lot different. The only two ways to shrink the lenses is by having smaller (like f/6.3) apertures on the tele end, or by also shrinking the sensor, like MFT.

But as it stands, nobody has figured out how to shrink the lens sizes of many popular zooms and primes while maintaining their apertures and the sensor sizes that they are meant for.

I think, as so often happens on this and other forums, the participants have no clue as to what the target consumer is for a particular camera. For a tiny camera such as the M5, they are clearly targeting this camera for general use - for the hobbyist. Something that is easy to take on vacation or to family events - or just for general use. For that type of photography, you don't need (or want) a small DOF. You don't need massive zooms. You want something you can throw in a small bag and take with you wherever you go. I think Canon assumes that for those wanting a very small DOF, those folks will go for a FF camera system - or for birders, the pro level 7D series. It seems like many forum folks want to duplicate systems - they have slow primes for their FF camera, so they want the same lenses for their second or backup camera. I think Canon understands that the number of these folks is minuscule, and for those that do want a second or backup camera, most cannot afford - nor would think it is a good idea - to spend thousands of dollars to duplicate a system they already have.

 

[unfocused]

When Canon makes a 100-400LIII for a full frame sensor that takes a uses a 58mm filter and that's 60% the length of the LII, then the 17mm flange focal distance and the 47mm throat diameter suddenly become pretty awesome.

A 58mm filter means that the f-number has to be greater than 6.9, and presumably f/8. Do you want a lens that slow and probably with slow AF as well?

I believe you missed the [sarcasm] tag.

 

[AlanF]

When Canon makes a 100-400LIII for a full frame sensor that takes a uses a 58mm filter and that's 60% the length of the LII, then the 17mm flange focal distance and the 47mm throat diameter suddenly become pretty awesome.

A 58mm filter means that the f-number has to be greater than 6.9, and presumably f/8. Do you want a lens that slow and probably with slow AF as well?

I believe you missed the [sarcasm] tag.

No. It's just rather a surprising suggestion to have such a narrow aperture, and I am wondering if there is anything behind it.

 

[Talys]

When Canon makes a 100-400LIII for a full frame sensor that takes a uses a 58mm filter and that's 60% the length of the LII, then the 17mm flange focal distance and the 47mm throat diameter suddenly become pretty awesome.

A 58mm filter means that the f-number has to be greater than 6.9, and presumably f/8. Do you want a lens that slow and probably with slow AF as well?

I believe you missed the [sarcasm] tag.

Right

@AlanF, in the paragraphs preceding, I had said exactly that -- you can't make the lens significantly shorter and smaller (radius) while keeping the aperture and sensor sizes the same. I'm on your side.

But let me rephrase it in a non-facetious way: when a camera manufacturer conquers our current limitations grounded in our understanding of physics to make smaller lens packages without any other compromises, I'll be jumping right in on bodies that are ideal for those smaller packages.

I'm not married to a large body/large lens, and who doesn't like lighter. But if I'm going to be holding it for a long period of time, I want the most common combinations of things that I hold for a long period of a time to be comfortable.

In the meantime, I think that the more likely scenario is for sensor tech to get better, such that slightly smaller sensors like APSC and MFT can have today's FF performance. That would allow for APSC EF-M lenses to at least be smaller than today's EF lenses, and be more viable where ISOs need to be higher. But I also get it, FF will probably likewise improve, and a lot of us will probably still choose the larger camera to get even better high ISO performance.

No. It's just rather a surprising suggestion to have such a narrow aperture, and I am wondering if there is anything behind it.

AlanF, I was referring to some new, as-yet uninvented unicorn that would give us a 100-400 f/4-5.6 for a full frame sensor that was pocket sized. It was just a facetious/sarcastic way of saying that I don't want to sacrifice aperture or full frame sensor compatibility for lens size; therefore, for me I'm going to be stuck with a big lens/little body any time I want full frame telephoto (or even many wide aperture pro zooms) on a M5/A7RIII type body.

 

[Orangutan]

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. ...

So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

I don't see how anyone can say that adapted lenses feel "great" on an M5. At best, they're usable, but unnatural.

I realize you were speaking of your personal experiences, but bear in mind that humans are remarkably good at figuring out how to adapt to their tools (in addition to adapting tools to themselves). Think about smartphones: to me, they're much too thin and hard to hold; nevertheless, most people like them that way, and I've learned to deal with it. There are cases, adapters and grips to make them easier to hold. The manufacturers have decided to make them to the size they thought the majority would want, so that's what we have.

Also think about flash brackets: weren't original flash/lighting units either on separate stands or held by an assistant? I'm pretty sure I've seen old photos of photographers holding the camera in one hand, and a lighting unit in the other. This was an ergonomic problem that was solved by a third-party accessory.

With mirrorless cameras the same will happen: at each price/feature point, the camera's ergonomics will fit what the manufacturer believes will sell. Just as there are cheaper third-party grips for bodies below the 1-series, there may be grips/adapters, etc for mirrorless. So it doesn't really matter what I want, or what you want, it matters what sells. After that, we hope for third-party accessories and deal with it.

 

[zim]

If you were was to go to a book shop tomorrow, you could buy a book on grammar.

Sorted that for you Fleetie, well for around there parts anyways

Don't get all bent out of shape like the new sensor announcement next month ;D

 

[jolyonralph]

So it doesn't really matter what I want, or what you want, it matters what sells. After that, we hope for third-party accessories and deal with it.

Finally, some common sense here

 

[The Fat Fish]

Why cut the sensor out of the picture unless there's a surprise awaiting...

Maybe an M6-sized body with the 6D full-frame sensor?

Now *that* I'd buy in an instant (well, assuming there were lenses to go along with it too!)

Using the 6DII sensor would be the worse possible thing they could do. I am looking forward to the Canon FF mirrorless but using the sensor from the most criticised camera of the last decade would be a huge mistake. They need their first FF mirrorless release to be a strong one. They need to say "stick with us" to all those jumping ship because of the latest underwhelming and some outright disappointing releases.

 

[Don Haines]

I found it fun and interesting to experiment with the M5 and lens combos. Photography is supposed to fun and "going outside the box" is part of it.

I agree! some things work better when you are "outside the box".....

P.S. I saw someone with an Olympus AIR through an adaptor, to a 600F4 lens..... now that just looked WEIRD!

 

[Talys]

I am glad you feel that the size of the M5 is no drawback, but that is not a statement of fact as you seem to make it. ...

So, apparently - for some of us - the size is a DEFINITE drawback unless using M lenses.

I don't see how anyone can say that adapted lenses feel "great" on an M5. At best, they're usable, but unnatural.

I realize you were speaking of your personal experiences, but bear in mind that humans are remarkably good at figuring out how to adapt to their tools (in addition to adapting tools to themselves). Think about smartphones: to me, they're much too thin and hard to hold; nevertheless, most people like them that way, and I've learned to deal with it. There are cases, adapters and grips to make them easier to hold. The manufacturers have decided to make them to the size they thought the majority would want, so that's what we have.

Also think about flash brackets: weren't original flash/lighting units either on separate stands or held by an assistant? I'm pretty sure I've seen old photos of photographers holding the camera in one hand, and a lighting unit in the other. This was an ergonomic problem that was solved by a third-party accessory.

With mirrorless cameras the same will happen: at each price/feature point, the camera's ergonomics will fit what the manufacturer believes will sell. Just as there are cheaper third-party grips for bodies below the 1-series, there may be grips/adapters, etc for mirrorless. So it doesn't really matter what I want, or what you want, it matters what sells. After that, we hope for third-party accessories and deal with it.

Absolutely. So, Canon will decide what they think will sell better: a me-too Canon A7RIII, a mirrorless 5DMkIV, or something in between.

I think it's worth noting that whenever you look at sidelines at professional sporting events, the number of little camera bodies is zero (and obviously, the number of little camera lenses is zero). Even at a football game, when you see press photographers reaching out over the crowd to snap some pictures, those second bodies with wider lenses are full sized DSLRs with full sized hotshoe flashes attached. At major political events, same thing. I think this is a pretty important demographic for Canon.

Now, I have no idea which way Canon will go; I hope it's ultimately both, though with native EF on both.

Speaking for only myself, if it's not EF native mount, there's no way I'll buy one for at least 5 years -- mostly because of battery life, ergonomics, my dislike of adapters, and the pain of buying new lenses. So, a camera would have to be way, way better than A7RIII for still image photography to compel me to abandon EF, and at some point, that will happen, I suspect, not so soon. If it's not large telephoto friendly, as in, if it isn't comfortable to use with 2kg+ lenses, it's highly unlikely that I buy one until those large telephoto lenses shrink.