Two Prosumer Mirrorless Camera Bodies in Development [CR2]

[dak723]

So why are Sony cameras not significantly lower cost than Canon cameras?

Because Sony has no competition at the moment. No other vendor offers FF mirrorless. They also have reasonably good and quickly improving assortment of native FF lenses - the FE lenses. They also made the details of the interface to their lenses available to third party lens manufacturers. Sigma native FE lenses have just started coming.

However, Sony knows that the competition is coming. They even pre-empted the future competition by pricing the new Alpha 7 III relatively low <$2,000. This camera on specs beats the comparable Canon offering 6D II in every department and by wide margins.

But Sony, set up another pricing trap for the users - the high price of their new lenses. The premium GM line of FE lenses are typically more expensive (often 50% more) than comparable Canon EF L offerings. Then there are rather few lower priced Sony FE lenses. I calculated that changeover to Sony would for me be prohibitively expensive due to the costs of the lenses.

By pricing the Alpha 7 III low Sony will make life for Canon difficult. Canon will have to price their mid-range FF mirrorless low or suffer poor market acceptance. Moreover, to make things more difficult for Canon, I believe that chances are that the first Canon offering will not even be close on-spec to Sony, as Canon has a huge software development gap to close. Mirrorless cameras require a lot of new software to be developed. It is enough to compare the differences between e.g. Sony A7 and A7 III features to gauge the scale of the software development effort required. It also takes time. No matter how much resources one can throw at it, it takes approximately two years to get from one generation of a mirrorless camera to another. Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

For these reasons, I personally believe that Canon will not have a competitive general purpose FF mirrorless camera before 2024. This does not mean that their first offering may not be useful for some people. For example an FF mirrorless, delivering 16 frames per seconds without freezing the EVF and with continuous AF with object tracking over the whole sensor will be a godsend to sports photographers.

If you judge the camera by specs, then it may take a while for Canon to "catch up", but hopefully educated camera buyers won't be suckered by specs - because, as we've seen, there is a lot of fine print with Sony specs and a lot of innovations that don't work very well in practice. The tech and internet crowd will complain and talk about how far behind Canon is the moment the camera is announced, or even before (you've already started!). For folks who are more interested in the basics - color, AF, exposure accuracy, ergonomics - Canon won't be behind the moment their mirrorless arrives. I've owned the Sony A7 and A7 II and currently own the Canon M5. The only one I kept was the Canon, so I'm not worried about what Canon will offer in mirrorless.

 

[Talys]

Because Sony has no competition at the moment. No other vendor offers FF mirrorless. They also have reasonably good and quickly improving assortment of native FF lenses - the FE lenses. They also made the details of the interface to their lenses available to third party lens manufacturers. Sigma native FE lenses have just started coming.

However, Sony knows that the competition is coming. They even pre-empted the future competition by pricing the new Alpha 7 III relatively low <$2,000. This camera on specs beats the comparable Canon offering 6D II in every department and by wide margins.

Except autofocus speed, autofocus sensitivity in low light, battery life, and ergonomics with any lens in the 1kg+ size, weather sealing especially when carried inverted, autofocus performance in AF-S vs One-Shot, touch screen functionality, reversible/fully articulating screen, weather sealed remote trigger connector, durability and weather sensitivity of flash connector...

Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

Which is why Canon outsells Sony in the APSC mirrorless market, and did so very shortly after entering that market, despite Sony's early presence, I guess.

For these reasons, I personally believe that Canon will not have a competitive general purpose FF mirrorless camera before 2024.

That's as likely as POTUS45 winning the US Presidential election in 2024. Or the French one.

But nice try! I hope you like your Sony camera

 

[bhf3737]

I believe that chances are that the first Canon offering will not even be close on-spec to Sony, as Canon has a huge software development gap to close. Mirrorless cameras require a lot of new software to be developed. It is enough to compare the differences between e.g. Sony A7 and A7 III features to gauge the scale of the software development effort required. It also takes time. No matter how much resources one can throw at it, it takes approximately two years to get from one generation of a mirrorless camera to another. Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

Lots of software is needed if starting from scratch. But Canon has almost all pieces of mirrorless functionalities (e.g. zebras, peaking, histogram, AF, etc.) in their video products arsenal and some features like DPAF are even generations ahead of the competitors. Therefore assembling a suite of those features shouldn't take six more years, Unless you are Harry! ;D

 

[Tugela]

I believe that chances are that the first Canon offering will not even be close on-spec to Sony, as Canon has a huge software development gap to close. Mirrorless cameras require a lot of new software to be developed. It is enough to compare the differences between e.g. Sony A7 and A7 III features to gauge the scale of the software development effort required. It also takes time. No matter how much resources one can throw at it, it takes approximately two years to get from one generation of a mirrorless camera to another. Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

Lots of software is needed if starting from scratch. But Canon has almost all pieces of mirrorless functionalities (e.g. zebras, peaking, histogram, AF, etc.) in their video products arsenal and some features like DPAF are even generations ahead of the competitors. Therefore assembling a suite of those features shouldn't take six more years, Unless you are Harry! ;D

DPAF is not that far ahead. That is a huge myth perpetuated by marketing. The current Sony focussing system is allmost as fast as DPAF in terms of reaction time (0.05 seconds as opposed to 0.03 seconds, at those speeds there is no way a human could tell them apart), both systems are fast enough that the rate limiting factor is the lens response time rather than the camera's focusing system itself.

 

[Talys]

I believe that chances are that the first Canon offering will not even be close on-spec to Sony, as Canon has a huge software development gap to close. Mirrorless cameras require a lot of new software to be developed. It is enough to compare the differences between e.g. Sony A7 and A7 III features to gauge the scale of the software development effort required. It also takes time. No matter how much resources one can throw at it, it takes approximately two years to get from one generation of a mirrorless camera to another. Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

Lots of software is needed if starting from scratch. But Canon has almost all pieces of mirrorless functionalities (e.g. zebras, peaking, histogram, AF, etc.) in their video products arsenal and some features like DPAF are even generations ahead of the competitors. Therefore assembling a suite of those features shouldn't take six more years, Unless you are Harry! ;D

DPAF is not that far ahead. That is a huge myth perpetuated by marketing. The current Sony focussing system is allmost as fast as DPAF in terms of reaction time (0.05 seconds as opposed to 0.03 seconds, at those speeds there is no way a human could tell them apart), both systems are fast enough that the rate limiting factor is the lens response time rather than the camera's focusing system itself.

What on Earth are you babbling about?

DPAF is a generational improvement over Sony's Hybrid OSPDAF+Contrast Detect AF.

1. OSPDAF only covers about 75% of the screen. Go one pixel further than. The last PDAF column and it switches to CD, which is horribly slow. DPAF basically gives you the whole screen.

2. DPAF doesn't hunt. OSPDAF may do so, and CDAF always does. Don't believe me? Record a video on a Sony where you repeatedly change focus from near to infinity and then do it on a Canon.

3. DPAF performs much better in lower light, like a room illuminated by a fireplace or a 60W bulb - or modeling lamp. Turn off all the lights and try to focus just with an AF illuminator on a Sony at 10 feet. Good luck with that. Now do it with a Canon.

4. DPAF doesn't leave vertical stripes on all the AF pixel rows when there is flare.

5. Show me a Sony lens, any lens on any body, that is as fast AF as a Canon 18-135 USM on an 80D in live view.

It isn't even close. There are many things you can complain about Canon, but to cite DPAF as no big deal is hilariously ridiculous.

 

[neuroanatomist]

DPAF is not that far ahead. That is a huge myth perpetuated by marketing. The current Sony focussing system is allmost as fast as DPAF in terms of reaction time (0.05 seconds as opposed to 0.03 seconds, at those speeds there is no way a human could tell them apart), both systems are fast enough that the rate limiting factor is the lens response time rather than the camera's focusing system itself.

Any bona fide source for those numbers? I ask because you have a history of spouting bullish!t.

If (and it's a BIG IF) your numbers are correct, you're saying that Sony's AF is 66% slower than Canon's DPAF. 'Not that far ahead,' see what I mean about spouting BS? Has it occurred to you that some subjects move, both for stills and video, and that an AF that's 66% slower will have a much harder time keeping up? Obviously not (but it should have, since you're the self-proclaimed expurt on the 4K capabilities of Digic processors).

 

[kaptainkatsu]

I broke down and bought an M50. I really needed a smaller solution than my 1DX2 for certain situations. My new job involves producing videos for social media (by myself with no assistant) so I really needed a flippy screen. I really wanted an a7III but since it didn't have a flippy screen I decided against it. GH5 fit the bill but the video AF sucks

Certainly will be watching what happens in the FF department and will most likely pick one up when they are released.

How do you find the IQ of this little camera to that of the 1DX2? I've seen many a nice image from the Canon's 450d to the 80d, I would think when the ISO gets high and light drops things will change a lot. But so tempted to have one of these with the adapter to compliment my 6d2

I just got it today so I haven’t gotte. To play with it yet. Will report soon

 

[Talys]

I'm sorry, I must make a correction on what I earlier wrote.

Sony On-Sensor Phase Detect Autofocus covers only about 40% on full frame. Here is the AF diagram of Sony PDAF on A7R3, CDAF on A7R3, and Canon DPAF on all DSLRs and MILCs that have it.

Canon DPAF covers 80% of the frame.

If you're wondering what it feels like CDAF on a Sony, it is pretty much the same speed as Live View on a T2i, or Live View on pretty much any Nikon DSLR. However, on the Sony, it is still useful for subject tracking of humans, who aren't moving very quickly, because theoretically, you'll PDAF them in the sweet spot and then the camera can follow them around after, making only small adjustments to AF.

 

[tapanit]

You don't get longer reach by cropping in camera - you just get a cropped image.

You do get larger image in the viewfinder, however, and that can help focusing significantly.

With an SLR that can't be easily changed, with an EVF it would be trivial.

My guess would be EF-M mount with an adapter and automatic crop mode for lenses that don't cover full-frame image circle.

 

[Isaacheus]

I'm sorry, I must make a correction on what I earlier wrote.

Sony On-Sensor Phase Detect Autofocus covers only about 40% on full frame. Here is the AF diagram of Sony PDAF on A7R3, CDAF on A7R3, and Canon DPAF on all DSLRs and MILCs that have it.

Canon DPAF covers 80% of the frame.

If you're wondering what it feels like CDAF on a Sony, it is pretty much the same speed as Live View on a T2i, or Live View on pretty much any Nikon DSLR. However, on the Sony, it is still useful for subject tracking of humans, who aren't moving very quickly, because theoretically, you'll PDAF them in the sweet spot and then the camera can follow them around after, making only small adjustments to AF.

My understanding is that the a7r3 has the coverage shown here, while the a73 and a9 have close to 90% each.
Not disagreeing with the points of dpaf, from what I've used and seen, it seems to be extremely effective and accurate, and I'll be very interested to see what other manufacturers do in comparison in future mirrorless (stay with pd pixels or implement a dual pixel design etc)

 

[Talys]

I'm sorry, I must make a correction on what I earlier wrote.

Sony On-Sensor Phase Detect Autofocus covers only about 40% on full frame. Here is the AF diagram of Sony PDAF on A7R3, CDAF on A7R3, and Canon DPAF on all DSLRs and MILCs that have it.

Canon DPAF covers 80% of the frame.

If you're wondering what it feels like CDAF on a Sony, it is pretty much the same speed as Live View on a T2i, or Live View on pretty much any Nikon DSLR. However, on the Sony, it is still useful for subject tracking of humans, who aren't moving very quickly, because theoretically, you'll PDAF them in the sweet spot and then the camera can follow them around after, making only small adjustments to AF.

My understanding is that the a7r3 has the coverage shown here, while the a73 and a9 have close to 90% each.
Not disagreeing with the points of dpaf, from what I've used and seen, it seems to be extremely effective and accurate, and I'll be very interested to see what other manufacturers do in comparison in future mirrorless (stay with pd pixels or implement a dual pixel design etc)

I think the a7iii has a larger PDAF coverage than a9, and yes, they are both much better than a7riii. But the a9 is a $5,000 camera, and the a7iii has a much lower resolution EVF (I think a third less pixels?), enough that it's the first thing I noticed when I picked one up. And, obviously, the resolution of both are significantly lower.

I don't think that we all need 40 megapixel cameras, but the lower resolution is more of problem in the Sony system than Canon, because telephoto life ends at 280 f/4 or 400/5.6 (and 560/8, if you want to go there), meaning that you're much more likely to need to crop, as compared to 1DXII lens options, which allow it to be an effective 20 megapixel camera.

 

[AvTvM]

I don't think that we all need 40 megapixel cameras, but the lower resolution is more of problem in the Sony system than Canon, because telephoto life ends at 280 f/4 or 400/5.6 (and 560/8, if you want to go there), meaning that you're much more likely to need to crop, as compared to 1DXII lens options, which allow it to be an effective 20 megapixel camera.

yes, but .. in reality tele > 200mm is only used often/frequently by a very small minority of camera owners. Even FF camera owners.

Personally i currently own no lens longer than 200mm and only occasionally rent one.

 

[Talys]

I don't think that we all need 40 megapixel cameras, but the lower resolution is more of problem in the Sony system than Canon, because telephoto life ends at 280 f/4 or 400/5.6 (and 560/8, if you want to go there), meaning that you're much more likely to need to crop, as compared to 1DXII lens options, which allow it to be an effective 20 megapixel camera.

yes, but .. in reality tele > 200mm is only used often/frequently by a very small minority of camera owners. Even FF camera owners.

Personally i currently own no lens longer than 200mm and only occasionally rent one.

Good for you.

Many people have a tendency to underestimate markets that they're not personally interested in. This is one of those cases. The popularity of full frame 70-300mm zooms for both full frame and APSC would indicate that you are, simply, wrong.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Many people have a tendency to underestimating markets that they're not personally interested in. This is one of those cases. The popularity of full frame 70-300mm zooms for both full frame and APSC would indicate that you are, simply, wrong.

Oh, AvTvM is the king of underestimate markets that he's not personally interested in, and he's the supreme emperor of overestimating to the nth degree the market's desire for the niche products he wants.

He's also a member of royalty when it comes to being wrong.

 

[Jack Douglas]

There, I've had my morning chuckle. It's mind boggling, guess it's called a "one track mind". I have run into it in everyday life before.

I'm a weirdo for sure. 90% or my shooting is over ISO 1000 and ranges from 400 - 800mm but that's dependent on many factors and could change. However, is it reasonable to assume that I'd be happy with a dinky camera and nothing over 200mm - ouch.

Jack

 

[AvTvM]

There, I've had my morning chuckle. It's mind boggling, guess it's called a "one track mind". I have run into it in everyday life before.

I'm a weirdo for sure. 90% or my shooting is over ISO 1000 and ranges from 400 - 800mm but that's dependent on many factors and could change. However, is it reasonable to assume that I'd be happy with a dinky camera and nothing over 200mm - ouch.

Jack

i don't assume anything. And certainly not what focal lengths you are using. But ... I am of the opinion that tele users are strongly over-represented in this forum compared to total Canon system owners.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But ... I am of the opinion that tele users are strongly over-represented in this forum compared to total Canon system owners.

Tele users are clearly a minority, although it may be a reasonably large minority. That's evident from the fact that Canon sells lenses and ILCs in an ~1.4:1 ratio, and most of the bodies sold are APS-C and include an 18-55mm kit lens. But I'd also bet that a good chunk of the 0.4 additional lenses per body are 55-250mm and 75-300mm lenses sold in APS-C 2-lens kits, and that puts those users in the tele camp.

 

[Mikehit]

There, I've had my morning chuckle. It's mind boggling, guess it's called a "one track mind". I have run into it in everyday life before.

I'm a weirdo for sure. 90% or my shooting is over ISO 1000 and ranges from 400 - 800mm but that's dependent on many factors and could change. However, is it reasonable to assume that I'd be happy with a dinky camera and nothing over 200mm - ouch.

Jack

Unfortunately for you marketing, product placement and profits are not a democracy.
Sony has really developed its high profile on video and how the beat Canon. Canon has built its reputation over 20 years on sports and wildlife which are largely telephoto. Can you imagine the outburst if Canon said "here is a new flasghip camera. Sorry you sports/wildlife guys but we are compromising the things you like us for. But don; worry because it is mirrorless and we all know how important it is that we take out the mirror"

You only need look at the 6D2, which was and is a fine camera in its own right, how internet chatter and trolls are driving perception - the impact of that scenario on Canon would catastrophic.

The golden rule of marketing (of which I am sure you are totally ignorant) is that you ignore your core market at your peril. And your approach is probably the most basic example of that as you can imagine.

 

[jayphotoworks]

Because Sony has no competition at the moment. No other vendor offers FF mirrorless. They also have reasonably good and quickly improving assortment of native FF lenses - the FE lenses. They also made the details of the interface to their lenses available to third party lens manufacturers. Sigma native FE lenses have just started coming.

However, Sony knows that the competition is coming. They even pre-empted the future competition by pricing the new Alpha 7 III relatively low <$2,000. This camera on specs beats the comparable Canon offering 6D II in every department and by wide margins.

Except autofocus speed, autofocus sensitivity in low light, battery life, and ergonomics with any lens in the 1kg+ size, weather sealing especially when carried inverted, autofocus performance in AF-S vs One-Shot, touch screen functionality, reversible/fully articulating screen, weather sealed remote trigger connector, durability and weather sensitivity of flash connector...

Sony is now about 6 years and 3 generations ahead of their competitors.

Which is why Canon outsells Sony in the APSC mirrorless market, and did so very shortly after entering that market, despite Sony's early presence, I guess.

For these reasons, I personally believe that Canon will not have a competitive general purpose FF mirrorless camera before 2024.

That's as likely as POTUS45 winning the US Presidential election in 2024. Or the French one.

But nice try! I hope you like your Sony camera

We should give Sony some credit though. They went from creating awkward Cybershots (F707) using equally awkward memory sticks to being a competitive camera brand today that is exclusively compared against its more established peers at every corner. This isn't a company that got lazy and decided to ride out their brand name because they didn't really have one. Sony was once losing money in every segment other than their Sony Pictures and Playstation brands. In addition, I still remember a few years back a press release stated that Sony wanted to eventually be one of the top sensor manufacturers in the world. I'm sure they've achieved a large part of that today. That same tech is now making its way into their best cameras and is why you are seeing bodies like the A9. 10 years ago, would you even expect Sony to actually be competitive with today's Nikon and Canon much less potentially be slightly ahead of them from a innovation and tech perspective?

Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.

 

[Mikehit]

We should give Sony some credit though. They went from creating awkward Cybershots (F707) using equally awkward memory sticks to being a competitive camera brand today that is exclusively compared against its more established peers at every corner. This isn't a company that got lazy and decided to ride out their brand name because they didn't really have one. Sony was once losing money in every segment other than their Sony Pictures and Playstation brands. In addition, I still remember a few years back a press release stated that Sony wanted to eventually be one of the top sensor manufacturers in the world. I'm sure they've achieved a large part of that today. That same tech is now making its way into their best cameras and is why you are seeing bodies like the A9. 10 years ago, would you even expect Sony to actually be competitive with today's Nikon and Canon much less potentially be slightly ahead of them from a innovation and tech perspective?

Today, shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR. There is also more or less the same type of glass that most people would want including the standard 2.8 zoom trifecta set and a few fast primes. I definitely would not feel that way just 1 or 2 generations back shooting with an A7/A7II.

I agree.
Sony moved into mirrorless as a pretty much last ditch attempt to stay in the market - they knew they had these great sensors and the decision to move into mirrorless was the only real segment left to them and Panasonic showed how it could be done. Once the 7 series took off they took it from there and have done a decent job.
I have only used MFT, not Sony, but from reviews by even avid Sony users, I think saying "shooting the newest Sony bodies feels more or less equal to shooting with a high end DSLR" is still pushing it. The issue is not so much 'shooting mirrorless' as 'shooting Sony' in that Sony ergonomics still have some way to go to match the experience CaNikon have in understanding what makes a tool enjoyable to use.