Pro Mirrorless Mentions and More

[mrsfotografie]

What is an EEVF?

I speculate:

Enhanced EVF

-or-

Economical EVF

Canon will call it the former, at least in public material.

Or a typo? I am also curious to find out....

 

[koenkooi]

• "Fully customisable auto-ISO with minimum and maximum sensitivity and shutter speed thresholds, including 1/FL or 1/2FL for zooms etc." --> Canon doesn't do this (at least not on my 5D3), and I'd love it if it did. When I use auto-ISO (a huge convenience in walkaround shooting when I have to stick and move), a 1/FL setting would be terrific -- it makes perfect sense.

As I understand it, the 5Ds/5DsR does allow that. Have a look at http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/4 and scroll down to Auto ISO (now programmable).

 

[ahsanford]

• "Fully customisable auto-ISO with minimum and maximum sensitivity and shutter speed thresholds, including 1/FL or 1/2FL for zooms etc." --> Canon doesn't do this (at least not on my 5D3), and I'd love it if it did. When I use auto-ISO (a huge convenience in walkaround shooting when I have to stick and move), a 1/FL setting would be terrific -- it makes perfect sense.

As I understand it, the 5Ds/5DsR does allow that. Have a look at http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/4 and scroll down to Auto ISO (now programmable).

Thanks. Did not know that.

- A

 

[mrsfotografie]

• "Fully customisable auto-ISO with minimum and maximum sensitivity and shutter speed thresholds, including 1/FL or 1/2FL for zooms etc." --> Canon doesn't do this (at least not on my 5D3), and I'd love it if it did. When I use auto-ISO (a huge convenience in walkaround shooting when I have to stick and move), a 1/FL setting would be terrific -- it makes perfect sense.

As I understand it, the 5Ds/5DsR does allow that. Have a look at http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/4 and scroll down to Auto ISO (now programmable).

Thanks. Did not know that.

- A

The customizable auto-iso is one of the best features of the 5DMkIII and some other Canon DSLRs'. I absolutely love this feature and wish my venerable 5DMkII had it, too :-[

 

[ahsanford]

The customizable auto-iso is one of the best features of the 5DMkIII and some other Canon DSLRs'. I absolutely love this feature and wish my venerable 5DMkII had it, too :-[

Sure, but we don't have the good stuff on my 5D3. Every time I change my lens out, I need to reset the 1/FL min shutter speed, and I have to pick the most conservative value for a zoom (i.e. 1/125 on my 24-70 as 1/60 might have some misses). In theory -- I haven't used the 1DX/7D2/5DS -- you can just change lenses out and it will simply update automatically, presumably on the fly even with a zoom. That's awesome if so.

People assume you upgrade your bodies for more MP or more FPS or more DR, which is fine. But little things like this are huge conveniences that tip the needle towards 'upgrade' for me. If only it had spot metering at any AF point...

#5D4wishlist #iamofftopic

- A

 

[jaayres20]

"We expect to see an EOS-1D X and EOS 5D Mark IV before the September 2016 show."

I was really wanting to have my hands on a 1DX mark II around April of next year. Not that I need one, but boy do I WANT one. I wish it were sooner than next September. That would be 4-5 years from the announcement of the 1DX.

 

[privatebydesign]

but I agree that there are clearly two camps for FF mirrorless and Canon needs to figure out how to placate both.

- A

I don't understand why everybody thinks Canon 'need' to do this or that or anything else,

Incidentally, what are all these pent up future FF mirrorless people shooting with now?

Fair. Canon could drive around the 'small' camp as that means a new mount and new lenses. My two recent polls clearly lean towards a 'bigger' rig -- larger grip and the native EF mount were preferred. Perhaps that's Canon most straightforward play in FF mirrorless.

As far as the pent up mirrorless folks, Sony is bulking up its 2nd-gen bodies for a host of reasons, but we all know that larger f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes are coming. Sony is bulking up the platform to compete for bread-and-butter FF SLR professionals.

Those folks from the the first crop of people who were lured to the original A7 bodies for non-sensor reasons -- i.e. the platform being small was their #1 driver -- are not super fond of the A7 platform bulking up. I hear a number of them voice disapproval of added body weight and rumors of large FF glass coming to the platform: "It's supposed to be a small platform", "With today's high ISO sensors, f/4 is the new f/2.8, so please stop making huge lenses", etc.

So I personally believe there are two major camps in FF mirrorless:

• "Keep it as small/light as possible" --> Skinny mirrorless mount, modest grip, f/4 zooms, f/2.8 primes, and limited focal length support (the adapt old lenses people are in here, too)
  
  
• "I want to be able to do everything I can with my SLR and more" --> EF (or Nikon F) mount, chunky grip, all the big/fast glass they have today, etc.

- A

I also think there are two intrenchable opinions on what constitutes a good FF mirrorless, probably more, but I still don't see why that means people think "Canon needs to figure out how to placate both". I can well see Canon being quite happy sticking to APS mirrorless, unless they were smart enough to design the EF-M mount with the 135 format in mind.

Sony will drop cameras sooner or later, the writing is already on the wall with reduced sales volume, and Sony have always been a sales number driven electronics group. They have no connection with their customer base and zero longevity. Canon and Nikon could quite easily just wait them out and let the niche FF mirrorless die out.

 

[Zv]

I'm also quite content with the M line staying APS-C. As long as the sensor is top of the line with DPAF then we're good. A FF sensor'd M would likely mean a costlier, larger body and that would be a bit pointless for travel photography - an area I feel the 6D is already providing for. Why would we want something that's almost the same size and weight and presumably about the same price as the 6D? No advantage other than bragging rights. Keeping it small and compact suits the mirroless agenda better. I think all it needs is to be fully specced, high FPS and all that.

I wonder how that would affect Rebel and 70D sales though if it had similar specs or better? Is this the reason Canon have delayed an APS-C pro grade mirrorless camera?

Also, assuming they create a FF mirrorless using the existing EF-M mount that just means we still have to stick an adaptor on the front of it to use our lovely shiny FF lenses. Seems less than ideal. So if they did make it FF it would likely be an EF mount beast. Great, now we've eliminated the adaptor but we have a larger body and same big FF lenses and we can't use EF-M lenses so what was the point of that?

 

[ahsanford]

I'm also quite content with the M line staying APS-C. As long as the sensor is top of the line with DPAF then we're good. A FF sensor'd M would likely mean a costlier, larger body and that would be a bit pointless for travel photography - an area I feel the 6D is already providing for. Why would we want something that's almost the same size and weight and presumably about the same price as the 6D?

Because a mirrorless rig can do things an SLR cannot. Get past size.

Here's my running list of the opportunity of mirrorless over SLRs that has nothing to do with size:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28037.msg556136#msg556136

Keep in mind: I am not a mirrorless proponent. I prefer SLRs. But the value proposition of future FF mirrorless products (say 3-5 years from now, once AF and lag improves) is staggeringly good, even if it's the exact same size as my 5D3.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Sony will drop cameras sooner or later, the writing is already on the wall with reduced sales volume, and Sony have always been a sales number driven electronics group. They have no connection with their customer base and zero longevity. Canon and Nikon could quite easily just wait them out and let the niche FF mirrorless die out.

That's... wow, that's madness.

I don't expect Sony to conquer the world, but FF mirrorless is no niche that will die out -- it is absolutely the future. Consider: if it is niche today, it's because the two companies with all the lenses hasn't offered such a system yet!

I'd wager the majority of FF rig sales in 10-15 years will be mirrorless. Only the most demanding gear with the most well-funded photographers (i.e. the 1D sports/wildlife crowd) will still be buying new SLRs then.

Again, see the link in my immediate post above for the clear feature/value upsides to mirrorless.

I could be wrong, but I feel that other than battery life, mirrorless will either eliminate/reduce the differences in performance to SLRs in the next few years and then the upsides of mirrorless will start to shine.

Again: I'm an SLR guy and I do not own a mirrorless rig (other than a cell phone). I just feel that mirrorless is the inevitable future for most of us.

- A

 

[mrsfotografie]

Sony will drop cameras sooner or later, the writing is already on the wall with reduced sales volume, and Sony have always been a sales number driven electronics group. They have no connection with their customer base and zero longevity. Canon and Nikon could quite easily just wait them out and let the niche FF mirrorless die out.

That's... wow, that's madness.

I don't expect Sony to conquer the world, but FF mirrorless is no niche that will die out -- it is absolutely the future. Consider: if it is niche today, it's because the two companies with all the lenses hasn't offered such a system yet!

I'd wager the majority of FF rig sales in 10-15 years will be mirrorless. Only the most demanding gear with the most well-funded photographers (i.e. the 1D sports/wildlife crowd) will still be buying new SLRs then.

Again, see the link in my immediate post above for the clear feature/value upsides to mirrorless.

I could be wrong, but I feel that other than battery life, mirrorless will either eliminate/reduce the differences in performance to SLRs in the next few years and then the upsides of mirrorless will start to shine.

Again: I'm an SLR guy and I do not own a mirrorless rig (other than a cell phone). I just feel that mirrorless is the inevitable future for most of us.

- A

Actually I can see that would be a strategy that could work, but it depends on both Nikon and Canon holding out... : The way in which Canon's strategy of product lines works, I certainly think it's in alignment with something Canon would consider.

It's not always the 'best' technology that wins in the end, and Sony has lost before. Reference the Betamax vs VHS video tape format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

 

[scottkinfw]

With good enough performance, I'd consider it for sure. I don't see that for a few more years however. That would be good for me, because I'll be an old(er) fart, and decreased size/weight would likely be better for my hands.

I'm also quite content with the M line staying APS-C. As long as the sensor is top of the line with DPAF then we're good. A FF sensor'd M would likely mean a costlier, larger body and that would be a bit pointless for travel photography - an area I feel the 6D is already providing for. Why would we want something that's almost the same size and weight and presumably about the same price as the 6D?

Because a mirrorless rig can do things an SLR cannot. Get past size.

Here's my running list of the opportunity of mirrorless over SLRs that has nothing to do with size:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28037.msg556136#msg556136

Keep in mind: I am not a mirrorless proponent. I prefer SLRs. But the value proposition of future FF mirrorless products (say 3-5 years from now, once AF and lag improves) is staggeringly good, even if it's the exact same size as my 5D3.

- A

 

[Hjalmarg1]

'Pro mirrorless' sounds a lot more like the enthusiast EOS-M rig we've been asking for. Integral EVF + better AF are musts for that segment, IMHO, so I'm glad to see Canon slowly smell the coffee and join the world. I'm eager to see what they come up with.

What does "Wider support for the EF lens family" mean? Don't all EF lenses work just fine through that adapter, or is some EF glass locked out from working?

- A

Sounds like I will be selling my new Fuji mirrorless gear to fund for a hopefuly competent Canon mirrorless

 

[Bernard]

It's not always the 'best' technology that wins in the end, and Sony has lost before. Reference the Betamax vs VHS video tape format.

Not that old myth again.

Off topic:
Beta was always a step behind with actual machines that consumers could buy. Sony kept claiming that they had "better technology," based mostly on a slightly more efficient tape transport, but tape transport was never an issue with VHS. Year after year, the best-performing VCRs used VHS and Super-VHS: they had the best high-end stuff, and the best consumer stuff. It's dumbfounding that Sony fanboys are still fighting (and losing) the format wars almost 40 years later.

Back on topic:

I would be happy with an EF-M mount camera that uses the 5Ds sensor. Give it a big battery, and ditch the flash for a good built-in tiltable EVF. It wouldn't have the fastest AF, but that's not important.

 

[Maximilian]

What is an EEVF?

Maybe a typo? One E too much?

Maybe "Expandable" like the one @ Sony RX100 III 8)

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It's not always the 'best' technology that wins in the end, and Sony has lost before. Reference the Betamax vs VHS video tape format.

Not that old myth again.
Off topic:
Beta was always a step behind with actual machines that consumers could buy. Sony kept claiming that they had "better technology," based mostly on a slightly more efficient tape transport, but tape transport was never an issue with VHS. Year after year, the best-performing VCRs used VHS and Super-VHS: they had the best high-end stuff, and the best consumer stuff. It's dumbfounding that Sony fanboys are still fighting (and losing) the format wars almost 40 years later.

I remember the first time I saw one Betamax tape, and the quality seemed better, with the PAUSE functions and SLOW MOTION without shaky and drizzled that VHS had at that time.

The weakness of the Betamax was always the bad availability of new movies, and the highest price.

8mm video cameras were much better than the terrible VHS-C.

Betacam cameras were the best for more than a decade.

But I never bought any of those Sony products due to price and availability of media. I simply could not afford the "best", and bought the formats that were "good enough".

 

[Bernard]

Betacam cameras were the best for more than a decade.

Betacam had very little to do with consumer Beta. The tapes were the same shape, but that was about it. Sony was always good with their broadcast stuff, but that division was kept very far away from the consumer products.

This state of affairs continues to this day. Sony makes some good, professional video cameras. They are tough, they have big batteries, and they are made to be used easily. Those product aren't made by the same people who design the A7-series, even if they (sometimes) share a lens mount.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Betacam cameras were the best for more than a decade.

Betacam had very little to do with consumer Beta. The tapes were the same shape, but that was about it. Sony was always good with their broadcast stuff, but that division was kept very far away from the consumer products.

This state of affairs continues to this day. Sony makes some good, professional video cameras. They are tough, they have big batteries, and they are made to be used easily. Those product aren't made by the same people who design the A7-series, even if they (sometimes) share a lens mount.

Yes, Betacam was a completely different system of Betamax.
I mean that the philosophy of Sony in the 80's, was to make the best product, the most reliable, the most durable, the most predictable and the most expensive.
Today Sony philosophy seems to be to dominate an area (image sensors), and neglecting the usability, reliability, stability.

 

[AvTvM]

Today Sony philosophy seems to be to dominate an area (image sensors), and neglecting the usability, reliability, stability.

I am no Sony customer - at last not yet. But i am extremely happy they brought their A7 series to market, proving that highly competent FF-sensored cameras can be made in a very compact form factor, with very decent performance and at about half the price Canon would undoubtedly charge, if they were able [sensor] and willing [corporate attitude] to produce such cameras - especially the Mk. II versions.

I do not see any neglect on Sony's part in terms of features, usability, reliability or stability there. Rather the opposite. I don't find many reports about A7 "articulated LCDs breaking off" or such things. Also, Sony did not have to recall an entire series of their A7 flagships due to AF issues [unlike Canon 1D]. Also am not reading anything about oil splatter problems on Sony A7 series [as opposed to Nikon].

On the other hand one of my 3 Canon 600EX-RTs speedlites [not exactly a low-end Canon product] often refuses to recognize fully charged batteries - it just shows a low battery warning in the display, until I take batteries out, re-insert them, shake the unit and repeat the process 3 or 4 times. Quite erratic, highly unreliable and incredibly frustrating on location.

Service? Canon CPS and Nikon NPS are off limits to 99% of their customers. At least were I live, entry criteria are ridiculously high. Even if I purchased a 1D-X I would not be "admitted" to CPS, not even into the lowest tier. So the service I get from Canon is inferior to that offered by Sony. Sony products are serviced by Sony subsidiary [wherever they may send them to]. Canon imaging products? There are exactly 2 external Canon service partners. in the entire country. One of them is a company handling mainly mobile-phone repairs and warranties [typpically claiming "there is water damage, it is out of warranty"]. I would definitely not send any Canon camera or lens to them for "service".

As far as I am concerned, if Canon does not offer a compelling FF mirrorless system by the time Sony launches the A7 III, I'll switch. I've pretty much whittled down my Canon inventory already to just a 5D3 / 24-70 / 70-200 / 50 1.4 set and an EOS-M plus the 4 current EF-M lenses as my "golite"-kit. I'd love to replace those 2 gear sets with one set. As the core I want a universal, small, lite, kick-ass-performance FF-MILC [with short flange-back mount and EF lens adapter] plus a few native compact prime lenses and a few bigger native 2.8 zooms. One camera, one mount, one system. To go lite, when I want to go lite and go "bigger", when necessary.

 

[Loswr]

Sony makes some good, professional video cameras. They are tough, they have big batteries, and they are made to be used easily.

I often seem them with Canon field lenses mounted.