Some Canon Mirrorless Talk [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
dilbert said:
of course. But ...
* Sony A7 II series handgrips could hold battery size like Canon LP-E6N = 70% more juice = x% more shots, camera not larger.
* APS-C MILCs like Sony A6300, Fuji XT-1 Canon EOS M3 could also fit such a battery, if handgrips are made just a bit deeper = minimal increase in size, not a big deal as soon as any lens is attached to camera.
For really compact form factor MILCs - e.g. EOS M / M 2 / M10 - a physically larger battery is no option. There we should be looking at batteries with higher energy density = small battery, small camera, more juice. Maybe camera industry could tap into some of the progress made in cell-phone batteries over the last few years.
Upvote
0
... I'd love to buy an EOS M with an EF-S/EF mount and use all my lenses - would perfectly combine with various primes and make really nice compact combos for use in situations when the SLR stays home. Canon would probably see me back in the mirrorless customer world if that really happens. I'm afraid this won't happen. Just doesn't fit the rumor of new M mount lenses
Upvote
0
lettherebelight said:
EF-M mount is perfectly fine. use of Canon EF/EF-M adapter allows use of any EF and EF-S lens on any EOS-M body! size of cam+adapter is exactly the same as a camera with fixed EF-mount "nozzle" would be. but detachable adapter brings the best of both worlds:
1. use of very compact EF-M lenses (eg 22/2) as well as
2. use of any EF-/EF-S lens ever made (best AF performance by lenses with STM AF drive).
i really fail to see the issue some people have with EF-M mount.
what's not to like?
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
It is and it isn't. Canon and others aren't putting the total emphasis into maximizing energy density in their batteries and phone manufacturers and others are. Canon could supply higher capacity cells in the same form factor than they currently offer.
But it is no different than their mirrorless offerings so far. They could build a FF mirrorless, but it is not needed from a business strategy and marketing perspective.
Instead of building batteries that last longer, Canon is investing time and money into making batteries with technology that 3rd parties can't make direct replacements for.
From Canon's perspective it is better to market a battery that is sized just right so that: 1) most people will need to buy one or more backups, and 2) People will need to buy a Canon battery at a high price.
Canon makes more money if they don't put a massively dense cell in the camera. It always amazes me when people act like Canon doesn't have the technological know how to produce mirrorless products on the same level as companies that have far fewer consecutive profitable quarters than Canon has profitable years.
Upvote
0
It is and it isn't. Canon and others aren't putting the total emphasis into maximizing energy density in their batteries and phone manufacturers and others are. Canon could supply higher capacity cells in the same form factor than they currently offer.
But it is no different than their mirrorless offerings so far. They could build a FF mirrorless, but it is not needed from a business strategy and marketing perspective.
Instead of building batteries that last longer, Canon is investing time and money into making batteries with technology that 3rd parties can't make direct replacements for.
From Canon's perspective it is better to market a battery that is sized just right so that: 1) most people will need to buy one or more backups, and 2) People will need to buy a Canon battery at a high price.
Canon makes more money if they don't put a massively dense cell in the camera. It always amazes me when people act like Canon doesn't have the technological know how to produce mirrorless products on the same level as companies that have far fewer consecutive profitable quarters than Canon has profitable years.
[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKBRtdp2e98
But it is no different than their mirrorless offerings so far. They could build a FF mirrorless, but it is not needed from a business strategy and marketing perspective.
Instead of building batteries that last longer, Canon is investing time and money into making batteries with technology that 3rd parties can't make direct replacements for.
From Canon's perspective it is better to market a battery that is sized just right so that: 1) most people will need to buy one or more backups, and 2) People will need to buy a Canon battery at a high price.
Canon makes more money if they don't put a massively dense cell in the camera. It always amazes me when people act like Canon doesn't have the technological know how to produce mirrorless products on the same level as companies that have far fewer consecutive profitable quarters than Canon has profitable years.
[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKBRtdp2e98
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:rrcphoto said:
We know, THAT is the problem!
But we all would be more interested in a solution. No matter, how exactly Canon does it. They should do it. If they can do it. Which is ... doubtful indeed.
I am sure they could..... just design a body that takes a pair of LP-E6's
Upvote
0
It really seems that you like talking about batteries and CIPA standards and like to fan the flames to keep them burning. Either you didn't get me right the first time, or you didn't want to. Because:rrcphoto said:
1. I was trying to calm things down again.
2. I never was referring to CIPA standards when I was talking about 500+ shots (I meant real world perf., to make it clearer)
3. I said a system should be able, not that it easily could be able.
4. I never said that Canon is/should be able to built such a camera on the spot without any effort.
Because I don't know what their R&D has in their labs.
So with you statement you should turn your back on Canon because you state that you never believe in them to build any mirrorless coming anyway from close to your desires.
Upvote
0
... seeking a "compact", potentially pocketable camera, adding the size and weight of the adapter kind of defeats the purpose.
Moreover, focus acquisition with the adapter is significantly slower compared to without.
Hence two reason, why I don't like the adapter.
Moreover, focus acquisition with the adapter is significantly slower compared to without.
Hence two reason, why I don't like the adapter.
AvTvM said:
Upvote
0
AF performance of all Canon EOS cameras and mirrorless-suitable (!) STM lenses is not negatively impacted by use of the EF/EF-M adapter. AF with EF-S STM lenses on EOS-bodues is fully on par with comparable EF-M lenses: eg 18-55 STM IS or EF-S 55-250 vs EF-M 50-200.
non-STM lenses - especially older designs - perform not as well, neither on EOS-M (via adapter) nor in liveview on EOS DSLRs. it is a restriction of the lenses relative to hybrid/contrast-detect AF-systems. not caused by the adapter.
ps: canon teleconverters (1.4x and 2x) do cause slower AF performance (consviously implemented electronically that way by Canon) - but they are a totally different story compared to a simple "extension tube mount adapter" used to mount dslr lenses on mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distance.
non-STM lenses - especially older designs - perform not as well, neither on EOS-M (via adapter) nor in liveview on EOS DSLRs. it is a restriction of the lenses relative to hybrid/contrast-detect AF-systems. not caused by the adapter.
ps: canon teleconverters (1.4x and 2x) do cause slower AF performance (consviously implemented electronically that way by Canon) - but they are a totally different story compared to a simple "extension tube mount adapter" used to mount dslr lenses on mirrorless cameras with shorter flange distance.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
