November CIPA Sales Numbers Are In, Year-Over-Year Slightly Up

[ahsanford]

Not offering a native EF mount version suddenly cuts loose all those loyal Canon users with EF lenses.

I totally forgot how every APS-C SLR user angrily quit the Canon brand for forcing them to use an adaptor with EOS M. Oh, wait, that never happened.

(There will be an adaptor on/near day one. There's zero reason Canon would not do that short of holding its own loyal customers hostage to buy new glass, and that would drive them to the exits. Not happening.)

I believe the greatest threat to going thin for Canon FF SLR folks today would be if:

• A thin mount design is part and parcel with an ergonomically downgraded body that lacks all the good stuff FF SLRs have today -- the great main grip, the top LCD, the button layout, etc. In other words, one could go thin yet full-featured & chunky-gripped, or they could go all (original) EOS M with the concept and turn the FF camera into a clumsily handled/controlled point and shoot.
  
  
• The adaptor is shown to be a threat to reliability / weather-sealing / AF speed / AF accuracy compared to a native mount
  

...but if they avoid those pitfalls, thin could totally work.

Full disclosure, I am squarely on the fence personally with which mount I'd prefer (both offer interesting possibilities). It's also possible that 'being small' is no longer a USP and it's a stone cold, day one expectation of the market. I've polled this topic before and it was a clear preference for full mount, but as I've said a jillion times, we are not the market.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, but if the potential mirrorless market is (just for the sake of argument) 50-50 on thin vs. full mount, whatever Canon chooses might alienate the half that didn't get what they want, so... 17.5% maybe?

The barriers of entry can be read a few different ways. Do you buy a thin-mount system that can adapt nearly every mount's glass or just buy a full mount Canon offering that only takes one type of lens? Canon is the #1 brand, but you don't really care about that if all your Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig.

A big barrier to entry that every manufacturer moving into the MILC space has faced is a inadequate/limited lineup of native lenses. Canon has a very easy way to obviate that barrier.

As unfocused pointed out, the biggest source of Canon FF MILC buyers is likely to be current Canon shooters. So I agree – Canon doesn’t really care if Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig.

Worth pointing out, as I’ve stated before, that Canon collects substantial data from product registrations, and they have their experience from the M series to guide their FF MILC strategy.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I totally forgot how every APS-C SLR user angrily quit the Canon brand for forcing them to use an adaptor with EOS M. Oh, wait, that never happened.

(There will be an adaptor on/near day one. There's zero reason Canon would not do that short of holding its own loyal customers hostage to buy new glass, and that would drive them to the exits. Not happening.)

Adapters work, but they are a kludgy solution. If you visit a foreign country, you deal with pulg adapters and transformers. If you move there, you buy ‘native’ appliances.

If Canon makes (only) a thin mount FF MILC, they are effectively committing to developing a full lineup of native lenses. Of course, in the long term that may actually mean more profit for them, which may outweigh the rapid adoption benefit of releasing a FF MILC with a pre-existing complete native lens lineup.

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon makes (only) a thin mount FF MILC, they are effectively committing to developing a full lineup of native lenses.

If "only" = they go thin and no adaptor is offered at all, sure. (Canon would not do this.)

If "only" = only a thin body and adaptor are offered and no full EF mount body is offered, I disagree. Canon could conceivably go thin + adaptor and only offer a handful of thin-mount lenses that would reward you for overall size (pancakes, 35 f/2.8, 50 f/2, perhaps a tiny/collapsible 24-70 f/slow, etc.) and point us to the EF mothership for the rest.

Remember, Sony's only proliferating the full frame E mount glass because they are courting new users, CaNikon pros, etc. so they can't similarly point to A mount and say 'we've gotcha covered' -- yet another case of a non-market-leading company having to do a lot more to win/maintain share. Those FE lenses are not cheap to design, build and commercialize.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

If "only" = they go thin and no adaptor is offered at all, sure. (Canon would not do this.)

Of course not. I didn't think that even warranted further mention.

If "only" = only a thin body and adaptor are offered and no full EF mount body is offered, I disagree. Canon could conceivably go thin + adaptor and only offer a handful of thin-mount lenses that would reward you for overall size (pancakes, 35 f/2.8, 50 f/2, perhaps a tiny/collapsible 24-70 f/slow, etc.) and point us to the EF mothership for the rest.

As I said, adapters are kludgy. The M series has an adapter. But Canon released EF-M lenses effectively representing the EF-S lineup (at least, the most popular lenses) – standard zoom, telezoom, UWA zoom, fast prime, and dedicated macro. The main gaps are more wide/normal primes (probably rectified in the future) and a fast standard zoom (probably not made, because fast zooms are big). But the point is, for most popular lens categories there's an EF-M lens even though an adapted EF-S or EF lens would work.

Now, what are the most popular full frame lenses (the ubercheap nifty fifty notwithstanding)? Relatively big f/4 zooms and even bigger f/2.8 zooms. But for those lenses, the size difference with a shorter flange focal distance is minimal.

When I suggest that an adapter is kludgy, there are two parts to that. First, the adapter itself – how kludgy depends on the chosen flange focal distance. If it's quite short (18-24mm), the adapter will be the size of an EF25 tube, and pretty easy to use in and of itself, but in that case, the optical compromises for lenses would be substantial. If the flange distance is longer (30-35mm), the optics are better but the adapter is getting too thin for practical convenience and by then it's only a few mm away from the full EF mount spec anyway. Second, is using the adapter in 'blended' kit with some native lenses and some adapter-requiring lenses. If one has just a single adapted lens (adapter stays on lens), or no native lenses (adapter stays on camera), fine. But with at least one native and two or more adapted lenses, it becomes a juggling exercise. Kludgy...and for a professional shooter, probably a non-starter.

 

[rrcphoto]

if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless and a full mount mirrorless offering.

- A

while they can make cameras for multiple product lines, where this falls out of favor is the lenses, there's a pretty finite amount they can release per year - and having more than two mounts would certainly complicate their world.

 

[ahsanford]

Kludgy...and for a professional shooter, probably a non-starter.

...and also the risk you leave the adaptor at home and only have EF lenses in your bag at the time. Yeah, I hear you. Adaptors surely have takeaways.

I think this all boils down to whom Canon is aiming this platform. If it's the 6D-level crowd, I think it will be a much smaller percentage of pros than the 5D crowd, and it has a greater likelihood of being thin + adaptor. Think of it as the enthusiast camera for those with money and photography experience.

But if they want pros, it'll be a full mount.

- A

 

[old-pr-pix]

As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger...

Olympus has always been inclined to push the compact size envelope - witness the original half-frame Pen-F. Oly knows how to make a smallish camera feel right and provides excellent add-on grips. Panasonic also seems to have gotten the ergonomics right with the new G-9; but, Sony isn't there. The real size advantage with Oly & Pana is in the lenses (due to smaller sensor). Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight. If you need/want FF a few mm in body size due to ML isn't going to make much difference. If you can compromise on the sensor size then yes you can get a much smaller package.

 

[ahsanford]

As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger...

Sure... but they are just barely creeping up in size, presumably for more room for internals, cooling, etc. -- they are not fundamentally scaling up the ergonomics for the big GM lenses at all. See comparison below (I believe the A7R3 is in line with the A9, but I haven't compared them yet), where it's clear they may be monkeying around with grip depth in views out of plane but the grip is still Rebel-ish and waaaaay too close to the mount.

Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight.

While you're at it, just compare the resulting DOF as well. That Olympus is a 600mm f/8 lens in DOF terms for FF, isn't it? That ought to be a whole lot smaller!

- A

 

[Talys]

I think the smart money is on a full EF mount mirrorless to start, while concurrently improving APSC performance and lens portfolio on M.

I'm guessing there are at least as many people who want a full frame mirroless that is ergonomically fit to larger, professional lenses as there are rich tech buyers who want a Canon A7RIII. Besides, the latter are fickle, jump onto other spending priorities quickly (and therefore don't end up with large lens and accessories collections, where the long term money is), and are generally not in it for the long haul.

Pros and semi-pros probably spend as much on accessories like flashes and camera batteries than rich tech buyers do on camera bodies.

Long term? One possible strategy would be to:

1. Reduce future EFS development to just the most popular FL's. Focus on M's for the entire range APSC, and xxD and 7D for high end, special purpose crop DSLRs that mostly use EF lenses anyways.

2. Professionally minded FF MILCs and DSLRs that natively use the full range of EF Lenses. Nothing is going to unseat that library any time soon.

3. Develop a smaller FF Mirrorless that uses new mount, with smaller and generally more expensive lenses without an adapter, or EF lenses with an adapter.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight.

While you're at it, just compare the resulting DOF as well. That Olympus is a 600mm f/8 lens in DOF terms for FF, isn't it? That ought to be a whole lot smaller!

- A

The Oly is 600 mm equivalent focal length and true f4 in terms of light gathering. For long telephoto I'll typically take all the extra DOF I can get. In this case f8 equivalent is a significant advantage. Now if we were talking about shorter focal length and portraits I would concede to your point!

 

[Talys]

Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight.

While you're at it, just compare the resulting DOF as well. That Olympus is a 600mm f/8 lens in DOF terms for FF, isn't it? That ought to be a whole lot smaller!

- A

The Oly is 600 mm equivalent focal length and true f4 in terms of light gathering. For long telephoto I'll typically take all the extra DOF I can get. In this case f8 equivalent is a significant advantage. Now if we were talking about shorter focal length and portraits I would concede to your point!

I don't really understand why you would compare an MFT 300 f/4 with a FF 600 f/4 for size/weight.

Going by that reasoning, why not compare it to a Canon 400mm on an APSC? Or, to take it to an extreme, to an SX, which is teenie tiny and gives an effective 1200mm.

The answer, of course is the same as for the question, "Why would anyone ever buy a camera with a bigger sensor if what you care about is telephoto reach?".

 

[neuroanatomist]

The answer, of course is the same as for the question, "Why would anyone ever buy a camera with a bigger sensor if what you care about is telephoto reach?".

Why, indeed? Well, I have my reasons.