Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[Talys]

re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8) ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon). ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers.

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold.

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

 

[ahsanford]

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Because 'everything they want' varies from shooter to shooter and not everyone is a one-issue voter so to speak. (If size really was everything m43 and Nikon 1 would have ruled the world.) Some folks may want more subject isolation for a given aperture, some may want better quality high ISO files, and some may have grown up in film and just hate crop factors.

The notion that "mirrorless must be small" people should get APS-C, while pros/grown-ups get a huge FF mirrorless setup misses the mark. As Sony has shown, Nikon likely will show (strongly rumored to go thin) and Canon possibly will show (mount TBD), a system that allows folks to build a smaller system that can reel in the same images as a bigger one is attractive to the market -- even if that smallness requires making lens choice compromises.

- A

 

[BillB]

re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8) ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon). ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers.

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold.

Canon may well start with a FF equivalent of the M50, or maybe a digital equivalent of a 6DII. Of course, whether such a camera would have a 5DIV sensor or cost $999 is something we can only speculate about, if that is something we want to do.

 

[ahsanford]

Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999

Wow, how did I miss that bit above?

Canon's goal is not to put Sony out of business -- it's to be the #1 brand and make a profit, which they are doing very effectively right now.

So to set their financials on fire and start a price war to 'win' in a market they already currently enjoy the largest margins in is to tell all investors/shareholders "Profits, schmofits. We just took it to Sony good last quarter." And then they'll wonder why price can't ever be elevated again.

Canon has carefully cultivated an impressive value proposition and marketing approach that allows their products to be charged the prices they are. Why abandon that?

I understand the narrative that Sony is some near-term existential threat to Canon dominance, I do. But until Sony actually starts stealing share/profits/etc. from Canon, it's a non-issue. This whole argument of 'Canon blew it and they can't catch up now' is giggleworthy. If Sony steals a few points of Canon share one year, Canon will change their pipeline and start offering more tech-per-dollar. But to do so now -- in absence of any evidence that this existential crisis is upon them -- is just setting profits on fire, IMHO.

- A

 

[fullstop]

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way.

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets.

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then. That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price! ;D

 

[BillB]

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way.

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets.

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then. That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price! ;D

In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.

 

[moreorless]

In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.

Yes I'v never really felt we were looking at a similar kind of situation there however much certain people try and talk it up.

Personally I think both Canon and Nikon would do well to look at the formers APSC mirrorless success. For me a sizeble part of that was in effectively targeting users lens needs rather than trying to maximise profit, Sony for me seem to consistently offer poorly performing or under speced cheaper lenses and then demand large sums for high spec large upgrades.

The FE system might have quite a large lens lineup now but still I think if Canon or Nikon launched their system with a good 35mm F/2 and 24-60mmish variable aperture zoom they could target a clear hole in Sony's lineup.

 

[dak723]

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way.

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets.

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then. That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price! ;D

In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.

I would disagree with the idea that mirrorless is competing with DSLRs. They are merely two alternatives in the ILC camera market. There is no reason one will replace the other at all. They may happily coexist for many years.

 

[fullstop]

"they will happily co-exist for many years."

it may take a few years until the last new DSLR is produced. just like Canon and Nikon still produced their kast (top tier model) analog SLRs for some more years. Just like Leica ending production/sales of their last film-M camera (M7) only now.

Forcall practical means and purposes, mirrorless is completely replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. maybe already in 2018, at the latest next year, more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs. i expects DSLRs to pretty much vanish from online and offline stores within 4-5 years. there will be 1, maybe even 2 more generations of marginally improved DSLR iterations, depending on model/product development cycles cycles. after that DSLRs will only happily exist in collector's cupboards or - hopefully - in dust-proof pelicases. thats where my 5D3 already spends most of its time today. not so "happily", i guess.

 

[Mikehit]

more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.

Do you have any numbers to support that (or link to another source with numbers?).
'Mirrorless' is such a broad term because, strictly, a mobile phone is 'mirrorless camera' as is any bridge camera or compact.

 

[fullstop]

more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.

Do you have any numbers to support that (or link to another source with numbers?).
'Mirrorless' is such a broad term because, strictly, a mobile phone is 'mirrorless camera' as is any bridge camera or compact.

Yes, by "mirrorless" I mean digital *interchangeable lens cameras*.
No, I don't have specific numbers.

Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely.

While not "representative of the gloabl market" from my personal observations it is clear. There are very few amateur/enthusiasts i know [don't know many pro's personally] buying new DSLRs these days. A few Nikonians are getting D850 and a few Canon users got a 5D 4. Nobody interested in 6D 2 or D610 DSLR class. More than those have already switched to Sony [FF] or Fuji [when priority is on smaller/lighter setup]. And largest group is like myself: sitting tight, waiting if/when Canon or Nikon are finally launching their FF mirrorless systems. System decisions for next few years to be made once all specifics and pricing is known and reviews are out.

Other than "general inertia", biggest impediment for switch to Sony are FE lenses. More specifically: no selection of decent, affordable glass and generally very high prices [typically 30-50% more than comparable Canon/Nikon glass]. Plus no/not enough size/weight reduction with Sony FE mirrorless.

"Rebel class DSLR + kitlens or double-zoom kit" purchases by (younger) first time purchasers, "soccer moms", snapshooters in my vicinity have almost completely ended. 90% go smartphone only, 10% go 1" sensor compact [mainly Sony RX100 versions or lower end Canon Powershot G's] or crop mirrorless [Canon EOS M, Fuji, Sony]. If video-centric, Panasonic may be an option.

Yes, this is "anecdotal only" and certainly not representative for the global picture, but at least for Europe I think it is "quite indicative" for current situation.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?

Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way.

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets.

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then. That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price! ;D

In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.

I would disagree with the idea that mirrorless is competing with DSLRs. They are merely two alternatives in the ILC camera market. There is no reason one will replace the other at all. They may happily coexist for many years.

This is very true and I know several people who have bought a mirrorless camera but they have also kept their DSLRs. They use the DSLR in some situations and the mirrorless camera in others. If this tiny sample is representative then I think that at least some mirrorless camera sales are to people who already own a DSLR and who are happy with it. The mirrorless camera offers more flexibility where size and weight are important factors but in other situations the DSLR is a better option.
I really hope that those of us who prefer to use a DSLR are not going to be forced down the mirrorless route and that there will continue to be a wide range of DLSR bodies and lenses for many years to come.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.

Do you have any numbers to support that (or link to another source with numbers?).
'Mirrorless' is such a broad term because, strictly, a mobile phone is 'mirrorless camera' as is any bridge camera or compact.

Yes, by "mirrorless" I mean digital *interchangeable lens cameras*.
No, I don't have specific numbers.

Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely.

While not "representative of the gloabl market" from my personal observations it is clear. There are very few amateur/enthusiasts i know [don't know many pro's personally] buying new DSLRs these days. A few Nikonians are getting D850 and a few Canon users got a 5D 4. Nobody interested in 6D 2 or D610 DSLR class. More than those have already switched to Sony [FF] or Fuji [when priority is on smaller/lighter setup]. And largest group is like myself: sitting tight, waiting if/when Canon or Nikon are finally launching their FF mirrorless systems. System decisions for next few years to be made once all specifics and pricing is known and reviews are out.

Other than "general inertia", biggest impediment for switch to Sony are FE lenses. More specifically: no selection of decent, affordable glass and generally very high prices [typically 30-50% more than comparable Canon/Nikon glass]. Plus no/not enough size/weight reduction with Sony FE mirrorless.

"Rebel class DSLR + kitlens or double-zoom kit" purchases by (younger) first time purchasers, "soccer moms", snapshooters in my vicinity have almost completely ended. 90% go smartphone only, 10% go 1" sensor compact [mainly Sony RX100 versions or lower end Canon Powershot G's] or crop mirrorless [Canon EOS M, Fuji, Sony]. If video-centric, Panasonic may be an option.

Yes, this is "anecdotal only" and certainly not representative for the global picture, but at least for Europe I think it is "quite indicative" for current situation.

Well my anecdotal evidence is somewhat different from yours. The two people I know who have purchased cameras in the last 6 months, both of them bought DSLRs - Nikon D3400s in fact. I asked one of them why he chose the D3400 rather than a mirrorless camera and his answer was "what is a mirrorless camera?"
Most people just want a camera that is easy to use and which produces good results. They don't really care about what's inside.

 

[Mikehit]

Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely.

If that is Thom's article I think it is, he conveniently ignores the 2012 sales which would change the slope of uptake quite significantly. I would treat is with significant caution.

 

[Ozarker]

The idea that a camera and lens could be intimidating is just weird to me. Sometimes I think we give ourselves too much credit.

 

[fullstop]

i know that Thom article, it's not the one i am after, looking for another one.

 

[BillB]

"they will happily co-exist for many years."

it may take a few years until the last new DSLR is produced. just like Canon and Nikon still produced their kast (top tier model) analog SLRs for some more years. Just like Leica ending production/sales of their last film-M camera (M7) only now.

Forcall practical means and purposes, mirrorless is completely replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. maybe already in 2018, at the latest next year, more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs. i expects DSLRs to pretty much vanish from online and offline stores within 4-5 years. there will be 1, maybe even 2 more generations of marginally improved DSLR iterations, depending on model/product development cycles cycles. after that DSLRs will only happily exist in collector's cupboards or - hopefully - in dust-proof pelicases. thats where my 5D3 already spends most of its time today. not so "happily", i guess.

That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.

 

[fullstop]

That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.

it is often a mistake to assume new tech could not rapidly replace older one. If there are still new DSLRs made and sold 5 years from now, i expect their share to be smaller than that of Vinyl LPs. Or the one for horse-drawn carts. Or typewriters. ;D

 

[BillB]

That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.

it is often a mistake to assume new tech could not rapidly replace older one. If there are still new DSLRs made and sold 5 years from now, i expect their share to be smaller than that of Vinyl LPs. Or the one for horse-drawn carts. Or typewriters. ;D

Exactly right. There are examples of new technologies having overwhelming advantages over the technologies they replaced. The question is whether mirrorless cameras have such overwhelming advantages. That's clearer to some than it is to others.

 

[Durf]

more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.

Do you have any numbers to support that (or link to another source with numbers?).
'Mirrorless' is such a broad term because, strictly, a mobile phone is 'mirrorless camera' as is any bridge camera or compact.

Yes, by "mirrorless" I mean digital *interchangeable lens cameras*.
No, I don't have specific numbers.

Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely.

While not "representative of the gloabl market" from my personal observations it is clear. There are very few amateur/enthusiasts i know [don't know many pro's personally] buying new DSLRs these days. A few Nikonians are getting D850 and a few Canon users got a 5D 4. Nobody interested in 6D 2 or D610 DSLR class. More than those have already switched to Sony [FF] or Fuji [when priority is on smaller/lighter setup]. And largest group is like myself: sitting tight, waiting if/when Canon or Nikon are finally launching their FF mirrorless systems. System decisions for next few years to be made once all specifics and pricing is known and reviews are out.

Other than "general inertia", biggest impediment for switch to Sony are FE lenses. More specifically: no selection of decent, affordable glass and generally very high prices [typically 30-50% more than comparable Canon/Nikon glass]. Plus no/not enough size/weight reduction with Sony FE mirrorless.

"Rebel class DSLR + kitlens or double-zoom kit" purchases by (younger) first time purchasers, "soccer moms", snapshooters in my vicinity have almost completely ended. 90% go smartphone only, 10% go 1" sensor compact [mainly Sony RX100 versions or lower end Canon Powershot G's] or crop mirrorless [Canon EOS M, Fuji, Sony]. If video-centric, Panasonic may be an option.

Yes, this is "anecdotal only" and certainly not representative for the global picture, but at least for Europe I think it is "quite indicative" for current situation.

Well my anecdotal evidence is somewhat different from yours. The two people I know who have purchased cameras in the last 6 months, both of them bought DSLRs - Nikon D3400s in fact. I asked one of them why he chose the D3400 rather than a mirrorless camera and his answer was "what is a mirrorless camera?"
Most people just want a camera that is easy to use and which produces good results. They don't really care about what's inside.

I know 5 people who bought new cameras in the last year and they were all DSLR's; 4 of them were actually Canon's, 1 was a Nikon. 2 of these people are actually paid photographers and 1 bought the 5Ds and the other bought the Nikon D850. 1 friend bought the 5D Mark IV and two other friends actually both bought 80D's.

...and I myself also bought a DSLR in the last year; a Canon 6D2.....

I personally don't think DSLR's are going away anytime soon nor do I think mirrorless cameras are dominating the market right now.