Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
ahsanford said:
If Live View is simply a mirrorless mode, isn't the EVF for FF the conundrum? I know there's more (battery, startup time, lag...well, that's EVF) But as the better hybrid VF's have shown us, the tech is nearly there. I'm not sayig I'm in the ML NOW camp but just asking those with more gear smarts than me what is the possible holdup that could be keeping Canon from making this ML FF rig we keep discussing. I have a hard time thinking it's market....I think they want to get it right. So we wait.
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
Good question. No idea what the component costs are, I am admittedly a neophyte on ways and means here.
Just wading into this, if I understand the internals, costs would be based upon:
Someone please correct me if I've got this wrong or if I'm missing something nontrivial.
- SLR = the camera body + all shared internals + mirror assembly + pentaprism + OVF + sub-mirror for AF + AF sensor + likely more body material (depending on a full EF vs. skinny mirrorless mount, which is TBD)
- ML = the camera body + all shared internals + EVF
And I'm presuming all the 'shared internals' that drive the EVF are common to those that drive LiveView, i.e. the ML rig doesn't need anything exotic internally to process / pipe content to the EVF.
But that's an apples to apples build on an apples to apples assembly line, which won't happen at first. SLRs will enjoy comically disproportionate economies of scale at Canon that ML would take a decade to generate.
And these are just cost drivers -- price is another animal. If Canon wants to reach for bonkers premiums with ML or inflate the body price to cover the R&D for mirrorless only lenses, that's another conversation.
But I'm in no uncertain terms rambling here. Curious to hear the thoughts of the EEs and consumer electronics folks on this.
- A
Upvote
0
slclick said:
Technically, I see zero conundrum or holdups involved as I don't think a hybrid VF is a must for the market (it's cool but the OVF is still not TTL, right?). Canon now knows from the M1 --> M5/M6 mirrorless experience + all of it's great tech / LiveView experience to offer a rig as compelling as a 5D4 or the upcoming 6D2 right now with the obvious caveats about battery life, lag, etc.
The question is why would they withhold a FF mirrorless rig from the market? Just riffing here:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Why the rush? They don't see sufficient mirrorless demand / threat of current customers to leave to commit the resources needed just yet,
[*]The really big decision has them on the fence: Perhaps they are waffling on a not-technically-difficult decision that has huge ramifications/risk and they are waiting out the market to reduce their uncertainty (e.g. to go with a full EF mount vs. a skinny mirrorless mount and what the latter would mean for other development needs),
[*]Mirrorless is overrated / if it ain't broke, don't fix it: They believe SLRs will always offer more value than a mirrorless rig, and as such, caving to the market looks sexy but ultimately doesn't serve the business in the longer term
[*]It's not high on their list: There are more lucrative things they could invest their money in right now: acquire a competitor, develop new tech that becomes the backbone for future platforms (i.e. Foveon, IBIS, etc.), start a new line of products for something that is under-served (no idea: paparazzi drones, ultra-low-cost medical imaging, robot photobooths, etc.)
[/list]
Your guess is as good as mine. I think Canon FF mirrorless is a hammerlock certainty -- it's just a question of when and how aggressively they will prioritize it over other new product lines.
- A
Upvote
0
IMHO FF ML is bound to happen. First, no shutter mechanisms to wear out. Second, would make movie easier on standard (as opposed to "Cinema") bodies. EVF is just a matter of time to get the performance and costs down. I haven't worked on OLED technology but anything organic sounds to me to be degradable. I suspect Canon are wrong to pursue OLED EVF and we need a LED backlit LCD.
Meanwhile those of us wanting a cheaper 600mm (zoom) are doomed to wait ... again
Meanwhile those of us wanting a cheaper 600mm (zoom) are doomed to wait ... again
Upvote
0
neonlight said:
The same I'm always thinking of Canon's BR lens elements, which are also organic (if I'm not wrong).
I don't know, when or if they are degradable to a major degree over some years.
Now you got me thinking about that OLED EVF in my camera :-\
I've googled and have seen a website where someone was reporting that his OLED display was basically unusable after 5 years, but that was from a mp3 player back in 2010 or earlier. I don't know if you can apply that to a modern OLED EVF from 2016/17. An EVF should be kind of "sealed"? He said it's basically the oxygen (and moisture) to which the OLEDs are susceptible. See here (german website): http://www.tomshardware.de/AMOLED-display-abgenutzt,news-244326.html
Are my worries regarding BR optics and OLEDs justified?
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
They actually did just buy into Medical Imaging in a very big way, from what I've heard from consultants in that field that work with Fuji, Canon and McKesson, it's a huge deal in the industry. They're expecting marketshare to shift to Canon's side.
Upvote
0
With all this FF ML talk/wishes going on, I think it would be a good first move to add support for the detachable EVFs to the 6D2. That way they could offer all the advantages (and disadvantages) of ML cameras (except for size, weight and the speculated price benefit) without a big change to the camera and without sacrificing the advantages of SLRs (if you just use the OVF).
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
The only point of going mirrorless is if they adopt the 18mm flange depth the M cameras have but to utilise existing EF lenses you need an adaptor or you need to redesign over 60 lenses which aint gonna happen (not when their still releasing new EF lenses). Sony had to design new lenses and still doesn't have a complete series for the A7 range etc.
Unless Canon has some new break-out technology and / or drops EF-S lenses a full frame mirrorless with an adaptor is defeating the object of mirrorless.
Upvote
0
neonlight said:IMHO FF ML is bound to happen. First, no shutter mechanisms to wear out. Second, would make movie easier on standard (as opposed to "Cinema") bodies. EVF is just a matter of time to get the performance and costs down. I haven't worked on OLED technology but anything organic sounds to me to be degradable. I suspect Canon are wrong to pursue OLED EVF and we need a LED backlit LCD.
Meanwhile those of us wanting a cheaper 600mm (zoom) are doomed to wait ... again
I don't disagree that mirrorless is bound to happen, or at least be an option as I also don't see the DSLR going away anytime soon. Keep in mind that (as far as I know) all mirrorless cameras currently have shutters. They just remain open until the picture is taken. The exception is if one shoots with the "electronic shutter", but due to slow readout time of the sensor, this is only really an option for static subjects. Yes, EVFs will get better. That has been the mantra for the past 5 years. I still think they have a long way to go to fully be usable in all situations. I still feel one of their weaknesses is trying to use them outside in bright sunlight. Often I'm wearing sunglasses and the EVF just isn't easy to see. And once in a great while, sunlight can reflect and hit the eye sensor and the EVF goes blank. Yes there are a number of work arounnds for each of these (turning up brightness, forcing EVF on) but these are never problems with the OVF. It just works. One of the amazing things about an OVF, besides zero lag, and truly seeing colors and the scene for what it is... is how amazing the camera perfectly adjusts the brightness of the OVF with ambient light.
No issues shooting in bright sunlight.
Upvote
0
Organic compound means a compound made of elements usually found in plants and animals but rearranging these elements in a different manner lets them be part of organic chemistry ("carbon and it's compounds"). Synthetic compounds like polyethylene, polypropylene, teflon etc. are very stable under a wide variety of conditions. More complex compounds may suffer from instability but may also be very stable.
If the BR element uses some gel made of mineral oil it is maybe stable for 100 years without measurable degradation, OLEDs maybe suffer from heat (+ the named influences by oxygen and water) but there is strong progress: 10 years ago a 11 inch SONY OLED TV (very special thing) had a price tag of several 1000 $/€ today you can buy a 50 inch OLED display from LG with as a standard item. But as always: I let others be early adopters and beta testers for banana products (ripening in the hands of customers).
If the BR element uses some gel made of mineral oil it is maybe stable for 100 years without measurable degradation, OLEDs maybe suffer from heat (+ the named influences by oxygen and water) but there is strong progress: 10 years ago a 11 inch SONY OLED TV (very special thing) had a price tag of several 1000 $/€ today you can buy a 50 inch OLED display from LG with as a standard item. But as always: I let others be early adopters and beta testers for banana products (ripening in the hands of customers).
Crosswind said:
Upvote
0
I also noticed that and always wonder how Canon manages to do that. Must be magicians. 8)Luds34 said:One of the amazing things about an OVF [...] is how amazing the camera perfectly adjusts the brightness of the OVF with ambient light.
And you forgot to mention usage under flickering light as disadvantage of EVFs. I had a look through the EVF of the M5 at Photokina and there was a flickering lamp nearby (flickering was not visible by naked eye). The flicker became extremely visible in the EVF and I immediately knew why I prefer OVFs.
Upvote
0
I recognize the pros and cons of both types of viewfinders and while I've started to yearn for an EVF, I still appreciate the advantages of an OVF, so maybe Canon could come up with a happy compromise.
This would mean added complexity and the attendant higher cost but if Canon can execute it well and price it reasonably, a well implemented hybrid VF would distinguish their products from the competition. That'd be instead of being either perceived to be lagging behind the mirrorless crowd or abandoning their traditional OVF strengths.
As Canon are known to be researching a hybrid OVF/EVF (with that reported patent application late last year), I think they're going that way with their DSLRs. Who knows when, or if, they can do that but either a supposed 1D C Mark II or the 5DS/R Mark II could be good place to start with a hybrid OVF/EVF.
This would mean added complexity and the attendant higher cost but if Canon can execute it well and price it reasonably, a well implemented hybrid VF would distinguish their products from the competition. That'd be instead of being either perceived to be lagging behind the mirrorless crowd or abandoning their traditional OVF strengths.
As Canon are known to be researching a hybrid OVF/EVF (with that reported patent application late last year), I think they're going that way with their DSLRs. Who knows when, or if, they can do that but either a supposed 1D C Mark II or the 5DS/R Mark II could be good place to start with a hybrid OVF/EVF.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
the main point from canon's perspective of going mirrorless would be to reduce complexity and make it easier for automated assembly and alignment of the parts of the camera. there's simply less alignment and precision required in a mirrorless camera, and to have an EVF for those that like the EVF view of the world versus OVF.
18mm flange is not necessary and probably not happening. the sensors have to be completely redesigned to support a narrow flange.
the camera bodies can be made as small as the ergonomic rules determine, so the size isn't a problem.
the lenses, only a moderate amount of canon's 60-90 lenses would show a benefit to being on a mirrorless, and all it causes is mount uncertainty.
Sony's marketshare tanked after they did that move, I doubt canon would repeat their mistake.
Sony has not made the move to mirrorless with any great success - this is pretty much a myth on the Internet that Sony is kicking ass and taking names because of their shift to mirrorless. before mirrorless, especially FE, Sony enjoyed around a 18% or more marketshare and was closing in on Nikon.
Now, they are half of Nikon, even a slipping Nikon, and around 1/4th or less of Canon. thier last numbers had them sitting at a 12% marketshare.
Upvote
0
slclick said:hmatthes said:I use this lens every day and never wanted IS. The 24-70 2.8L II is IMHO the perfect lens.Ladislav said:No 24-70/2.8 L IS again?
I have never thought once that what this lens needed is stabilization. Maybe a diet but not IS.
The 24-70 2.8L II certainly doesn't need a diet...
Upvote
0
romanr74 said:slclick said:hmatthes said:I use this lens every day and never wanted IS. The 24-70 2.8L II is IMHO the perfect lens.Ladislav said:No 24-70/2.8 L IS again?
I have never thought once that what this lens needed is stabilization. Maybe a diet but not IS.
The 24-70 2.8L II certainly doesn't need a diet...
Yeah, if I had time I'd share a list of threads here where people are asking for heavier glass, I'll get back to you when I have time. Look, I know it wouldn't have the optics it does (I love mine) without all that heft, just like how I love my pickle jar 50 Art.
Upvote
0
What your suggesting is simply remove the mirror and alignment can all be automated really? Have you ever assembled a camera? Sure assemblies can be automated but final alignment would need to be verified and checked that's why cameras have adjustments within them that are locked-off once those checks are made, everything has a tolerance and that has to be taken into consideration particularly the setting of the CMOS sensor in relation to the mount for alignment & back-focus.rrcphoto said:
The same is true for optics just look at any teardown video.
Canon EF flange depth is 44mm if they retain that they are locked to certain parameters for given focal lengths and for zooms to cover the 24x36mm sensor, so in other words what they already have albeit with glass type improvements and coating improvements going forwards. What it will not do is shrink the camera greatly so whilst removing the mirror box would simplify construction the actual throat area will be governed by the image circle and the flange depth and to make an ergonomically pleasing camera it will need to be scaled accordingly so we would not see greatly reduced cameras from a size point of view.
Some are quick to dismiss optical viewfinders but EVF finders are far from perfect even given all the recent improvements so be careful what you wish for the option of both is far better.
Upvote
0
In a DSLR you have to adjust the sensor position relative to the mount, the focus screen relative to the sensor and the AF sensor relative the the image sensor. With a mirrorless you just have to adjust the first one. And even there only sensor tilt should have a big influence on image quality (by tilting the plane of focus). The tolerances for the exact sensor position (including flange distance) are likely higher on mirrorless compared to DSLR.jeffa4444 said:
Upvote
0
slclick said:romanr74 said:slclick said:hmatthes said:I use this lens every day and never wanted IS. The 24-70 2.8L II is IMHO the perfect lens.Ladislav said:No 24-70/2.8 L IS again?
I have never thought once that what this lens needed is stabilization. Maybe a diet but not IS.
The 24-70 2.8L II certainly doesn't need a diet...
Yeah, if I had time I'd share a list of threads here where people are asking for heavier glass, I'll get back to you when I have time. Look, I know it wouldn't have the optics it does (I love mine) without all that heft, just like how I love my pickle jar 50 Art.
Mk I was a tank. Mk II is perfect size and weight.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
