Nikon Confirms New Mirrorless System Coming in Early 2019, What About Canon?

[Mikehit]

My opinion: if A7 III and A9 were not Sony cameras with Sony issues but Canon EOS cameras - they'd sell better than 6D II, 5D IV and 1DX II.

Why?
Assume EF mount (which they would have to be).

no. assuming "A7" body in compact size, "A9" body sized as Sony. Both with new native mirrorless mount with a starting lineup of "decent" compact primes and zooms. Plus 2 adapters for existing EF glass, 1 simple extension tube, the other one similar to Sony adapter with pellicle mirror and Phase-AF.

So what you mean is 'if Canon had gone full into mirrorless and developed a whole range of native glass to suit'

if that is the case, and if your assumptions are correct then surely Sony would have overtaken Canon by now after all these years of 'superiority'?

Are you AvTvM in disguise?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Are you AvTvM in disguise?

Yes, he is. His babbling on about Sony's 'poorly chosen' mount parameters and his blatant assumptions that his needs represent the majority are a dead giveaway.

 

[infared]

I did not misquote anyone. That is my interpretation of their verbiage.
A "nice" camera. LOL! It's all yours!

Perhaps an example will help to clarify things a little. The 6D and 6D MarkII cameras are somewhat 'mediocre'... they do not have the best dynamic range at low ISO, low noise performance at high ISO, best AF sensor, highest frame rate etc... but they are the bestselling FF DSLRs in Japan (BCNRanking) and USA Amazon website.

Why? Because the cameras do their jobs well. And the system which includes lenses and flash etc works reliably.

So we agree...they are mediocre cameras. Sales does not mean that something is great.

 

[Don Haines]

My opinion: if A7 III and A9 were not Sony cameras with Sony issues but Canon EOS cameras - they'd sell better than 6D II, 5D IV and 1DX II.

Why?
Assume EF mount (which they would have to be).

no. assuming "A7" body in compact size, "A9" body sized as Sony. Both with new native mirrorless mount with a starting lineup of "decent" compact primes and zooms. Plus 2 adapters for existing EF glass, 1 simple extension tube, the other one similar to Sony adapter with pellicle mirror and Phase-AF.

But your assumption is based on mirrorless cameras being small, which is a design criteria, not a technical requirement. There is a trade-off between having the body small and ergonomics. We all know that Sony chose small body, but that does not mean that Canon will. Canon appears to value the ergonomics quite highly, and that makes it more likely that their entry into FF mirrorless will be with a body of similar physical size/controls to it's existing FF cameras.

BTW, I got to play with one of those small bodied mirrorless cameras (from a company who's name shall not be mentioned ) for the day yesterday. It had all the controls needed to operate, but everything was so small that it felt like a toy. The lenses were as big as my Canon lenses and it just did not feel "professional".... for a great many people going for a FF camera, that feel is one of the requirements. If all I want is small and decent quality, I'm going to get an Oly and save size and money with the lenses.... they have a bunch of F1.2 primes now!!!!!

 

[Don Haines]

I did not misquote anyone. That is my interpretation of their verbiage.
A "nice" camera. LOL! It's all yours!

Perhaps an example will help to clarify things a little. The 6D and 6D MarkII cameras are somewhat 'mediocre'... they do not have the best dynamic range at low ISO, low noise performance at high ISO, best AF sensor, highest frame rate etc... but they are the bestselling FF DSLRs in Japan (BCNRanking) and USA Amazon website.

Why? Because the cameras do their jobs well. And the system which includes lenses and flash etc works reliably.

So we agree...they are mediocre cameras. Sales does not mean that something is great.

But the purpose of a corporation is to make a profit, and given the choice of making a product that sells well, or making a better product that sells poorly, they will pick the one that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor... One should never forget that it is the lower cost cameras that keep companies like Canon, Nikon, and yes, even Sony profitable, and it is the volume from the lower end users that helps keep the costs down on the higher end units....

 

[Kit.]

I am not holding my breath at all for Canon's Mirrorless offering. Odds are, that they do not "get it right".
We'll see........

The odds are that whatever they put out will cause countless Vloggers, Bloggers, Reviewers, and forum poster to declare that Canon is finally dead and Sony is the new King of Cameras. However it will be a nice Camera that does its job well and will probably still out sell the competition.

Funny..so your comment says that we will get a very mediocre camera that will sell well.

No, it doesn't. It says that those whateverloggers don't really care if the camera does its job well.

 

[scyrene]

I did not misquote anyone. That is my interpretation of their verbiage.
A "nice" camera. LOL! It's all yours!

Perhaps an example will help to clarify things a little. The 6D and 6D MarkII cameras are somewhat 'mediocre'... they do not have the best dynamic range at low ISO, low noise performance at high ISO, best AF sensor, highest frame rate etc... but they are the bestselling FF DSLRs in Japan (BCNRanking) and USA Amazon website.

Why? Because the cameras do their jobs well. And the system which includes lenses and flash etc works reliably.

So we agree...they are mediocre cameras. Sales does not mean that something is great.

But since there is no objective definition of 'good', and nobody can agree on precisely what it is, the only thing close to useful data is sales - which are a crude proxy for what the market as a whole thinks is 'good'.

 

[kkamena]

I am not holding my breath at all for Canon's Mirrorless offering. Odds are, that they do not "get it right".
We'll see........

The odds are that whatever they put out will cause countless Vloggers, Bloggers, Reviewers, and forum poster to declare that Canon is finally dead and Sony is the new King of Cameras. However it will be a nice Camera that does its job well and will probably still out sell the competition.

Funny..so your comment says that we will get a very mediocre camera that will sell well. Just because something sells well does not make it GREAT for your needs. 8)

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Phil Indeblanc]

IF Canon cannot make a camera that mechanically cannot shoot and gets lagged in electronics, like the Sony does, then I see no point for Canon to make a high end competitor to the A7RIII.

I have lots Canon bodies, and Sony bodies. If I need a "on-field" journalistic or fast pace ruin/gun response camera, my 5D is ALWAYS with me. The stupid glitchy Sony's while I love in studio AND while they always come with me as I cross my fingers they will do a miracle...They simply don't. SOmetimes it works out, and other times or most, I have to set it aside and let the Canon do its work.

Canon will surely need to keep the existing line of lenses.

Here is a list of the TOP Sony features I find GREAT!
Nothing new, but I rely on this stuff...

NO AA FILTER...I cannot stress this enough, as I have posted saying it here for OVER a decade!
Live view with effect on and off.
Focus peaking
Silent shooting
Tilting screen
Self Timer flexibility
Programmable buttons

Tether shooting to PhaseOne C1 is nice
Something the SOny CANNOT even relate or compete with is the viewfinder. The current 5D viewfinder is a WORLD apart in seeing your subjects that you just toss the Sony aside. Canon will need to work on something about this. (See "Wishes" below).

I would love to see a second thread mount hole on maybe the side of the body. I think cameras can evolve as multi point and use devices to help adapt to different straps or rigs people want to use, and it just makes it easier to have more than one mount point. (I often use a rig in studio with field monitor, vs then needing to disassemble things to use a strap. With 2 points I can leave the rig plate on and just add a strap to another thread.

*Wishes....
What would be revolutionary is a monocular design "eyepiece" Meaning the entire camera would cover the one eye like a goggle. SO its not a metal resting on your cheek, but a cushioned foam that isolates your eye., and the body is shaped like a goggle. A adaptable accessory would be a head strap/mount so you can use it hands free, or at least with remote. This would be an amazing evolution in a very pro level camera.

 

[The Fat Fish]

I hope Canons FF mirrorless comes soon but I also hope it's not mirrorless for the sake of mirrorless. The success of Sony, Fuji and others is only partly due to mirrorless. Their main success has come because they offer a wealth of features for a competitive price.

Canon need to leave the 6DII and M50 attitude behind and offer a really well spec'd camera for a really good price. That's why all these new mirrorless cameras are doing so well.

In a declining market you need to excite potential buyers.

 

[Orangutan]

I hope Canons FF mirrorless comes soon but I also hope it's not mirrorless for the sake of mirrorless. The success of Sony, Fuji and others is only partly due to mirrorless. Their main success has come because they offer a wealth of features for a competitive price.

Which features, aside from the sensor?

Canon need to leave the 6DII and M50 attitude behind and offer a really well spec'd camera for a really good price.

Why? Canon is a for-profit business -- they're not in a competition to get the best reviews from u-t00b-3rs, they're trying to make a sustained profit. So far, they're doing this much better than their competitors. What do you suggest Canon change to gain greater market share and profit?

In a declining market you need to excite potential buyers.

True, but you shouldn't abandon your loyal current buyers.

 

[The Fat Fish]

I hope Canons FF mirrorless comes soon but I also hope it's not mirrorless for the sake of mirrorless. The success of Sony, Fuji and others is only partly due to mirrorless. Their main success has come because they offer a wealth of features for a competitive price.

Which features, aside from the sensor?

Great 4K video, IBIS, Dual SD Cards, 10FPS for $2000.

Canon need to leave the 6DII and M50 attitude behind and offer a really well spec'd camera for a really good price.

Why? Canon is a for-profit business -- they're not in a competition to get the best reviews from u-t00b-3rs, they're trying to make a sustained profit. So far, they're doing this much better than their competitors. What do you suggest Canon change to gain greater market share and profit?

It's early days. I don't see that attitude lasting decades. It's worked for now but Sony and Fuji were tiny players 5 years ago, now they are much bigger. It's far too early to declare the death of any company but I really think the market will change.

In a declining market you need to excite potential buyers.

True, but you shouldn't abandon your loyal current buyers.

Adding features won't cause you to abandon current loyal buyers at all. It WILL stop those moving to other systems.

 

[dak723]

I hope Canons FF mirrorless comes soon but I also hope it's not mirrorless for the sake of mirrorless. The success of Sony, Fuji and others is only partly due to mirrorless. Their main success has come because they offer a wealth of features for a competitive price.

Obviously, different buyers desire different things. In my experience with Sony, they offered a wealth of features - many that didn't work nearly as well as advertised. For me, that's a huge negative - a far bigger negative than if Canon offers less features, but their features all work very well.

 

[Isaacheus]

I hope Canons FF mirrorless comes soon but I also hope it's not mirrorless for the sake of mirrorless. The success of Sony, Fuji and others is only partly due to mirrorless. Their main success has come because they offer a wealth of features for a competitive price.

Obviously, different buyers desire different things. In my experience with Sony, they offered a wealth of features - many that didn't work nearly as well as advertised. For me, that's a huge negative - a far bigger negative than if Canon offers less features, but their features all work very well.

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

A great example of this would be the 4k implementation; all the latest Sonys offer fairly decent 4k in both full frame and super 35 mode, while the 6d mk2 doesn't have it at all, and the 5d mk4 has a significant crop, but also a storage heavy codec. Whether or not this will be the end of the world/a deciding factor, but it is a negative on the Canon side. The Sony ha been known to over heat with longer record times (I believe this has mostly been fixed?), so I'm not saying either is perfect.

On the otherhand, I'm pleased that Canon at least tried to include 4k in the m50, rather than just not bother at all like in the 6d mk2.

In a declining market you need to excite potential buyers.

True, but you shouldn't abandon your loyal current buyers.

I don't see how including/offering new features is abandoning loyal customers, I'd see not including them/not trying to compete with other offerings as doing that - it's exactly why I now have a Canon and a Sony body, rather than 2 Canon bodies, I can't get a single Canon body that has the features I want. The bigger frustration was that Canon have those features spread over multiple bodies, so it's not even a case where it wasn't possible

 

[canon1dxman]

BTW, I got to play with one of those small bodied mirrorless cameras (from a company who's name shall not be mentioned ) for the day yesterday. It had all the controls needed to operate, but everything was so small that it felt like a toy. The lenses were as big as my Canon lenses and it just did not feel "professional".... for a great many people going for a FF camera, that feel is one of the requirements. If all I want is small and decent quality, I'm going to get an Oly and save size and money with the lenses.... they have a bunch of F1.2 primes now!!!!!

My experience exactly when I tried the A9 last summer. Park Cameras recent blog about the A7II agreed. Great feature set blah blah etc but totally imbalanced when using long lenses.

I try to like them but so far, without success.

 

[The Fat Fish]

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

A great example of this would be the 4k implementation; all the latest Sonys offer fairly decent 4k in both full frame and super 35 mode, while the 6d mk2 doesn't have it at all, and the 5d mk4 has a significant crop, but also a storage heavy codec. Whether or not this will be the end of the world/a deciding factor, but it is a negative on the Canon side. The Sony ha been known to over heat with longer record times (I believe this has mostly been fixed?), so I'm not saying either is perfect.

On the otherhand, I'm pleased that Canon at least tried to include 4k in the m50, rather than just not bother at all like in the 6d mk2.

The lack of video features is the most deal breaking thing for me, especially considering it was Canon who started the video DSLR market with the 550D and 5DII.

I also wish the M50 did not have 4K as it's such a poor implementation of it, it does not deserve to be on the marketing material. Canon likes to do things like this and market pointless "features" (Digital Video IS).

 

[Isaacheus]

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

A great example of this would be the 4k implementation; all the latest Sonys offer fairly decent 4k in both full frame and super 35 mode, while the 6d mk2 doesn't have it at all, and the 5d mk4 has a significant crop, but also a storage heavy codec. Whether or not this will be the end of the world/a deciding factor, but it is a negative on the Canon side. The Sony ha been known to over heat with longer record times (I believe this has mostly been fixed?), so I'm not saying either is perfect.

On the otherhand, I'm pleased that Canon at least tried to include 4k in the m50, rather than just not bother at all like in the 6d mk2.

The lack of video features is the most deal breaking thing for me, especially considering it was Canon who started the video DSLR market with the 550D and 5DII.

I also wish the M50 did not have 4K as it's such a poor implementation of it, it does not deserve to be on the marketing material. Canon likes to do things like this and market pointless "features" (Digital Video IS).

I agree the implementation is not great, but I do like that Canon seem to be trying more with it, and hopefully they'll see that people aren't that happy with the current form, and rectify that. Given the market point of it at least. I'd still be more disappointed if the 6d mk2 couldn't use dpaf with 4k, if they'd put it in, given the cost etc

I can easily see where you're coming from too though

 

[BillB]

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

A great example of this would be the 4k implementation; all the latest Sonys offer fairly decent 4k in both full frame and super 35 mode, while the 6d mk2 doesn't have it at all, and the 5d mk4 has a significant crop, but also a storage heavy codec. Whether or not this will be the end of the world/a deciding factor, but it is a negative on the Canon side. The Sony ha been known to over heat with longer record times (I believe this has mostly been fixed?), so I'm not saying either is perfect.

On the otherhand, I'm pleased that Canon at least tried to include 4k in the m50, rather than just not bother at all like in the 6d mk2.

The lack of video features is the most deal breaking thing for me, especially considering it was Canon who started the video DSLR market with the 550D and 5DII.

I also wish the M50 did not have 4K as it's such a poor implementation of it, it does not deserve to be on the marketing material. Canon likes to do things like this and market pointless "features" (Digital Video IS).

 

[BillB]

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

A great example of this would be the 4k implementation; all the latest Sonys offer fairly decent 4k in both full frame and super 35 mode, while the 6d mk2 doesn't have it at all, and the 5d mk4 has a significant crop, but also a storage heavy codec. Whether or not this will be the end of the world/a deciding factor, but it is a negative on the Canon side. The Sony ha been known to over heat with longer record times (I believe this has mostly been fixed?), so I'm not saying either is perfect.

On the otherhand, I'm pleased that Canon at least tried to include 4k in the m50, rather than just not bother at all like in the 6d mk2.

The lack of video features is the most deal breaking thing for me, especially considering it was Canon who started the video DSLR market with the 550D and 5DII.

I also wish the M50 did not have 4K as it's such a poor implementation of it, it does not deserve to be on the marketing material. Canon likes to do things like this and market pointless "features" (Digital Video IS).

I agree the implementation is not great, but I do like that Canon seem to be trying more with it, and hopefully they'll see that people aren't that happy with the current form, and rectify that. Given the market point of it at least. I'd still be more disappointed if the 6d mk2 couldn't use dpaf with 4k, if they'd put it in, given the cost etc

I can easily see where you're coming from too though

Have either of you actually used the M50 to shoot 4K video?

 

[Mikehit]

I'm not going to defend Sony by saying that all the features work well/as hoped, but I do feel that a number of the features Canon have added recently also have a number of negatives, in video especially. The problem is compounded more by Canon not offering as many features either.

The number of times I have read comments like 'I don't use 4K myself but Canon have to include it to remain competitive'. It makes me wonder how people arrive at their buying decisions. Fortunately I think most Canon customers buy based on what they need and how Canon fits that need.