More Than One Active Full Frame Mirrorless Project at Canon? [CR1]

[Bennymiata]

I use both mirrorless and dslr's and the main point with mirrorless is that they are supposed to be smaller and cheaper.
Smaller they may be, but they are priced much the same as mirrorslappers.
Where is their so-called price advantage?
Dslrs are often cheaper than a mirrorless equivalent, and to be frank with you, dslrs still perform better than mirrorless cameras in that their speed of focussing and getting the shot is far superior to any mirrorless that I've tried.
I also haven't found a mirrorless camera that I'd be happy to hold in my hand for 12 hours straight,like I do with my 5d3.

Mirrorless MAY be the coming thing, but they aren't there yet.

 

[dak723]

;D say 2019..........Sony will have released like 10 full frame models by then.....

CAnon soooo behind, ugh.

Yes, Sony will have released 10 models by then, and they will still all be crap. What does that tell you?

By what standard are the Sony camera's crap sir? Have you used any? I have and they are wonderful.

Obviously, I am exaggerating. I am sure for many folks the Sony FF cameras are doing a fine job. The differences in all brands is very minimal, but over the past 5 or 6 years I bought a number of cameras, a few FF, a few APS-C, and some M4/3rds. A few were older used Olympus M4/3rds as well as their newer E-M5 and E-M1. From Canon I bought the 6D and the newer M5. The two Sony FF cameras I bought were the A7 and the A7 II. I sold some of the cameras used, and I upgraded from the E-M5 to the E-M1, but the only cameras I returned were the two Sonys. They were the only cameras of the bunch that were disappointing in almost every way. I can not afford higher priced lenses, so the kit lens that comes with the Sony is hampered by the short flange distance. A big negative. One Sony underexposed by nearly 1 1/2 stops, the other 1 stop. While there was some variation in the other brands, too, the Sonys were the worst. I have read that the newer Sonys have improved their EVFs, which is good, because the EVF of the two earlier models I had were far below the EVF of the Olympus cameras, for example. Not surprisingly, the ergonomics of the Sonys were the worst of the bunch, too. Yes, it's all subjective and these are my opinions. So, maybe crap was a definite overstatement. But every other camera I have owned was better overall, in my opinion.

 

[Talys]

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap

I think that the A7R3 and A9 viewfinders are a dramatic improvement over A7R2. But to me, that's like saying, if you need a +3.5 prescription, a pair of +2.5 glasses is dramatically better than nothing.

I won't change my opinion of EVFs as being inferior until what I see through the viewfinder has a mode that is indistinguishable from what I see through optics. The pixel density has to be so tight that I can't see pixels or a pixel grid, and the refresh rate needs to be high enough that fast moving objects and rapid changes of light occur just like I would see with the naked eye. I do think that will be the case one day, but I doubt, soon.

Part of the reason for preferring OVF in situations where EVF might be helpful is that I give almost no value to WYSIWYG through the viewfinder. It's a wonderful learning tool, but at some point, as a photographer, one should learn (through experience and learning, whether through instruction or reading) to be familiar enough with their gear and exposure to understand how light works, and not be disappointed with their shot because it isn't lit or exposed properly.

Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[Mikehit]

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap


Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.

So if someone uses LiveView for landscapes (as many do, with the tilty-flippy) the photographer does not know what they need to do to get the shot they are envisioning? Where is the logic in that?

That sounds like the s-called advice to newbies (that has only recently stopped being propogated) that the best way to learn photography is to buy a film camera and take your time, or to start off with a prime lens instead of these new-fangled laziness-inducing zoom lenses.

 

[jd7]

I won't change my opinion of EVFs as being inferior until what I see through the viewfinder has a mode that is indistinguishable from what I see through optics.

That about sums up my thinking too. I might put up with an EVF if I bought a second camera specifically to be a small and light (eg for travel), but I have yet to see an EVF I would be happy with on my primary camera.

The use of an EVF, along with lesser battery life and slower AF (although I gather the AF gap is closing and may soon be a thing of the past) mean I am not especially excited about the idea of mirrorless. And when it comes to FF mirrorless, the fact it seems few lenses will actually be smaller and lighter means I just don't understand the attraction. Yes, I understand mirrorless can offer some advantages other than being small and light, but I guess I just don't value those things enough to offset what I see as disadvantages.

 

[jd7]

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap


Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.

So if someone uses LiveView for landscapes (as many do, with the tilty-flippy) the photographer does not know what they need to do to get the shot they are envisioning? Where is the logic in that?

That sounds like the s-called advice to newbies (that has only recently stopped being propogated) that the best way to learn photography is to buy a film camera and take your time, or to start off with a prime lens instead of these new-fangled laziness-inducing zoom lenses.

I thought most people using LiveView for landscapes were using it because it's more comfortable than having your eye to the viewfinder when the camera is on a tripod, rather than because of any WYSIWYG view on the screen ...?

That said, I agree there is no reason why the WYSIWYG view of an EVF should be seen as a negative or something you should outgrow as a photographer. If it helps you get the shot you want, use it. (Just like if AF helps you get the shot, use it rather than focus manually, etc.) For my own part, though, I still prefer an OVF. The advantages of an EVF do not outweigh the disadvantages, in my view. (Pun intended!)

 

[Talys]

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap


Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.

So if someone uses LiveView for landscapes (as many do, with the tilty-flippy) the photographer does not know what they need to do to get the shot they are envisioning? Where is the logic in that?

That sounds like the s-called advice to newbies (that has only recently stopped being propogated) that the best way to learn photography is to buy a film camera and take your time, or to start off with a prime lens instead of these new-fangled laziness-inducing zoom lenses.

Not at all. I said that an EVF (or live view) it's a good learning device.

However, if you ONLY rely on WYSIWYG to take photos, and also rely on a sensor's dynamic range flexibility and the ability to adjust photos in post, then what you end up with is a photographer who:

a) learns to hate their flash because all flashes do is ruin shots

b) never learns to augment light, for example, with filters and reflectors

c) doesn't learn about how light works: what types of angles create what type of mood, different types of light, and different types of reflections

And specifically with landscapes:

d) will never take a long exposure with an ND filter


I mean specifically, landscapes. If you rely on WYSIWYG, you can point your camera at a beach sunset, and snap a great shot on the first try. All your friends will say it's a beautiful photo.

If you set your camera on a tripod and take the right exposure with an ND, it's probably going to take a bunch of tries, but your water and the wisps of clouds will look amazing. All your friends will think the photograph is magical.

Talk portraits for a sec. With WYSIWYG, yeah, anyone can get a decent shot out outside. Yes, that's a great shot of your girlfriend. Now, add a softbox and a kicker light, switch to a wider angle lens and take it from higher angle and ask her to turn just that way and move her hand just this way, and suddenly, you have a very flattering photograph that makes her look positively angelic.

My point isn't that WYSIWYG is bad; it's that if you rely on it and never try to improve beyond that, you'll get stuck at a plateau of being a very mediocre (though perhaps happy) photographer. To improve one's skills beyond that, in my opinion, you really need to study other photography and techniques, learn, experiment, and explore -- with many of those applications where what you see in the viewfinder as a composition aid rather than WYSIWYG.

I thought most people using LiveView for landscapes were using it because it's more comfortable than having your eye to the viewfinder when the camera is on a tripod, rather than because of any WYSIWYG view on the screen ...?

I don't do a lot of landscapes; it's just not my thing, and I don't enjoy travel, which makes it even less attractive (since it would be of the same spots). So someone who does, please, share your experiences.

That said, just as with everything else in photography, I do enjoy dabbling and seeing how the pros make their shots. I find that I use live view a lot, but mostly because my camera is on a tripod with a remote trigger, and it's just more convenient to do so (as you said, sometimes, it's at an awkward angle, too). The live view is to frame the shot, though, not to tell me what my picture will look like.

 

[Ozarker]

I still don't get it. What exactly is so great about extra small if it can't fit in your pocket. Sure a little saving on an airplane and a bit less weight wandering around site seeing but it's still dangling and in that sense a nuisance.

Obviously the expressed desires are associated with particular personal needs of the individual, which may not match the needs of another shooter. Please make your prediction of how many years until we see all the shooters at the Olympics holding tiny mirrorless cameras.

Jack

It will fit into my coat pocket with a 35/2.0 pancake on it. And it will fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 fixed to my backpack strap when I am in the mountains. And in all other circumstances my bag will be apprecuiably lighter and less bulky than with a DSLR setup.

Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets.

 

[AvTvM]

Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets.

hehe ... and now take the 5D III, stick it into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch, attach it to backpack strap and have an enjoyable day in the mountains ... oO ... lol

 

[BillB]

It will fit into my coat pocket with a 35/2.0 pancake on it. And it will fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 fixed to my backpack strap when I am in the mountains. And in all other circumstances my bag will be apprecuiably lighter and less bulky than with a DSLR setup.

Heck, with a pancake lens my 5D Mark III fits into my coat pocket. Just get a coat with bigger pockets.
[/quote]



hehe ... and now take the 5D III, stick it into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch, attach it to backpack strap and have an enjoyable day in the mountains ... oO ... lol
[/quote]

And exactly what are you planning to stick into a Lowepro Dashpont 30? Would it be the fantasy EF-X magic box with the imaginary 35mm F2 pancake, or are we talking about something else here? Maybe I'm missing something... .

 

[dak723]

@dak723 - I still think that EVFs are crap


Or to put it another way, if you always just rely on live view/EVF to give you "better", and settle for that, you'll never know what you need to get what you're really create the shot that you're envisioning -- that might involve moving or getting your subject to move, waiting for a different time of day, or adding filters or a reflector or a diffuser or supplementing light, et cetera, et cetera.

So if someone uses LiveView for landscapes (as many do, with the tilty-flippy) the photographer does not know what they need to do to get the shot they are envisioning? Where is the logic in that?

That sounds like the s-called advice to newbies (that has only recently stopped being propogated) that the best way to learn photography is to buy a film camera and take your time, or to start off with a prime lens instead of these new-fangled laziness-inducing zoom lenses.

Not at all. I said that an EVF (or live view) it's a good learning device.

However, if you ONLY rely on WYSIWYG to take photos, and also rely on a sensor's dynamic range flexibility and the ability to adjust photos in post, then what you end up with is a photographer who:

a) learns to hate their flash because all flashes do is ruin shots

b) never learns to augment light, for example, with filters and reflectors

c) doesn't learn about how light works: what types of angles create what type of mood, different types of light, and different types of reflections

And specifically with landscapes:

d) will never take a long exposure with an ND filter


I mean specifically, landscapes. If you rely on WYSIWYG, you can point your camera at a beach sunset, and snap a great shot on the first try. All your friends will say it's a beautiful photo.

If you set your camera on a tripod and take the right exposure with an ND, it's probably going to take a bunch of tries, but your water and the wisps of clouds will look amazing. All your friends will think the photograph is magical.

Talk portraits for a sec. With WYSIWYG, yeah, anyone can get a decent shot out outside. Yes, that's a great shot of your girlfriend. Now, add a softbox and a kicker light, switch to a wider angle lens and take it from higher angle and ask her to turn just that way and move her hand just this way, and suddenly, you have a very flattering photograph that makes her look positively angelic.

My point isn't that WYSIWYG is bad; it's that if you rely on it and never try to improve beyond that, you'll get stuck at a plateau of being a very mediocre (though perhaps happy) photographer. To improve one's skills beyond that, in my opinion, you really need to study other photography and techniques, learn, experiment, and explore -- with many of those applications where what you see in the viewfinder as a composition aid rather than WYSIWYG.

I thought most people using LiveView for landscapes were using it because it's more comfortable than having your eye to the viewfinder when the camera is on a tripod, rather than because of any WYSIWYG view on the screen ...?

I don't do a lot of landscapes; it's just not my thing, and I don't enjoy travel, which makes it even less attractive (since it would be of the same spots). So someone who does, please, share your experiences.

That said, just as with everything else in photography, I do enjoy dabbling and seeing how the pros make their shots. I find that I use live view a lot, but mostly because my camera is on a tripod with a remote trigger, and it's just more convenient to do so (as you said, sometimes, it's at an awkward angle, too). The live view is to frame the shot, though, not to tell me what my picture will look like.

All the WYSIWYG of an EVF gives you is more information - which doesn't keep you from doing any of the things you mention. In fact, more information at the start makes all of the other adjustments or experiments you want to do easier. You are assuming that someone with an EVF will never go beyond relying on the EVF. Well, lots of folks don't go beyond relying on their OVF either, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You could substitute OVDF for EVF in everyone of our sentences and it would make no difference. All the EVF gives you is more information than an OVF - why should that be bad or prevent someone from using filters or lighting? No reason that I can think of.

 

[AvTvM]

And exactly what are you planning to stick into a Lowepro Dashpont 30? Would it be the fantasy EF-X magic box with the imaginary 35mm F2 pancake, or are we talking about something else here? Maybe I'm missing something... .

Not planning on anything re. Canon and FF mirrorless. But my mirrorless dream camera would have exact size and form factor of Sony RX-1R II ... just with a lens mount up front. With a pancake lens [sized like like EF 40/2.8] it would serve as my "ultra-compact mountaineering kit" ... and fit into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 attached to my leftside backpack strap for imemdiate access at all times without causing a sore shoulder. Currently I am using an EOS M [original) with 22/20 or 18-55 for that purpose. But an ultra-compact FF-sensored camera would be more "universal" ... especially in low light.