The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development

[Talys]

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.

One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more types of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you love the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

 

[Loswr]

I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

Have you tried asking CPS?

 

[ahsanford]

I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

Have you tried asking CPS?

It'll have to get in the queue. My first 50 registered requests are for a lens Canon keeps claiming does not yet exist. 8)

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.

One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more types of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you love the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.

 

[BillB]

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

With a fixed lens, the way to deal with the perspective issue is by cropping (digital zooming) to turn the 35mm into the equivalent of a longer lens. The perspective issue comes from where you are standing, rather than the focal length of the lens. Conversely, if you want to fill the frame with a fixed lens, you may be able to zoom with your feet (if you can live with the perspective issues and the terrain permits). Just like in the old days. Having said this, all in all you probably have to like a moderate wide angle look to fall in love with a fixed lens camera of the sort we are talking about.

 

[BillB]

Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?

Because Canon doesn't leave money on the table. When is the last time Canon undercut Sony?

Also, the price on the RX1R II (to my knowledge) is still sitting at the initial asking from a couple years ago. Name me a single Sony product of that age that can say that. I read that as Sony doing decent business on a product without a same-segment competitor, and that reads that this market is underserved. I see Canon potentially jumping in here with an eye-popping price offering, somewhere in the $3k / 5D4 going price sort of neighborhood.

- A

You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.

 

[Talys]

Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.

Yes, I understand that distance to subject controls the perspective. But cropping instead of using the right focal length to accomplish the task is a good way to get a less than optimal photograph.

Let's say you want to take a headshot.

If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, obviously you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor.

Again, the problem is price. If I'm taking it with a cell phone I already have, oh well; it's what I could do with what I had. But if I'm paying a couple of thousand bucks for a full frame camera, yikes, I want a little more flexibility.

 

[ahsanford]

You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.

I see both the Leica Q and RX1R II squarely aimed at one percenters who adore new things, gadgets, tech, etc, but lack the patience or will to learn photography. I could be wrong. It could also be for a gearhead photog who just wants a cleanse from complexity and 'stuff' for a while.

But every time I see a camera that is utterly bulletproof to conventional price drops, I see a strong style/lifestyle-sell to the gear. The Leica Q, RX1R II, hell -- even the Nikon Df -- still go for absurd prices long after they've been launched. That says they're succesfully tapping into a high disposable income demo there.

- A

 

[dak723]

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.

One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more types of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you love the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.

Sometimes, but not often. Unless you have a great eye for composition, issues can "crop" up when you crop. A composition that is balanced may become unbalanced when you crop away certain elements, and more often "eye-catching" elements that are not too close to the frame's edge in your original shot are now too close or leading off the edge in your crop. Items placed at various focal points (such as 1/3rd lines) can also become less optimally placed when cropped. So, if composition/design are a top priority in your photography, this type of camera/lens may not be your best choice. For all the reasons stated above, I prefer zooms and have had no interest in a prime or fixed focal length lens in many years. Of course, that's just me and there may be a big enough market for this type of camera.

 

[stevelee]

If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, obviously you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor.

Depends upon use. Sometimes you just want something for the web or Facebook, not a 13" x 19" print, so the cropped picture is good enough.

Selfies, of course are limited by the length of your arm, unless you use a tripod and remote or self-timer or some sort of selfie stick.

 

[BillB]

You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.

I see both the Leica Q and RX1R II squarely aimed at one percenters who adore new things, gadgets, tech, etc, but lack the patience or will to learn photography. I could be wrong. It could also be for a gearhead photog who just wants a cleanse from complexity and 'stuff' for a while.

But every time I see a camera that is utterly bulletproof to conventional price drops, I see a strong style/lifestyle-sell to the gear. The Leica Q, RX1R II, hell -- even the Nikon Df -- still go for absurd prices long after they've been launched. That says they're succesfully tapping into a high disposable income demo there.

- A

I have to admit that the steady price of the RX1RII baffles me (the Q not so much, it's a Leica). One possibility that there aren't that many in the inventory and Sony sees some value in keeping it on the list. Canon seems to do that with some of its lenses, like the 17-40, which has pretty much kept its price. I don't think the 17-40 is a rich man's toy by any stretch. Whatever is going on, I have a tough time believing Sony is making much money on the RX1RII.

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.

One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more types of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you love the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.

Sometimes, but not often. Unless you have a great eye for composition, issues can "crop" up when you crop. A composition that is balanced may become unbalanced when you crop away certain elements, and more often "eye-catching" elements that are not too close to the frame's edge in your original shot are now too close or leading off the edge in your crop. Items placed at various focal points (such as 1/3rd lines) can also become less optimally placed when cropped. So, if composition/design are a top priority in your photography, this type of camera/lens may not be your best choice. For all the reasons stated above, I prefer zooms and have had no interest in a prime or fixed focal length lens in many years. Of course, that's just me and there may be a big enough market for this type of camera.

I'm sorry I am a 'solutions' kind of person. I will happily walk around with just a 35 f2 IS prime and have effectively used it as everything from a 17mm to an 85mm. You guys continue with your 'it would be perfect but for this or that' endless pontification and I'll keep taking pictures. Have fun.

 

[Talys]

If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, obviously you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor.

Depends upon use. Sometimes you just want something for the web or Facebook, not a 13" x 19" print, so the cropped picture is good enough.

Selfies, of course are limited by the length of your arm, unless you use a tripod and remote or self-timer or some sort of selfie stick.

The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.

There's no way that anyone who does portraiture will tell you that a 20 megapixel portrait from an 85mm prime on a 1DXII is not a vastly superior tool for taking a portrait of an individual than a 28mm prime on a A7R3, even if you crop it out to usable pixels in the right proportion.

I'm sorry I am a 'solutions' kind of person. I will happily walk around with just a 35 f2 IS prime and have effectively used it as everything from a 17mm to an 85mm. You guys continue with your 'it would be perfect but for this or that' endless pontification and I'll keep taking pictures. Have fun.

I'm happy for you, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks like you. Smartphone manufacturers essentially cater to people with this preference, and camera manufacturers should absolutely make gear that appeals to you, too.

However, please don't diminish the priorities of people who do other types of photography than you. For example, if someone is paying $1,000 - $3,000 for wedding photos, their expectations are some very special portraits as well as some great group shots, and those are not best served by the same lenses. If your portfolio is entirely shot with 35mm, you'll probably never get a wedding gig.

On the other hand, you might have someone taking 40 corporate headshots, one executive after another. It would behoove you to have the proper focal length to do so. The ideal lens for a headshot is not the same lens as the ideal one for a sunset at the lake.

And finally, if 35mm works for you just like 17mm, great. It probably means you don't shoot anything really wide and/or that you can always just back up. But that's not the case for a lot of us. It's often not physically possible to shoot wide enough at 35mm; for example, if you're performing photography for real estate; or you need to capture a diorama from above, with limited ceiling space; or you're trying to photograph architecture; or... the list is endless for the applications of an ultrawide lens.

 

[dak723]

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.

One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more types of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you love the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A

That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.

Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.

Sometimes, but not often. Unless you have a great eye for composition, issues can "crop" up when you crop. A composition that is balanced may become unbalanced when you crop away certain elements, and more often "eye-catching" elements that are not too close to the frame's edge in your original shot are now too close or leading off the edge in your crop. Items placed at various focal points (such as 1/3rd lines) can also become less optimally placed when cropped. So, if composition/design are a top priority in your photography, this type of camera/lens may not be your best choice. For all the reasons stated above, I prefer zooms and have had no interest in a prime or fixed focal length lens in many years. Of course, that's just me and there may be a big enough market for this type of camera.

I'm sorry I am a 'solutions' kind of person. I will happily walk around with just a 35 f2 IS prime and have effectively used it as everything from a 17mm to an 85mm. You guys continue with your 'it would be perfect but for this or that' endless pontification and I'll keep taking pictures. Have fun.

Don't quite get your reply. If you are a solutions kind of person, then you should understand that the best solution is often to get the composition right in the viewfinder. Not sure why I am "pontificating" when I point out that when you crop, you don't always get the composition that you thought you were getting. I guess some folks just have to feel superior rather than accept that someone else has made a good point.

Or, sadly, you had no idea what I was talking about when it comes to composition. Alas, on this gear-head forum, it wouldn't surprise me. ;D ;D

 

[stevelee]

The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.

There's no way that anyone who does portraiture will tell you that a 20 megapixel portrait from an 85mm prime on a 1DXII is not a vastly superior tool for taking a portrait of an individual than a 28mm prime on a A7R3, even if you crop it out to usable pixels in the right proportion.

That well may be true, but you've lost me there somewhere. I don't see the relevance of that to my post.

And that said, when I recently needed a picture of myself, I set up a tripod and used my 6D2 and 100mm f/2.8 macro (my best lens in the 85mm-105mm range) and a wireless remote with a two-second delay for posing. I didn't notice that the camera was still set to shoot a f/7, but that was OK, since I had a neutral blank wall behind me. I wound up with very sharp 26MB photos (maybe too sharp, since I could see blemishes I can't see in a mirror). I think the eventual result will be a 2" high picture on a web page.

 

[Talys]

The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.

There's no way that anyone who does portraiture will tell you that a 20 megapixel portrait from an 85mm prime on a 1DXII is not a vastly superior tool for taking a portrait of an individual than a 28mm prime on a A7R3, even if you crop it out to usable pixels in the right proportion.

That well may be true, but you've lost me there somewhere. I don't see the relevance of that to my post.

And that said, when I recently needed a picture of myself, I set up a tripod and used my 6D2 and 100mm f/2.8 macro (my best lens in the 85mm-105mm range) and a wireless remote with a two-second delay for posing. I didn't notice that the camera was still set to shoot a f/7, but that was OK, since I had a neutral blank wall behind me. I wound up with very sharp 26MB photos (maybe too sharp, since I could see blemishes I can't see in a mirror). I think the eventual result will be a 2" high picture on a web page.

Maybe I was (or you were) replying to something directed at someone else.

I was agreeing with ahsanford that a fixed focal length full frame camera needs to be fairly wide to be saleable; and while this may be attractive to some people like privatebydesign who wants to use a 35mm for everything, it's not an ideal focal length for lots of common tasks like portraiture.

Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.

 

[BillB]

Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.

So, compared to the Leica Q, what kind of size and weight increase would it take to give you the flexibility that would make you comfortable, including any extra lenses that you would want to have with you? Getting significantly more flexibility than the Q would seem to involve significant increases in size and weight. I doubt that many people think of a Q type camera as an all purpose workhorse. The idea is to maximize IQ and lens aperture while minimizing size and weight. You might get some flexibility with a fixed zoom, which will need weight to get IQ and anything close to an F2.0 aperture. Otherwise flexibility would have to come with extra lenses, adding to the weight and bulk. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for a Q type camera, if anything, but I do find it an interesting idea. I might be more comfortable with an M5, the 22mm and a 50, adapter and all, but it would be hard to give up the high ISO goodness of a fullframe sensor.

 

[hmatthes]

Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.

It’s all about sensor and lens. The Q has frame lines for 35mm and 50mm but the raw is still 28mm 24+ Meg’s.
The 50mm crop is only about 8 megs — but remember when the 1D was under 10 megs? Reality is that a 50mm crop, properly exposed, can be printed at 13”x19” with spectacular results. 85mm, nope!
My small DSLR bag has 6D, 85/1.8, 50mm/1.8, and 24-79/2.8 — Q for most everything but 6D never far away!

 

[Talys]

Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.

So, compared to the Leica Q, what kind of size and weight increase would it take to give you the flexibility that would make you comfortable, including any extra lenses that you would want to have with you? Getting significantly more flexibility than the Q would seem to involve significant increases in size and weight. I doubt that many people think of a Q type camera as an all purpose workhorse. The idea is to maximize IQ and lens aperture while minimizing size and weight. You might get some flexibility with a fixed zoom, which will need weight to get IQ and anything close to an F2.0 aperture. Otherwise flexibility would have to come with extra lenses, adding to the weight and bulk. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for a Q type camera, if anything, but I do find it an interesting idea. I might be more comfortable with an M5, the 22mm and a 50, adapter and all, but it would be hard to give up the high ISO goodness of a fullframe sensor.

I am poor person to ask, "how small would you like your MILC?", because my perfect sized cameras start at 80D/6D2 and go up from there. It's more like, "what's the minimum size of MILC that you would buy?"

I really dislike the size of the A7R3 -- I think it's too small vertically and horizontally, and grip too is shallow with too little finger room. However, gripped, it's a great vertical size. I am never concerned about camera body weight, because most of my lenses far outweigh my body anyways, and I prefer a larger body to balance that out. Usually, when I'm out photographing stuff, I use a double harness with a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-400 or 150-600 on separate bodies.

I have purchased many small cameras before, but almost all before smartphone cameras got to be where they are. I might buy a small ILC again, but I think I would go APSC, not full frame, because that would allow me to also have a small lens balanced with the body.

 

[Ozarker]

Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?

Because Canon doesn't leave money on the table. When is the last time Canon undercut Sony?

Also, the price on the RX1R II (to my knowledge) is still sitting at the initial asking from a couple years ago. Name me a single Sony product of that age that can say that. I read that as Sony doing decent business on a product without a same-segment competitor, and that reads that this market is underserved. I see Canon potentially jumping in here with an eye-popping price offering, somewhere in the $3k / 5D4 going price sort of neighborhood.

- A

You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.

Canon undercuts Sony in the lens department big time... yet Canon is more profitable. https://www.adorama.com/iso70200g2ma.html