dilbert said:
* A number of CR regulars likely have EF-S lenses that will become worthless if Canon dumps APS-C DSLRs
Not at all. There's no reason a mirrorless full-frame camera can't support APS-C lenses just like Nikon full-frame cameras do. For that matter, there's no reason a full-frame DSLR can't support APS-C lenses; it just requires some cleverness in the way you swing the mirror so that it doesn't hit the back end of the 10–22.
Heck, if you built a perfect enough mirror, you could probably get away with swiveling the mirror at the middle and putting the sensor on the bottom, facing up, which would be about as simple as current DSLRs. But if you insist upon keeping the mirror out of the sensor's optical path, you can do a slide and pivot.
dilbert said:
* If Canon dumps APS-C DSLRs then the only DSLRs that Canon will sell are the more expensive full frame DSLRs that not everyone can afford
The main reason APS sensors are so expensive is that the economies of scale aren't there. Ramp it up to Rebel levels of production, and I doubt it would make a hundred dollars difference in the price.
dilbert said:
* Dumping APS-C would mean that FF DSLRs are required for the full pricing spectrum, devaluing the equipment owned by various people.
If you don't cannibalize yourself....
dilbert said:
* Dumping APS-C would mean people need high megapixel cameras (anyone for 50MP?) to deliver similar pixel density to the 7D2 and more MP = more expensive camera
Maybe, but if they would upgrade their fab equipment to something capable of producing smaller features (which they'll probably have to do eventually anyway when they catch up with the rest of the world and move to BSI), I'd expect the resulting improvement in accuracy to increase yield at the same time. So there's a decent chance that it would actually be cheaper, even after factoring in the equipment costs.
AvTvM said:
Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
http://photorumors.com/2014/11/24/panasonic-patented-an-external-hybrid-evf-and-ovf-viewfinder/
A rangefinder OVF? That's about as useful as mammary glands on a masculine Sus domesticus.
AvTvM said:
jrista said:
Even better, make a hybrid device...one that can operate mirrorless with an EVF if the user chooses, or switch back to mirrorslapping OVF mode on demand.
Such a device would indeed be BIGGER. But you might still not like it, since it would be fairly top-heavy with a "really big hump" to accomodate both: [an even more more complex] viewfinder prism AND the EVF [panel+electronics].
Not necessarily. If your mirror is reflective on both sides, you could design the camera to use the mirror in all photographs, with the mirror pivoting in the center. Then, place the sensor at the bottom, facing up. Place the LCD at the back of the camera, facing towards the lens. When taking a picture, or when in live view mode, flip it so that the mirror reflects light from the lens down into the sensor, and from the LCD panel up into the OVF.
scyrene said:
As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested
Of course, if you take that to extremes, mirrorless will never happen, because OVFs will always provide a battery life benefit for a given battery size.
rainless said:
I think the problem isn't, so much, that Canon has done anything "wrong"... they just need more cameras to cover a broader and more divergent user base.
Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite. Canon makes too many cameras. They've spread themselves too thin, and thus can only afford to turn over their core product lines every three or four years. If they adopted a more Apple-like approach—building a smaller number of devices that each were more capable, they'd be able to target the broader, more divergent user base just as easily, but with lower R&D cost per unit.
And more importantly, more and more people want hardware that can serve more than one purpose. That's why you see people using cell phones for photography instead of point-and-shoot cameras. The more a product line becomes specialized, the worse it will do in a modern market.
What Canon should be making right now is four cameras:
- Entry-level crop body (Rebel) at about $700
- Mid-range full-frame body (6D upgraded with the 5D Mark III's focus sensor) at about $1,400
- High-end full-frame body (high-MP version of the 1DX), at about $2,500.
- Full-frame or crop mirrorless
That's it. The 1DX/5D Mark III replacement (and optionally the 6D replacement) should be metal; the others should be plastic. All four bodies should have the same basic core feature set—Wi-Fi, ***, RF flash triggering, articulating screen, and DPAF—and the same menu system. That way, the main board and operating system could be identical across models released at about the same time, while driving different outboard sensor assemblies and focus sensors. The top model should also have the fast focus drive feature.
The cost savings from cutting out half their models would translate into being able to update every model at least twice as often, which would significantly improve sales to non-pro consumers, resulting in better economies of scale, allowing for a price reduction. And that price reduction at the high end would then allow some of the current mid-range bodies to go away without hurting sales significantly.
In particular, by pulling the high-MP 1D body down to the 5D Mark III's price range, there would be no reason to ever develop a 7D Mark III or a 5D Mark IV. Similarly, by pulling the focusing system from the 5D Mark III into the 6D, it would then be a great step-up body from the consumer crop body line.
More importantly, this would remove the motivation for unnecessary feature fragmentation that Canon has exhibited so badly as of late, where one moderately low-end body has ***, one low-end body has Wi-Fi, one low-to-medium-end body has both, and the high-end bodies have neither. It would eliminate the reason for putting craptastic focus sensors in the 6D because there would be no second high-end body (5D) to compete with. Basically, this would solve everything that's wrong with Canon's lineup today, IMO.
