Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]

[Random Orbits]

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.

I tend to use the adapter most when taking video and stills at the same time. The DSLR is used for stills and the M is used for video. I use the adapter with L lenses to drop the ISO for video.

 

[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!).

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

I genuinely laughed out loud at this ;D

 

[jedy]

So Canon either produce a smaller FF mirrorless camera with a new lens mount or a bigger mirrorless to accommodate the EF mount. Maybe they're working on both. Either way, Canon have to have a decent mirrorless system otherwise they'll keep loosing out to the likes of Fujifilm and Sony. Even if the EF mount is to continue for years to come, I'm sure the advantages with mirrorless technology will eventually overtake DSLRs. Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.

 

[bdunbar79]

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")

I shall say Ni! to you a second time, if you do not switch to Sony.

 

[nads]

Likewise, releasing a body that compels an existing Canon shooter to add it to their arsenal would seem to me a greater initial priority over trying to attract existing mirrorless users from other systems. But I admit my insight is very limited

d.

In terms of market strategy... the target for this body is much more likely to be a user choosing between a competitive mirrorless and a Canon mirrorless. Current Canon shooters are are already established customers and are much more likely to purchase additional canon products in the future than a buyer that chooses a competitors product.

 

[ahsanford]

Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.

1) Favour them in a head to head context as if you were a consumer who owned no photography gear at the time? Yes. You are 100% right. Their EVFs are better. Their cameras are more responsive. Their sensors are lovely.

2) But we own Canon lenses and enjoy Canon's erognomics/menus/handling, and we appreciate Canon service and quality.

3) We don't like adapting non-native lenses and hoping the AF works.

4) We don't want to buy a boatload of new lenses for another mirrorless mount.

(2), (3) and (4) utterly obliterate (1) as far as buying priorities go unless you have a ton of money to burn or only want 1-2 lenses to use with mirrorless. And Canon knows this. They can deliver a decent but not mindblowing offering and we will come running to it.

- A

 

[nads]

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.

Now will *I* do this? Do I have a crate of old FD lenses lying around? Did I inherit my Dad's old lenses? No. But some people dig that, and surely this was folded into one of (presumably at least) two really detailed business plan scenarios in this very very very important decision for Canon.

- A
[/quote]

Canon isn't likely to focus on a customer value proposition that involves use of items Canon has already sold. They are focused on future sales of Canon lenses. A user that is already has glass that they will reuse is no more valuable than a user that buys a Sony and Sony lenses going forward.

FD glass on eBay is on Canon's list of competitors and threatens future revenue.

 

[nads]

Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.

1) Favour them in a head to head context as if you were a consumer who owned no photography gear at the time? Yes. You are 100% right. Their EVFs are better. Their cameras are more responsive. Their sensors are lovely.

2) But we own Canon lenses and enjoy Canon's erognomics/menus/handling, and we appreciate Canon service and quality.

3) We don't like adapting non-native lenses and hoping the AF works.

4) We don't want to buy a boatload of new lenses for another mirrorless mount.

(2), (3) and (4) utterly obliterate (1) as far as buying priorities go unless you have a ton of money to burn or only want 1-2 lenses to use with mirrorless. And Canon knows this. They can deliver a decent but not mindblowing offering and we will come running to it.

- A

A new user not invested in any system will not be swayed by 2,3, or 4. The vast majority of Canon buyers get in via the Rebel series and never own more than 3 lenses for the system.

I agree that Canon is looking to offer a decent but not mindblowing offering. But their goal is to have enough of a presence in mirrorless to mitigate erosion of new customers to competitors while minimizing the erosion of their cash cow DSLR market.

 

[sdsr]

Again -- here, at this forum -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.

- A

Are the tiny portion of the camera-buying public who respond to surveys here representative? There should be s survey of that!

 

[sdsr]

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'm probably atypical in that most of the time I prefer using older MF lenses, for which adapters are cheap and (usually) work very well; so I buy enough adapters that whenever I go out with more than one lens, each has its own adapter already attached (with a spare emount rear lens cap sealing the back - they cost almost nothing). If I'm short of space, I'll try to stick with just one mount type so I only need one adapter. Either way, it makes no difference compared to changing native lenses (though taking the one-mount approach is rather a bore with screw-mount lenses - not the fastest experience...). Getting funny looks from other photographers, should there be any nearby, is an added bonus!

 

[ahsanford]

Again -- here, at this forum -- there was a pretty strong consensus (approx 2/3 of us from surveys) that people wanted a chunky grip as they planned to bolt all their Canon glass on to these rigs.

- A

Are the tiny portion of the camera-buying public who respond to surveys here representative? There should be s survey of that!

Hence the italics I originally wrote -- I have no delusions that we are the market.

But that does not mean the arguments raised here are any less true:

• In the FF space, size isn't the driver it is in APS-C or m43. Ask Sony, who just rolled out enormous FF pro glass that eliminates any meaningful space savings. FF mirrorless is only 'small' for a fraction of the lenses FF shooters use.
  
  
• Canon is behind in mirrorless tech (compared to 2nd / 3rd gen competitors that have improved the responsiveness andAF speed), so they are logically staring at existing Canon EF lens owners as the 'pilot' market to get their feet wet and improve over time.
  
  
• Existing EF lens owners probably are less inclined to try a FF system out if they have to re-buy similar lenses in a skinny mount design.

So forget this forum's denizens for a moment. What makes more sense for a company like Canon with a boatload of EF glass readily available? Go through the trouble of making a skinny mount/system so a handful of lens + body combos might fit in a smaller bag? Or is it better to drop something seamlessly into the EF continuum without adapters or new glass to buy?

Again, it all boils down to one simple question: is mirrorless all about size, or is it about surpassing what an SLR can do? The long view (especially in full frame) is the latter, which would imply sticking with EF.

- A

 

[nads]

• [*]Canon is behind in mirrorless tech (compared to 2nd / 3rd gen competitors that have improved the responsiveness andAF speed), so they are logically staring at existing Canon EF lens owners as the 'pilot' market to get their feet wet and improve over time.
  
  
  [*]Existing EF lens owners probably are less inclined to try a FF system out if they have to re-buy similar lenses in a skinny mount design.

So forget this forum's denizens for a moment. What makes more sense for a company like Canon with a boatload of EF glass readily available? Go through the trouble of making a skinny mount/system so a handful of lens + body combos might fit in a smaller bag? Or is it better to drop something seamlessly into the EF continuum without adapters or new glass to buy?

Again, it all boils down to one simple question: is mirrorless all about size, or is it about surpassing what an SLR can do? The long view (especially in full frame) is the latter, which would imply sticking with EF.

- A

The fact that Canon has not put a mirrorless body to market of the same specification as the competition has does not, whatsoever, mean that they are behind in mirrorless tech. There isn't a technology out there in a mirrorless body that is beyond Canon's ability to produce. On the opposite side, Canon has AF technology that the competition does not have access to.

It does not boil down to a question of size or surpassing SLR. For Canon, it boils down to profitability. To that end it means protecting existing market on DSLR and accessories. These are mature products and cash cows. Their goal is not, and will not be to lead the direction of the mirrorless market that has the potential to disrupt their established revenue stream. Their purpose is to do enough in the mirrorless market to maintain a presence to the point they mitigate the deterioration of new user entry.

Sony FF is such a small part of the total mirrorless market that they have no reason to act. You will find a near zero percentage of new buyers who start directly with sony FF rather than any of the crop bodies as a starting point.

 

[josephandrews222]

As I posted here a couple of years ago, the killer app for the M series of cameras is the 11-22mm lens (which I purchased from Canada when it was unavailable in the US). This lens more-or-less permanently resides on my M2, and the M2 + 11-22mm package (along with the 270EX) is my family's go-to rig for vacationing (where small size and light weight are paramount).

I leave the 22mm pancake on our original M--it gets used as an semi-pocketable device in situations where only pocket-sized cameras are allowed (concerts and other events that would never allow a standard-sized DSLR).

I seldom use the 18-55mm native-M lens.

Sometimes I chuckle out loud when I read CR comments about the M, and mirrorless in general. It seems obvious to me that photographers with much more experience and expertise than me, in my opinion, don't really 'get' the M. And I'm not trying to insult anyone.

In my view Canon will not change the size-and-weight profile of the M-system all that much--to me that means the M4 will look much like the M3 size-wise and feature-wise.

Faster and more accurate focusing that an 80D sensor inside the current M-sized package would provide?

Winner winner chicken dinner (for my usage pattern with the M).

I hope that Canon doesn't add anything that adds much to the size and weight (although the M3's onboard fill-flash was tempting).

None of what I've written here applies to a full-frame mirrorless Canon. Heck I don't even think Canon will designate their full-frame mirrorless as an 'M'--it will by necessity be a much larger camera and may include a viewfinder.

Neat stuff to think about...

 

[ahsanford]

The fact that Canon has not put a mirrorless body to market of the same specification as the competition has does not, whatsoever, mean that they are behind in mirrorless tech. There isn't a technology out there in a mirrorless body that is beyond Canon's ability to produce. On the opposite side, Canon has AF technology that the competition does not have access to.

I've heard this a lot: "there's nothing Canon can't pull off" / "Canon could drop a AAA mirrorless product on the market whenever it gets around to it" / "just take* DPAF + an amazing EVF + some new lenses, and POW." Personally, I think it's one thing to have all the Lego pieces of tech in a big pile and it's another thing entirely to Frankenstein all of that together into a highly performing package on a first try. Only so much of the EOS-M experience will apply as it currently lacks DPAF, an integral EVF, a chunkier body design, etc.

Do you (or anyone else in this forum) honestly believe Canon's first FF mirrorless offering will be as responsive as 2nd/3rd gen mirrorless rigs from the competition? Will the control layout make sense and not frustrate us? Will it have an EVF that lays everything out just the way you'd like it? Will it be free of peculiar lens compatibility issues or battery conservation problems? I don't think so at all.

I'm not saying 'Canon is behind in mirrorless tech' as a rant that the sky is falling, 'I'm leaving the fold', etc. -- far from it. I'm just saying that they need to walk before they run -- regardless of how well they run in more the mature SLR segments today.

(Agree with the rest of what you said, btw. Good post, thx.)

- A

* In full disclosure, I've certainly alleged this a few times, but more as an aspirational statement for a much better camera, not that Canon would nail that Frankenstein on the first offering.

 

[jedy]

Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.

1) Favour them in a head to head context as if you were a consumer who owned no photography gear at the time? Yes. You are 100% right. Their EVFs are better. Their cameras are more responsive. Their sensors are lovely.

2) But we own Canon lenses and enjoy Canon's erognomics/menus/handling, and we appreciate Canon service and quality.

3) We don't like adapting non-native lenses and hoping the AF works.

4) We don't want to buy a boatload of new lenses for another mirrorless mount.

(2), (3) and (4) utterly obliterate (1) as far as buying priorities go unless you have a ton of money to burn or only want 1-2 lenses to use with mirrorless. And Canon knows this. They can deliver a decent but not mindblowing offering and we will come running to it.

- A

All valid points but you seem to only speak for existing Canon users who have lots of expensive glass. That's why I suggested perhaps a high end mirrorless with EF mount for those customers. For other photographers, you have to agree that smaller mirrorless cameras are more appealing than the lower end aps-c DSLRs. Canon need to invest in a decent, smaller mirrorless, either a much better EOS M and/or a FF. Don't forget, Canon have already changed their lens mount completely (back in the late 80's) and I think there's room for a new mount in addition to the EF mount. Whilst I agree people are reluctant to buy into a new camera system, it's not totally unheard of for people to jump ship. I also stand by my comment that Canon will be playing catchup. Don't just assume if Canon produce an EF mount mirrorless, their first attempt will be at a level good enough for the pros. Whatever state the mirrorless tech is in at the moment, it can only keep on improving and the lens lineup will keep on growing. Canon (and Nikon) by not getting involved in it are really missing out and will have a lot of catching up to do.

 

[AvTvM]

For a Canon mirrorless FF system, my expectations of what they realistically are *technically able* at the moment:
* sensor -> 1 or 2 gen behind Sony
* AF -> yes, Canon has DP AF, but so far they have not delivered superior AF-performance in practice with it, especially tracking-AF; 80D is an improvement but still clearly behind Sony A6300 and A7/R II series, not to mention possibly upcoming Sony A9 ...
* UI - Canon clearly in the lead, I don't think they'd botch that one ... unless they again decide to put things on bloody Powershot firmware [like EOS M3]
* Touch LCD - Canon currently better than the rest; as long as they buy whatever Apple is buying, the'll be fine;
* EVF - as long as they buy the best they can get [latest gen Epson OLED or the like], things will be fine
* Battery charge - if grip is just slightly chunkier than on M3, they should and could just stick the same battery in as in the 5D IV - meaning 12+ Whrs, hopefully; that should yield 500+ shots. Canon has the tech savvy and can buy the cells ... no technical problem here

Now that's my thought to Canon being "able". "Willing" is an entirely different story.

 

[Zv]

None of what I've written here applies to a full-frame mirrorless Canon. Heck I don't even think Canon will designate their full-frame mirrorless as an 'M'--it will by necessity be a much larger camera and may include a viewfinder.

I guess if it doesn't have an EF-M mount it can't really be classified as an M! I hadn't thought of that! Maybe it will have its own number designation like 8D or 9D? Or a version of the 6D - 6DM?

 

[AvTvM]

naming 'em? no prob, here goes:
Canon full frame FF MILCs: EOS X series ... X7, X5, X3, X1 models ... depending on level, then Mk. II, III etc.
Native lens series: EF-X and EF-X L
;D

 

[Zv]

naming 'em? no prob, here goes:
Canon full frame FF MILCs: EOS X series ... X7, X5, X3, X1 models ... depending on level, then Mk. II, III etc.
Native lens series: EF-X and EF-X L
;D

"X" won't work as that is what they name the Rebel cameras in Japan (Kiss X5, X6, X7 etc.) would be too confusing. It's also too close to the G series with all their X's in the name like G7X.

 

[Plainsman]

Saying that though, Canon have some serious catchup to do if we are to favour them over Fujifilm and Sony.

1) Favour them in a head to head context as if you were a consumer who owned no photography gear at the time? Yes. You are 100% right. Their EVFs are better. Their cameras are more responsive. Their sensors are lovely.

2) But we own Canon lenses and enjoy Canon's erognomics/menus/handling, and we appreciate Canon service and quality.

3) We don't like adapting non-native lenses and hoping the AF works.

4) We don't want to buy a boatload of new lenses for another mirrorless mount.

(2), (3) and (4) utterly obliterate (1) as far as buying priorities go unless you have a ton of money to burn or only want 1-2 lenses to use with mirrorless. And Canon knows this. They can deliver a decent but not mindblowing offering and we will come running to it.

- A

All valid points but you seem to only speak for existing Canon users who have lots of expensive glass. That's why I suggested perhaps a high end mirrorless with EF mount for those customers. For other photographers, you have to agree that smaller mirrorless cameras are more appealing than the lower end aps-c DSLRs. Canon need to invest in a decent, smaller mirrorless, either a much better EOS M and/or a FF. Don't forget, Canon have already changed their lens mount completely (back in the late 80's) and I think there's room for a new mount in addition to the EF mount. Whilst I agree people are reluctant to buy into a new camera system, it's not totally unheard of for people to jump ship. I also stand by my comment that Canon will be playing catchup. Don't just assume if Canon produce an EF mount mirrorless, their first attempt will be at a level good enough for the pros. Whatever state the mirrorless tech is in at the moment, it can only keep on improving and the lens lineup will keep on growing. Canon (and Nikon) by not getting involved in it are really missing out and will have a lot of catching up to do.

Well said!!

BTW the EOS M10 has come down in price significantly and if you use the very sharp 22/2 STM pancake with it you get a nice low profile little general purpose APS-C camera for an affordable price...