Canon's Full Frame Mirorrless Cameras [CR2]

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,296
484
For me if Canon have a different size Mount I won’t be buying a Canon Mirrorless in the near future.
If the keep the EF Mount as is I would be likely to buy one if it’s 10FPS or more.
If the smart solution is a new Mount electronically but compatible with EF then I’d be happy too.
So I await with interest Canons decision.
I think if are serious about photography and actually take a lot of photos the existing DSLRs still do the job perfectly.
I don’t think mirrorless is going to improve my photography much.
 

dak723

EOS R
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
Jack Douglas said:
To be honest, even though I don't buy all the Sony arguments, I'm also encountering people who are switching but I think in the population in general we have personalities who tend to switch no matter what company they are with. Perhaps some of them are technical wizes who really know what improvements they're getting and likely some just like the buzz or celebrity status. As many have said, it's great the competition keeps the heat on Canon. But, it does get a bit tiring hearing the same old commentary.

As a second camera I'm now thinking FF mirrorless and will wait to see what Canon brings because there is a lot I like about Canon. I'm a dodo bird I guess. ;)

Jack

No you are not a dodo bird! You understand the difference between "buzz" and quality. You understand the difference between choosing the best product for your needs and getting something that may impress others.

If Sony users love their cameras - good for them. If the cameras perform up to their expectations - good for them. In those cases, they shouldn't give a hoot what Canon is doing or whether or not others prefer Canon.

It is only when folks who don't even own a Sony FF trash Canon and promote Sony that you have to roll your eyes and look away. They have no credibility. They continually lie and/or exaggerate to promote Sony. Why is that? Are they paid "forum-busters"? Are they Sony shareholders? Why do they trash one company and promote another if they don't even own the camera and have no first hand knowledge of whether they would even like the product?

If Sony FF was really so good, they wouldn't need the trolls pushing their products.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,997
3,285
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Jack Douglas said:
To be honest, even though I don't buy all the Sony arguments, I'm also encountering people who are switching but I think in the population in general we have personalities who tend to switch no matter what company they are with. Perhaps some of them are technical wizes who really know what improvements they're getting and likely some just like the buzz or celebrity status. As many have said, it's great the competition keeps the heat on Canon. But, it does get a bit tiring hearing the same old commentary...

Some people with GAS like to play around, always looking for a new partner that will satisfy what is missing in their life. When a younger, prettier model becomes available, they just have to have it. But, it really doesn't improve their performance for long.
 

rjbray01

Canon Forever
Jan 19, 2017
133
75
ahsanford said:
Generalized Specialist said:
I would disagree wiith you on this point. When you ask enthusiast's/pro's who the leader is in FF mirrorless, they would have to answer Sony. Yes, they are he only ones in that segment so they 'win' by default, but they are the leaders in that market and have a well sorted out camera and lens lineup already in place. Anything and everything Canon releases in this market segment WILL BE compared thoroughly to the Sony's and Canon will be playing catch up.

You're right with the red part above. It will be compared by we, the arm-chair quarterbacks of the internet, and by Sony, surely.

But Canon isn't worried about competing in a fledgling market yet. Their first goal is to get every Canon FF user to buy their FF mirrorless body, because that is (by far) the easiest sale. Their first goal is to release a working product that their own customers want to own.

I expect the following to occur:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Specs and photos will be leaked/confirmed/announced. The mount decision will be crystal clear at this stage.
[*]The internet will. go. nuts. mocking the price and what it doesn't get you compared to Sony. The Windows 95 = Macintosh '89-like burns will be so fierce. ::)
[*]If only one mount is announced at launch, some of the folks who don't get the mount they wanted will have kittens over the 'bad' decision and threaten to leave.
[*]The product will be released
[*]It will sell well.
[*]The end.
[/list]

Notice how 'winning' isn't part of this at all. Canon just needs to show up with a reliable product that natively handles EF and it sells. It's like magic.

- A

Sorry but this seems exceptionally weak on analysis.

Its like saying "tomorrow I think such-and-such horse will win the race" ... this only becomes interesting to others if you explain WHY you think its going to win.

So it would be nice to know why you think "it will sell".

What is the analysis ? Is it based on

a) certain product features ?

b) or more historic extrapolation ? ( something like "historically Canon products sold well, therefore future products will sell well too")

c) some other predictive logic ?
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
3kramd5 said:
rrcphoto said:
the reason the DSLR sales are slumping is because so many of the semi professionals and professionals are in the "my current camera is good enough for my business needs"

You think so? I doubt paid photographers drive the market in any sizable way. Rather, my suspicion is market saturation among those who want ILCs.

well i was responding to "but for the semi-pro to professional market there is a much greater awareness of the capabilities of competing equipment."

Most of the working pros use what works for them. they don't get bent out of shape like people in the forum does. and yeah, there's alot of "it's good enough" happening, IMO.
 

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
652
1,421
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
rjbray01 said:
...

So it would be nice to know why you think "it will sell".
What is the analysis ? Is it based on

a) certain product features ?
b) or more historic extrapolation ? ( something like "historically Canon products sold well, therefore future products will sell well too")
c) some other predictive logic ?
It is not rocket science to extrapolate from history and conclude what Ahsanford correctly posted. The history data of performance of camera manufacturers is available as time series with seasonality (both dollar value and units shipped). You can use Triple Exponential Smoothing (i.e. Holt-Winters method) and make prediction. You may argue that the units shipped and sales dollars have diminishing trend. Still no problem. Use same method with moving average (i.e. use a sliding window for example for the past ten years) and you will still get the same results.
 

rjbray01

Canon Forever
Jan 19, 2017
133
75
bhf3737 said:
rjbray01 said:
...

So it would be nice to know why you think "it will sell".
What is the analysis ? Is it based on

a) certain product features ?
b) or more historic extrapolation ? ( something like "historically Canon products sold well, therefore future products will sell well too")
c) some other predictive logic ?
It is not rocket science to extrapolate from history and conclude what Ahsanford correctly posted. The history data of performance of camera manufacturers is available as time series with seasonality (both dollar value and units shipped). You can use Triple Exponential Smoothing (i.e. Holt-Winters method) and make prediction. You may argue that the units shipped and sales dollars have diminishing trend. Still no problem. Use same method with moving average (i.e. use a sliding window for example for the past ten years) and you will still get the same results.

ah I see ... we can predict Canon's future based on measurements of their past performance.

Does that work for all companies ?

If not then how do we know it will work for Canon when it doesn't work for others ?

What if Canon decided that (perhaps due to the mobile phone market ... ) another line of their business was expected to be more profitable than Cameras in the future - perhaps medical imaging - and have shifted all their best engineers onto medical imaging instead, whilst just milking their previous prowess in Cameras for as long as possible.

Do you think that would that affect the extrapolation equations at all ?
 

Adelino

EOS RP
Jan 21, 2015
378
248
neuroanatomist said:
scyrene said:
You've posted on this forum over 3000 times and you still think 'I know several people who've switched to Sony' is a compelling argument. I don't find it funny, I'm just rolling my eyes at it ::) ::) ::)

Rather sad how many people think anecdotes are data.

But last week I saw a guy buy a Nikon entry level DSLR at Target. I guess that means DSLRs are outcompeting mirrorless and Nikon is gaining market share. ::) ::) ::)

Most people I know buy used cameras so I guess the whole market is ******* as people will just rotate used cameras between them.
 

bhf3737

---
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
652
1,421
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
rjbray01 said:
bhf3737 said:
rjbray01 said:
...

So it would be nice to know why you think "it will sell".
What is the analysis ? Is it based on

a) certain product features ?
b) or more historic extrapolation ? ( something like "historically Canon products sold well, therefore future products will sell well too")
c) some other predictive logic ?
It is not rocket science to extrapolate from history and conclude what Ahsanford correctly posted. The history data of performance of camera manufacturers is available as time series with seasonality (both dollar value and units shipped). You can use Triple Exponential Smoothing (i.e. Holt-Winters method) and make prediction. You may argue that the units shipped and sales dollars have diminishing trend. Still no problem. Use same method with moving average (i.e. use a sliding window for example for the past ten years) and you will still get the same results.

ah I see ... we can predict Canon's future based on measurements of their past performance.

Does that work for all companies ?

If not then how do we know it will work for Canon when it doesn't work for others ?

What if Canon decided that (perhaps due to the mobile phone market ... ) another line of their business was expected to be more profitable than Cameras in the future - perhaps medical imaging - and have shifted all their best engineers onto medical imaging instead, whilst just milking their previous prowess in Cameras for as long as possible.

Do you think that would that affect the extrapolation equations at all ?
The predictive methods are general. They should work with whatever company's performance data as long as you have good enough data (i.e. several data points with no major disruptions or random changes and with smooth moving average, etc.).
The scenario you mentioned, although quite unlikely for a profit making company, may introduce more uncertainty to the model.
 

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,499
135
100
None your business Alaska
bhf3737 said:
rjbray01 said:
bhf3737 said:
rjbray01 said:
...

So it would be nice to know why you think "it will sell".
What is the analysis ? Is it based on

a) certain product features ?
b) or more historic extrapolation ? ( something like "historically Canon products sold well, therefore future products will sell well too")
c) some other predictive logic ?
It is not rocket science to extrapolate from history and conclude what Ahsanford correctly posted. The history data of performance of camera manufacturers is available as time series with seasonality (both dollar value and units shipped). You can use Triple Exponential Smoothing (i.e. Holt-Winters method) and make prediction. You may argue that the units shipped and sales dollars have diminishing trend. Still no problem. Use same method with moving average (i.e. use a sliding window for example for the past ten years) and you will still get the same results.

ah I see ... we can predict Canon's future based on measurements of their past performance.

Does that work for all companies ?

If not then how do we know it will work for Canon when it doesn't work for others ?

What if Canon decided that (perhaps due to the mobile phone market ... ) another line of their business was expected to be more profitable than Cameras in the future - perhaps medical imaging - and have shifted all their best engineers onto medical imaging instead, whilst just milking their previous prowess in Cameras for as long as possible.

Do you think that would that affect the extrapolation equations at all ?
The predictive methods are general. They should work with whatever company's performance data as long as you have good enough data (i.e. several data points with no major disruptions or random changes and with smooth moving average, etc.).
The scenario you mentioned, although quite unlikely for a profit making company, may introduce more uncertainty to the model.

Back in the 90's, when day trading on the internet became popular, one of the sure ways to loose your money was to get your trading information from trading forums.

When it comes to the opinions of the posters on this forum concerning Canon's viability or financial future most of those expressed on this forum are in line and about equal to getting advice from "Drunk Uncle" on SNL.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
rrcphoto said:
3kramd5 said:
rrcphoto said:
the reason the DSLR sales are slumping is because so many of the semi professionals and professionals are in the "my current camera is good enough for my business needs"

You think so? I doubt paid photographers drive the market in any sizable way. Rather, my suspicion is market saturation among those who want ILCs.

well i was responding to "but for the semi-pro to professional market there is a much greater awareness of the capabilities of competing equipment."

Most of the working pros use what works for them. they don't get bent out of shape like people in the forum does. and yeah, there's alot of "it's good enough" happening, IMO.

Yah, when most mfrs are on incremental/diminishing returns updates, good enough is natural. Fair ‘nuff.
 

TAF

EOS RP
CR Pro
Feb 26, 2012
454
145
I wonder if the "sexy" solution to the mount question is:

1. The flagship gets the EF mount.

2. The second model gets the EF-X mount with adapter (perhaps one that can be installed more permanently if desired).

That way they get to play both sides of the street, and will find out quickly which way the market is really interested in going.

I feel quite certain it will not be a moving sensor. Ensuring absolute perpendicularity to the lens mounting plane with a moveable piece is asking for trouble.

It is disappointing to me that the rumor is that they won't be pushing for extra high ISO. That is something I would like to see. However, since high ISO is very much a necessity if you want to use slow lenses (which are what those tiny things for a notional EF-X mount will be if size is everything), doesn't that suggest it won't be a thin mount?
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
TAF said:
I wonder if the "sexy" solution to the mount question is:

1. The flagship gets the EF mount.

2. The second model gets the EF-X mount with adapter (perhaps one that can be installed more permanently if desired).

That way they get to play both sides of the street, and will find out quickly which way the market is really interested in going.

I feel quite certain it will not be a moving sensor. Ensuring absolute perpendicularity to the lens mounting plane with a moveable piece is asking for trouble.

It is disappointing to me that the rumor is that they won't be pushing for extra high ISO. That is something I would like to see. However, since high ISO is very much a necessity if you want to use slow lenses (which are what those tiny things for a notional EF-X mount will be if size is everything), doesn't that suggest it won't be a thin mount?

If the flagship gets the 5D IV sensor, its high ISO performance will be pretty good.
 

dkangel

I'm New Here
Sep 19, 2014
14
7
Jack Douglas said:
takesome1, it is sad indeed but there are lots of people who get all bent out of shape over nothing much and in the US at least it seems they often tote guns. I recommend a dose of solitude in the wild for these folk, I guess with a Sony camera in their lap. ;)

Jack


"Often tote guns". That is a completely unfounded and ignorant statement to make. Please leave the political aspect out of it. I am a canon guy who also loves his firearms. Nothing wrong with that.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
A Sony A7 III with a 24-70f4 (and a charger) costs about $3000

The current Canon M5 with a 15-45 costs $1000, and is about a third lighter and 10% smaller on each dimension, if only the body is considered. The differences are greater if the lens is also considered. A new model seems to be on the way.

The 6DII, with the 24-105 STM lists for $2600, and can be had for $2200. It is about 25% heavier and 15% larger in length and width and depth than the A7III with the 24-70.

We don't know how much Canon's less expensive FF mirrorless will cost, or what its weight and dimensions will be, but Canon already seems to have the A7 III bracketed in weight and size and at considerably lower price points.
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,129
317
TAF said:
I wonder if the "sexy" solution to the mount question is:

1. The flagship gets the EF mount.

2. The second model gets the EF-X mount with adapter (perhaps one that can be installed more permanently if desired).

That way they get to play both sides of the street, and will find out quickly which way the market is really interested in going.

That, a 5 level ef mount and a smaller 6 level ef-? mount, is where my money is.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,798
2,333
Alberta, Canada
dkangel said:
Jack Douglas said:
takesome1, it is sad indeed but there are lots of people who get all bent out of shape over nothing much and in the US at least it seems they often tote guns. I recommend a dose of solitude in the wild for these folk, I guess with a Sony camera in their lap. ;)

Jack


"Often tote guns". That is a completely unfounded and ignorant statement to make. Please leave the political aspect out of it. I am a canon guy who also loves his firearms. Nothing wrong with that.

Sorry but you're taking it slightly out of context. People who get bent out of shape often sometimes tote guns. At least that's how it seems to me. I still own a shotgun and two 22's but I no longer shoot. I don't disparage those who like hunting legitimately. However, I do sense there are a growing number of folk who really despise hunters and that saddens me, especially when many/most of them are meat eaters. Off topic, I'll leave it at that. :)

Jack
 

takesome1

EOS R
Aug 23, 2013
1,499
135
100
None your business Alaska
Jack Douglas said:
dkangel said:
Jack Douglas said:
takesome1, it is sad indeed but there are lots of people who get all bent out of shape over nothing much and in the US at least it seems they often tote guns. I recommend a dose of solitude in the wild for these folk, I guess with a Sony camera in their lap. ;)

Jack


"Often tote guns". That is a completely unfounded and ignorant statement to make. Please leave the political aspect out of it. I am a canon guy who also loves his firearms. Nothing wrong with that.

Sorry but you're taking it slightly out of context. People who get bent out of shape often sometimes tote guns. At least that's how it seems to me. I still own a shotgun and two 22's but I no longer shoot. I don't disparage those who like hunting legitimately. However, I do sense there are a growing number of folk who really despise hunters and that saddens me, especially when many/most of them are meat eaters. Off topic, I'll leave it at that. :)

Jack

Jack, it is the sad state we live in today. In an attempt to be PC people bend and warp everything you say.

A person who is mentally unstable is unable to purchase a firearm in the US, provided they answer the questions correctly when filling out the transfer form. (excluding shotguns which require no check)

The question really posed, does being an angry Sony shill rise to the level of mental instability to prevent them from purchasing a firearm?

Probably not, but maybe in the future when I am in a public area filled with photographers I will watch a little closer when a Sony owner gets a close. But that's not true either, most likely I will strike up a conversation with them about photography and just avoid conversations about DR.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
takesome1 said:
The question really posed, does being an angry Sony shill rise to the level of mental instability to prevent them from purchasing a firearm?

Can we go back to battery meters showing total coulomb counts, cameras making coffee, magic codecs which increase the resolution of a sensor to 16,000x16,000, or something else less ridiculous than this question?