Tony Northrup Predicts The Upcoming Full Frame Mirrorless Offerings From Both Canon and Nikon

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
drob said:
I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.

Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100, you don't need Super Telephoto focal lengths (or T/S lenses, or 1-5X macro lenses, or...), and you don't need to worry about less than ideal weather, then Sony is probably the camera for you. But many photographers shoot most of the time in light that requires ISO 800+, and need to be able to shoot in the rain and snow.

Such photographers also generally spend more time trying to make a living with their cameras than spending time on internet forums measurebating about slight differences in camera/lens performance.

Such photographers are more concerned if the camera in their hand can reliably get the shot they need, not about whether the camera in their hands got a score 3 points higher than the camera in someone else's hands.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
bwud said:
Talys said:
Michael Clark said:
If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100...

If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100... save yourself a TON of money and buy an APS-C :)

I don’t get it.

The distinction should be whether you routinely crop, or whether you can fill the frame.

For the vast majority of people, if ISO doesn't matter you can just buy a wider angle lens and save a bunch of money on the focal lengths that you don't use a lot; plus, the shorter 2.8 zooms and shorter 1.4/1.8 primes are typically cheaper than the longer ones, if you're getting top-end glass.

So for example, if you shoot 80D, you can get as a pretty nice kit:

EFS10-18 instead of EF16-35 for landscape
50mm 1.8 (or 1.2) instead of 85mm 1.4
24-70 2.8 instead of 70-200 2.8 as your "portrait zoom"

And unless you're a birder or a really serious sports photographer, the center crop of a 70-300 is probably good enough, as compared to a 100-400LII, and will give you more reach and a larger FR, too.

Of course, you could go EFM and get smaller lenses than that. But the kit weighs a lot less and at ISO100, the image quality will be so close that I don't think anyone will know or care for the vast number of photographs.
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
Jack Douglas said:
While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.

Jack

I couldn't agree more. That remains the main benefit of full frame for me -- resolving higher ISO as cleanly as possible because that's the only way I'll get to a faster shutter speed. But of course, as I get used to using full frame lenses, I just start using full frame for things you could just as easily use crop for.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 22, 2014
168
126
Hector1970 said:
Cochese said:
I think Tony makes a lot of really good points, but I don't understand his notion that people don't understand the viewfinder coming from a cell phone. I don't do it a lot at the moment, but when I'm teaching people the basics of how a DSLR works, the viewfinder is never the issue and they never expect to pinch to zoom a photo. They don't even attempt it. They don't. At all. The last two 18 year old kids that I was teaching the finer points of aperture, exposure, and ISO never once puzzled about the view finder. Maybe it's my sample size (roughly fifteen or so individuals of varying ages, all under 24), but again, the viewfinder was the least of their issues. The biggest issue was teaching them how to process a RAW file.
Seriously, are the people he knows so slow witted they cannot figure out the difference between an optical view finder and an phone screen? It almost feels like that was thrown in as a troll.
I think you are correct in general but I have known beginners asking about their cameras and not ever using the viewfinder. They find it a strange thing to use the viewfinder.

Funny thing is, I really didn't like using the view finder, either. And I didn't even start with a phone as my camera. I was coming from Film point and shoots and film SLRs like the A1, K1000, and OM-1.

I just really liked/ like using the back screen to nail manual focus. Especially since I'm usually doing landscapes and/ or photographing not particularly fast moving objects. Just use the magnify feature on camera to get either a 1/1 view of the image or a 2/1 view of the image. Focus until sharp, adjust exposure, getting that wysiwyg image Tony was talking about... It's all present, at least on Canon's cameras.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
Jack Douglas said:
While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.

Jack

I haven’t used a cropped frame (relative to 135-format), notwithstanding cell phones, since the 5D2 was released, so I have no real baseline for comparison (only distant memory of 40D and earlier cameras).
 
Upvote 0
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
Talys said:
Jack Douglas said:
While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.

Jack

I couldn't agree more. That remains the main benefit of full frame for me -- resolving higher ISO as cleanly as possible because that's the only way I'll get to a faster shutter speed. But of course, as I get used to using full frame lenses, I just start using full frame for things you could just as easily use crop for.

I do the same. Since I often find myself focal length limited and able to fill a full frame within the same shoot (say: wild life that gets close and then far), I use a high resolution full frame camera in order to maximize my yield. But sometimes I come back and have to crop everything (I can only get to 800mm with my setups), and consider that higher pixel densities (crop frame) could have been beneficial.

I’ve never traded noise between a crop sensor and a full frame sensor cropped down and then viewed at equal sizes.

But really I was just confused by your initial reasoning (if you only shoot at ISO 100 buy APS-C). Maybe someone only shoots at ISO 100 because they want the absolute best output, and specifically light for it. When I shoot in the studio, I shoot at ISO 100 almost exclusively, and I don’t think I’d benefit from a crop frame camera in that scenario.
 
Upvote 0
Michael Clark said:
Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

The difference has shrunk but high ISO is still a bit better in Sony land:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II___1187_1106_1071

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,368
570
MickDK said:
Michael Clark said:
Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

The difference has shrunk but high ISO is still a bit better in Sony land:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II___1187_1106_1071

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9

Really? One shows a sliver of colour and the other is a difference you won't even notice amongst the noise of the image? And if that is the deciding factor in your purchasing decision...
You aren't really into data interpretation, are you?
 
Upvote 0
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
CanonFanBoy said:
nchoh said:
...not just how to photograph pretty girls.

Come on, man. Is there really any other reason to have a camera? Puh-leeeeze!!! That's like saying you go to the beach because you like sand. ::)

Is there a stigma on here about photographing pretty girls? That’s nearly 100% of my studio work.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
Jack Douglas said:
CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO. ;)

BTW, I've wondered why we don't have more female shooters. Surely it's not only males that like photography or is it because of the heavy gear orientation of CR?

Jack

I have a good friend who is a female photography enthusiast. However, she is not a forum enthusiast, LOL. :D
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Talys said:
Jack Douglas said:
CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO. ;)

BTW, I've wondered why we don't have more female shooters. Surely it's not only males that like photography or is it because of the heavy gear orientation of CR?

Jack

I have a good friend who is a female photography enthusiast. However, she is not a forum enthusiast, LOL. :D

Maybe male aggressiveness is the problem with the forum? :)

Jack
 
Upvote 0
May 11, 2017
1,365
635
Michael Clark said:
drob said:
I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.

Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100, you don't need Super Telephoto focal lengths (or T/S lenses, or 1-5X macro lenses, or...), and you don't need to worry about less than ideal weather, then Sony is probably the camera for you. But many photographers shoot most of the time in light that requires ISO 800+, and need to be able to shoot in the rain and snow.

Such photographers also generally spend more time trying to make a living with their cameras than spending time on internet forums measurebating about slight differences in camera/lens performance.

Such photographers are more concerned if the camera in their hand can reliably get the shot they need, not about whether the camera in their hands got a score 3 points higher than the camera in someone else's hands.

Exactly. For me, the big question is whether I can get the prints I want with the camera I have. It so happens that the camera I have is a Canon 5DIV. Neither Canon nor anybody else is going to have an easy time convincing me that I can get better prints if I buy a "better" camera. (And the 5DIV is a lot more fun to use than the 5DII that I still have and sometimes use, an unanticipated bonus.). Even so, it took a pretty good deal on a refurb to get me to pull the trigger, and I am very happy I did.

There is a reason that the FF market is shrinking and it isn't lack of "innovation". There just aren't that many people out there who feel the need to put pretty big money into a FF camera, whether mirrorless or DSLR. Even fewer are wound up about pretty small differences in magic numbers like base ISO DR and fps. Maybe Sony has the right idea. Just drop the price, pad the specs, bet on internet buzz and hope for a miracle.
 
Upvote 0
BillB said:
Michael Clark said:
drob said:
I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.

Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100, you don't need Super Telephoto focal lengths (or T/S lenses, or 1-5X macro lenses, or...), and you don't need to worry about less than ideal weather, then Sony is probably the camera for you. But many photographers shoot most of the time in light that requires ISO 800+, and need to be able to shoot in the rain and snow.

Such photographers also generally spend more time trying to make a living with their cameras than spending time on internet forums measurebating about slight differences in camera/lens performance.

Such photographers are more concerned if the camera in their hand can reliably get the shot they need, not about whether the camera in their hands got a score 3 points higher than the camera in someone else's hands.

Exactly. For me, the big question is whether I can get the prints I want with the camera I have. It so happens that the camera I have is a Canon 5DIV. Neither Canon nor anybody else is going to have an easy time convincing me that I can get better prints if I buy a "better" camera. (And the 5DIV is a lot more fun to use than the 5DII that I still have and sometimes use, an unanticipated bonus.). Even so, it took a pretty good deal on a refurb to get me to pull the trigger, and I am very happy I did.

There is a reason that the FF market is shrinking and it isn't lack of "innovation". There just aren't that many people out there who feel the need to put pretty big money into a FF camera, whether mirrorless or DSLR. Even fewer are wound up about pretty small differences in magic numbers like base ISO DR and fps. Maybe Sony has the right idea. Just drop the price, pad the specs, bet on internet buzz and hope for a miracle.

Well, if you look around at the younger generation with their faces stuck in their cell phones, that's their camera! They don't have time enough away from their phones to learn how to use a DSLR or Mirrorless camera, let alone having any clue or idea what the heck "Full Frame" camera even means......

In another 10 years or so cell phone cameras will be so awesome they'll probably be the go to camera for most pro's, with internal interchangeable lens settings these phones will probably be able to zoom in on the craters on the moon!

I see why adobe etc is focusing on cloud base software for tweeking and processing images, all the young'uns are doing all there photography and image tweeking right with their cell phones.....it's working for them just fine and they have not the slightest desire to buy or even use a "Real Camera" lol.

Things sure have changed.....I remember hoeing the neighbors garden in the early 70's for a buck so I could buy a couple rolls of film and some flash cubes for my kodak instamatic!!!!! haha
 
Upvote 0
Oct 26, 2013
1,140
426
Jack Douglas said:
Talys said:
Jack Douglas said:
CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO. ;)

BTW, I've wondered why we don't have more female shooters. Surely it's not only males that like photography or is it because of the heavy gear orientation of CR?

Jack

I have a good friend who is a female photography enthusiast. However, she is not a forum enthusiast, LOL. :D

Maybe male aggressiveness is the problem with the forum? :)

Jack

Because forums such as this one are all about trying to prove how smart and clever you are. Thank goodness most women are too smart to get caught up in that type of crap.

There are a few of us males who try and avoid the trap and try to stick to facts and try and discuss things, but as I think anyone can see, almost every thread turns into a meaningless debate and one-upmanship.
 
Upvote 0