Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]

[d]

With respect to d and rrcphoto -- who I very much agree with -- allowing someone to use older lenses is value-add whether you personally think adapting old glass is worthy or not. Some customers (say AvTvM?) will value this, and in turn, that makes it valuable to Canon in the form of keeping people in the ecosystem, raising loyalty, happiness, etc.

I agree with you it's a value-add that would help raise loyalty, happiness etc, but I don't see Canon thinking that way, certainly not to the point where they're in any way proactive in providing features or solutions that facilitate a positive experience when using third-party (vintage or modern) lenses.

Two examples: Third party AF lens manufacturers supposedly don't have access to Canon's AF algorithms, hence why there are often issues with the accuracy/repeatability of AF'ing of third party lenses on Canon bodies (purely speculation on my part, based on anecdotal reports from the 'net). If Canon wanted a user of its bodies to have as positive a shooting experience as possible, allowing other manufacturers to fine-tune their AF to be as effective as possible would surely be one way to achieve this, and would require little effort on Canon's side. But obviously it's in Canon's best financial interests for their lenses to be better performers compared to those from a third party.

Second: As best I can tell, you're not able to perform an AFMA adjustment for a vintage lens mounted on a Canon body via an adaptor. If you're relying on the in-VF focus-confirm dot to indicate when a manually focussed vintage lens is actually focussed, it would no doubt to useful to assign a correction value under the AFMA menu to fine-tune the focus accuracy. Again, something very easy to enable in the software/firmware of the camera, I would think.

Bonus third example: One I just thought of - the lack of a built in intervalometer in Canon bodies for so long. I don't think anyone has felt happy about being required to purchase and carry an external piece of hardware in be able to perform this kind of shooting, especially when many Nikon bodies have offered it built in for years, and once more, it's not something that's difficult to implement. Thankfully, Canon seem to have "seen the light" on that one. Funnily enough, they've helped build a market of third-party intervalometers due to the price of theirs being so high! But neither fact engenders positive feelings in the user.

Anyway that's my thinking!

Cheers,
d.

 

[lw]

What about a hybrid? I would like a hybrid
Hybrid OVF+EVF (a la fuji)
Hybrid conventional + off-sensor AF - that you can switch without having to go to live view - and so get accurate off-sensor focusing even when using viewfinder. Or switch to conventional for fast action tracking moving objects. (though off-sensor is catching up in this area)

Canon did recently pattent the hybrid viewfinder. They also have excellent dual pixel focusing.

Surely Canon's best strategy to outgun Sony would be to provide a camera that is the best of everything. Best of conventional DSLR and best of MILC features in one body - so no reason to chose one or the other.

 

[Plainsman]

Why no proper grip with this camera?
With 24Mp this is no toy or pocket camera.
Fashion fad or what!

 

[Stuart]

Silent shooting with no Mirror Shake.
High FPS only limited by electronic transfer speeds
I assume much faster flash sync speeds too

Can't afford it, but yes I want it, even with the new Lens system that will replace EF. Keep a decent grip on it though.

 

[Loswr]

If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.

Hate to break this to you, dilbert, but dead ducks float. :

 

[scyrene]

If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.

Hate to break this to you, dilbert, but dead ducks float. :

Very good Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.

 

[brad-man]

I'll leave it to others to debate the new camera specs. While the sensor from the 80D would appear to be ideal for an improved M, unless the lag speed and FR (including buffer) are greatly increased, I will keep my M3. I have no interest in a FF mirrorless at this time. That is still the realm of DSLRs. But please Canon, do roll out some fast primes so the M will feel more like a "system" and not just an oddity.

 

[bdunbar79]

If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.

Hate to break this to you, dilbert, but dead ducks float. :

So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...

 

[Loswr]

If Canon launch an EF-MILC and set it so that its price is at or higher than the A7RII, it will sink like a dead duck with only 24MP.

Hate to break this to you, dilbert, but dead ducks float. :

So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...

Don't make me turn you into a newt!

 

[Maximilian]

Very good Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.

By the shape of the feet and the bits of color of the feathering you could guess through the water i agree with you that it could be
a rail, a moorhen (almost the same) or a coot.

 

[Maximilian]

So, if the camera weighs the same as a duck...

... it must be a witch? And therefore burned? (cf. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail")

 

[AvTvM]

A detachable adapter does everything a built-in nozzle does and additionally you can go small if wanted/needed using compact native short flang-distance lenses built for mirrorless ... applies to wide-angle to standard focal lengths, not to tele or tilt-shift lenses, of course. This benefit is only avalaible with a detachable adapter, that's why I want one. "Smallest possible package" that gets the job done ... for me please.

If done right those adapter are mechanically very solid. Canon EF/EF-M adapter for 79 Euro is perfectly fine and stable. Yes, there will be additional FLEX ... in theory, but not in practice ... unless someone were to attach an EF supertele via that adapter and not use the lens tripod ring/foot but clamp the camera body onto the tripod head. But would we ever do that?

Canon-to-Canon Adapter needs no chip/CPU, just electrical wire-through for fully functional lens-mount protocol including IS, ETTL-distance information and full-speed AF operation. No difference in functionality compared to a stupid bolted-on nozzle.

Weather-sealing is easy too, all it takes is one (1) O-ring/gasket. Cost: 50 cent.

 

[Luds34]

Oh man, I'd love to completely derail this thread with Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotes, but I will attempt to stay on topic. I will just comment though that my 13 year old son referenced that exact scene just this past weekend by starting it with, "ahhh but what also floats in water". It was a proud papa moment.

I question for you adapter fans out there. I must ask, do you change lenses in the field at all? I personally already find a quick lens change a pain, especially if 5 minutes later I'm switching it back. But throw in mounting and unmounting an adapter, it just starts to get a bit ridiculous. Only if you're shooting all one lens type, and the adapter is always mounted (Sony A7 with all Canon EF glass) then it's equal. But at that point wouldn't you just want a native mount?

I own a couple Canon M's. I have the adapter. Frankly it's more something to have some fun with then to seriously use in most cases. Cue the guy with a shot of his great big white and a tiny M hanging off the end. Most the EF (or EF-S) lenses just don't balance well physically on the M. Many others work at reduced performance. Realistically it's a compromise and what one really wants is a native lens.

Not that any of this matters as it is a moot point. I think any thoughts of Canon introducing a full frame mirrorless camera that is not] an EF mount is very naive. They are not going to abandon all that glass. Just look at the new Canon and Sony mounts. They've been out for years and the amount of native glass available is still quite small. If Canon had any thoughts of a new full frame mount we would not be seeing them continue to invest so heavily in new EF lenses as we have these past few years. Maybe many, many years from now they'll do it, but not today. Heck, I'm quite skeptical they'll even come out with a FF mirrorless camera at all this year.

 

[ahsanford]

Why no proper grip with this camera?
With 24Mp this is no toy or pocket camera.
Fashion fad or what!

That's not what the camera will look like. That's an edited snap of this one of the Leica Q.

- A

 

[Loswr]

I own a couple Canon M's. I have the adapter. Frankly it's more something to have some fun with then to seriously use in most cases. Cue the guy with a shot of his great big white and a tiny M hanging off the end. Most the EF (or EF-S) lenses just don't balance well physically on the M. Many others work at reduced performance. Realistically it's a compromise and what one really wants is a native lens.

Agreed. I have the M2 and four native lenses (counting the M55-200 that's arriving today), along with the mount adapter. I do bring the M kit on trips where I'm also bringing the 1D X and multiple lenses, but I use them exclusively – the former for carrying with me on walkarounds (often just the M2 + M11-22 in a Dashpoint 30), the latter for going out at blue hour, etc. I bring the mount adapter when I travel, but solely so the M can serve as a backup in case the 1D X decides to stop working.

 

[ahsanford]

Not that any of this matters as it is a moot point. I think any thoughts of Canon introducing a full frame mirrorless camera that is not] an EF mount is very naive. They are not going to abandon all that glass. Just look at the new Canon and Sony mounts. They've been out for years and the amount of native glass available is still quite small. If Canon had any thoughts of a new full frame mount we would not be seeing them continue to invest so heavily in new EF lenses as we have these past few years. Maybe many, many years from now they'll do it, but not today. Heck, I'm quite skeptical they'll even come out with a FF mirrorless camera at all this year.

I don't think either the [integral EF mount / "barrel nozzle"] camp or the [keep it thin + adapter] camp is arguing Canon will abandon EF lenses. Both visions of a mirrorless future involve EF glass sticking around. The adapter camp simply wants a few wide to standard 'thin mount' lenses that lead to an aggregate smaller rig+lens combo to carry around, like the A7 + 35mm f/2.8 combo everyone uses as an example.

Yes, Canon has a lovely pancake in rebuttal, but that's about it. Sony simply has more native E-mount options to create a very compact kit at a number of focal lengths. Again: if you want smaller and you are prepared to give up length and aperture, you can have a smaller kit with the thin mount + adapter path.

I just don't think Canon will do that. I think there's just too much common sense on the full EF side of the ledger, and it will trump any move to go thin. (But I very well could be wrong -- perhaps Canon is geeking out to unveil yet another new mount to push new lenses at us.)

- A

 

[scyrene]

Very good Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.

By the shape of the feet and the bits of color of the feathering you could guess through the water i agree with you that it could be
a rail, a moorhen (almost the same) or a coot.

Not a coot - they have weird lobed feet. A moorhen or a sora or some other rail (there are a lot!).

 

[ahsanford]

Very good Although is that a duck? Its feet aren't webbed. Looks more like some sort of rail.

By the shape of the feet and the bits of color of the feathering you could guess through the water i agree with you that it could be
a rail, a moorhen (almost the same) or a coot.

Not a coot - they have weird lobed feet. A moorhen or a sora or some other rail (there are a lot!).

You birders are overthinking it.

Those aren't feet -- they're antlers. That's a zombie deer rising from the depths to feed on brains.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Of course EF-lenses will stay for a long time to come. For focal lengths of about 90mm and up, there is no size advantage for "native mirrorless" (= short flange distance) lenses. Similarly for fast lenses and f/2.8 zooms.

I use the following EF lenses via detachable EF/EF-M adapter on my EOS M:
* EF 40/2.8 STM ... great lens, STM works very well on M, very nice "street" setup ... people often dont notice or mind being captured "cell phone style" with a smallish camera ... but as soon as I take my mirrorslapper to the eye everybody either starts posing and/or swearing at me ;D
* EF 50/1.8 STM ... a bit more reach and faster aperture ... great lens, inexpensive, small, light, faster than any EF-M lens; will not buy a native EF-M 50/1.8 unless it is as small, good and inexpensive as the 22/2.0
* EF-S 60 Macro ... great lens, got it, keep it. will never buy another crop-only macro lens, even if Canon were to bring a native EF-M version
* EF 50/1.4 ... even faster, but AF not so great on EOS M, especially in low/available light
dont mind images taken with a small camera held like a mobile phone ... as soon as a mirrorslapper is brought to the eye everybody starts posing ... or swearing at me!

So basically all situations, were I am not allowed to bring a mirrorslapper in [museums, castles, club concerts and the like] or were I want the gear to be as inconspicuos as possible and when I cannot what i want with EF-M 22/2.0

"Detachable tube adapter" for me please, no "bolted-on nozzle".

 

[AvTvM]

You birders are overthinking it.
Those aren't feet -- they're antlers. That's a zombie deer rising from the depths to feed on brains.
- A

LOL! Exactly what I was thinking. Zombie deer coming after Neuro ... since he has shot it. With his camera. ;D