We were wrong, all of your Canon mirrorless dreams are likely coming true soon

[ahsanford]

Now the major talking point is throughput. There are now 5 production FF cameras pushing north of 400 MP/s in stills (i.e. MP resolution X top fps), and Canon doesn't sell any of them.

Comparatively, looking at the high-end* FF bodies: D850 and Z7 (45x9), Sony A7R3 (42x10), Sony A99-II (42x12), Sony A9 (24x20)... vs. Canon with either 50x5 or 30x7 (i.e. 50-60% of what the competition does).
*Everyone segments differently, I am referring to non-integrally gripped $3k-ish cameras here. (Not the gripped sports ones.)

Throughput has to step up with new Canon offerings. They look terribly antiquated here, and it gets folks blurring market segments and wondering why they should pay more for a 5-series. That needs to go away if Canon wants to protect a $3500 price point for 5-series cameras.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

EF-M?

User: I want a FF camera that is not large.

Sony: Here you are.

Nikon: Here you are.

Canon: No. You must choose small OR FF. We believe this is a better option bec---

[User already hitting 'Order' with another company.]

- A

 

[hmatthes]

Hasselblad and Fuji make those. (and larger format might give you something extra too)

I've used the Fuji GFX and love the image quality. Like their lenses. But find the physical camera hard to use in the real world. The rear dial is blocked by the ungainly grip. On paper it is perfect. We've been begging for exposure tied to focus point for a very long time... GFX has it. One can hope that with QPAF...

 

[ahsanford]

We've been begging for exposure tied to focus point for a very long time... GFX has it. One can hope that with QPAF...

We don't need $6k medium format rig to do some localized off-center metering.

There is always judgment with a feature when 'maybe Canon is being greedy/protective here' vs. 'No. No. I think they're nerfing hard here.' I love Canon, I do -- I generally stick up for them. But I contend this is one is squarely the latter. They may not be able to nail an off-center AF point spot meter as precisely as a 1-series, but it's possible to deliver in more cameras than Canon allows -- I contend the 5-series at a minimum should get this functionality.

A Nikon D5500 has this. A cell phone has this everytime you touch to focus off-center. Try it!

- A

 

[lexptr]

Interesting... I think it is possible, that the announcement date was not final until they saw what Nikon is going to deliver. What it can tell us? Probably the Conon's FF mirorless is Ok for the competition. Otherwise they would hold it more to make it better. Just guessing.

 

[crazyrunner33]

Because it takes a lot more power. Same battery in D850, CIPA = 1840. In a Z7, CIPA = 330. Battery life is one reason why I went to a DSLR many years ago...

The screens eat most of the power. The Nikon Z6 has a one button push to disable one or both(for timelapse or astrophotography) screens and significantly increases the shots. I find with the GH5 that if I film through the view finder instead of the large screen, battery life improves exponentially.

 

[Sharlin]

Honestly, I'm still not sure how to interpret this article. Is the title ironic? Was August 27 some sort of an April Fools equivalent day somewhere in the world? Did Maeda-san himself appear to CR guy in a dream and declare that Sep 5 is The Day of Full-frame Mirrorless, contrary to all existing trusted sources of intel? What? Color me confused.

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm not an evangelist on this issue, but my understanding is as follows: don't extension tubes impact AF performance? They're just a tube with contacts either side. I've always been led to believe adding an extra layer of contacts makes AF slower? As for image quality, didn't Lensrentals cover that - basically adaptors are always going to introduce slight misalignment which *may* introduce softness in parts of the image.

So the simple answer is that if an EF-M to EF adaptor is built properly then no, it won't impact AF performance.

Electronic signals aren't slowed down by another few cm of copper! - and at the very low data speed rates that lenses communicate with the body the chance of anything getting corrupted by this is as close to zero as you could imagine.

And an adaptor gives no more misalignment than the lens already gets when mounted to the camera body. But even if it did, as long as the mount is a tight fit (and it should be) the misalignment will be totally compensated by the fact that the focusing is done on-sensor so the sensor will focus based on whatever the alignment really is, not what it theoretically should be!

No more microadjustment!

 

[nchoh]

And I'm just not talking fanboys at DPR or PP would go nuts over this. I think the entire industry would. It would be like Canon sort-of launching a new platform. Canon needs to unlock the power of a mirrorless setup (just the main power train of liveview + focusing setup + EVF and all that that would enable), but I think it also needs to speak to folks who want a smaller system and less to lug around.

- A

That's what EF-M is for?

 

[Respinder]

1) Curious: when is the last time Canon blew you away? This is not what they do. Canon predictably puts one foot in front of the other and delivers -- with quality, with forethought, and with usefulness. I liken them to a rather mundane automobile that never turns heads but also never ever lets you down.

2) When FF mirrorless comes, know it was probably 3-5 years in development. There is zero chance Canon is rushing it. This is just when the release schedules lined up, and we shouldn't be surprised: Photokina is a big deal sort of event to announce things. If anything, Nikon deliberately wanted to be first of the two major SLR companies to grab all the spotlight and media attention. That said, FF mirrorless might be a later event if 9/5 has a reveal, it could be M5 Mk II or some other crop offering.

- A

Last camera that blew me away: the 5D Mark II, which got me into DSLR photography in the first place. It was the perfect photo and video hybrid solution. Of course, many others recognized this as well, which is why the camera quickly made its way into major Hollywood and television productions. To me, this was the last product they created where they were actually willing to throw everything they've got into a single product. These days, I am finding more and more that camera features are spread out across many cameras, and it is difficult to find a Canon DSLR that offers perfect video/photo. I guess now it is the 1DX Mark II, but why they do not offer C-log on it truly baffles me. I suppose after all the rumors previously reported about Canon doing "more than just a C-Log update" with 5D Mark IV, offering fixes to the crop on video, I had hopes that Canon had finally come to their senses, demonstrated a willingness to listen to feedback, and really shake things up. Since that time and those rumors turned out to be incorrect, I've grown more and more weary and cynical about new Canon releases.

I really hope they prove me wrong this time around and give us the mirrorless 5D Mark II equivelent we've all been waiting for.

One other thing - Canon, as well as Nikon and Sony, need to stop thinking of each other as competitors. Their biggest competitor in fact is Apple, followed by Samsung. It are these cell phones that the vast majority of people are using for "acceptable" photography. If they want to bring fresh blood into mirrorless photography, then it is necessary to really change up the game and introduce something that is a game changer. But at the same time I'm not sure if it will make a difference either - Sony and Nikon seem to be throwing everything they've got, yet when I go on vacation or to any destination I still see the cell phone used as the camera of choice - I rarely saw mirrorless in my recent trip to NYC, which surprised me.

So maybe it is a bigger challenge that we thought. Not sure what to think. But I know that if anyone can truly shock the industry with something incredible, it is Canon, and they last did so with the 5D Mark II.

 

[ethanz]

someone is going to throw 5D4 + DPRAW at me momentarily

Get out of here you heretic, sony fanboy

 

[nchoh]

I'm not an evangelist on this issue, but my understanding is as follows: don't extension tubes impact AF performance? They're just a tube with contacts either side. I've always been led to believe adding an extra layer of contacts makes AF slower? As for image quality, didn't Lensrentals cover that - basically adaptors are always going to introduce slight misalignment which *may* introduce softness in parts of the image.

Extension tubes could impact AF performance as the AF algorithm would not match the new lens combination optimally. And yes, adapters will introduce misalignment unless they are perfect.

 

[nchoh]

User: I want a FF camera that is not large.

Sony: Here you are.

Nikon: Here you are.

Canon: No. You must choose small OR FF. We believe this is a better option bec---

[User already hitting 'Order' with another company.]

- A

User: I want a FF camera that is not large and has small lenses.

Sony: Urmm.

Nikon: Hmm.

Canon: Well, if you want a small package of camera and lenses you can buy our EF-M system.---

[User already hitting 'Order' with Canon.]

 

[scyrene]

So the simple answer is that if an EF-M to EF adaptor is built properly then no, it won't impact AF performance.

Electronic signals aren't slowed down by another few cm of copper! - and at the very low data speed rates that lenses communicate with the body the chance of anything getting corrupted by this is as close to zero as you could imagine.

Okay - that's great! - but then why is AF performance impacted with extension tubes and extenders? I've only used third party extension tubes, is there no issue with Canon ones? Is it due to light falloff? Is it poorer with extenders because of the narrower maximum aperture?

And an adaptor gives no more misalignment than the lens already gets when mounted to the camera body. But even if it did, as long as the mount is a tight fit (and it should be) the misalignment will be totally compensated by the fact that the focusing is done on-sensor so the sensor will focus based on whatever the alignment really is, not what it theoretically should be!

I thought the point about misalignment was it caused parts of the image to be out of focus - AFMA can't account for that. In the Lensrentals article, they talk about edge softness. If the centre is unaffected and the edges worse, that might be an acceptable compromise, but the issue is still there. Having on-sensor autofocus doesn't maginally make all parts of the image in focus, does it?

 

[nchoh]

So the simple answer is that if an EF-M to EF adaptor is built properly then no, it won't impact AF performance.

Electronic signals aren't slowed down by another few cm of copper! - and at the very low data speed rates that lenses communicate with the body the chance of anything getting corrupted by this is as close to zero as you could imagine.

And an adaptor gives no more misalignment than the lens already gets when mounted to the camera body. But even if it did, as long as the mount is a tight fit (and it should be) the misalignment will be totally compensated by the fact that the focusing is done on-sensor so the sensor will focus based on whatever the alignment really is, not what it theoretically should be!

No more microadjustment!

A lens only has one mounting surface, an adapter has 2 mounting surfaces, so unless the 2 planes of the adapter are perfectly parallel and perfectly tight, there will be deterioration to the image. A lens can also be micro-adjusted to account for misalignment of the mount an adapter cannot. If an adapter introduces tilt to a lens, a sensor cannot correct it - the focus will only be correct o the point of focus.

 

[justaCanonuser]

LOL. Sony A9 is definitely a tool that can be and is actually used also by Pro's. It is reasonably rugged. It does have IBIS. It does have 4k capture. And yet it does not overheat.

"Innovative Canon" should be able to achieve similar technical feats, no?

Steve Huff got him a 1D-X after a overheated A9 ruined him a video shooting. Well, he lives in Phoenix, Arizona, but a pro tool should withstand even Arizona's climate. In fact, the failure of his Sony moved him to try Canon again, after many years, and he is obviously impressed.

I know a bit about semiconductor technology, and heating definitely is a problem not only with sensors. You know what I mean if you do heavy image or video processing with your Macbook on your lap - the processor has to do a hot job.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Overheating is not listed on Sony’s spec sheet. Since many on this forum base their perception of a camera entirely on its spec sheet, for them the issue simply doesn’t exist.

Overheating is only listed in Sony's speckled sheets (that are secret)

 

[3kramd5]

You can run liveview through the viewfinder / held up to your eye (without some stupid loupe, periscope, etc.). This obliterates MLU for stability (lets you shoot with longer shutters handheld than if you are 12" away from your face, which lets you keep ISO down), comfort, intuitive access to controls, and, candidly, eliminates the stigma of looking like that guy who shoots serious iPad photography.

'MLU is mirrorless so why do we even need mirrorless' is a hackneyed and underweight argument*. Not everyone buying mirrorless are small-size-loving sheep that don't get understand how MLU and Liveview works. Some people just see great value in having Liveview up to their eye -- it unlocks a dramatically different user experience, IMHO.

*I mean this with kindness, b/c I really appreciate your posts in general. I just disagree with you here.

- A

Even in the context of the dual viewfinder configuration I “proposed”

Thanks man, I don’t take any offense to disagreement

 

[ahsanford]

User: I want a FF camera that is not large and has small lenses.

Sony originally launched with a few small lenses. Not pancakes, but small: think EF 28 f/2.8 IS big. I think a mirrorless system built on size will 'pop' the most with such lenses, even if they aren't much smaller than the SLR equivalent:

​

​

(these are two close to each other FLs @ f/2.8)​

So as much as 'yes, a thinner mount isn't overcoming physics here and making lenses smaller' is entirely true, it's also entirely true that slow wide to standard lenses + a thin mount body will fit in a smaller bag for those that want a small FF rig. So I think a short line of these lenses (24 2.8 / 35 2.8 / 40 pancake or 50 1.8) should absolutely be part of a thin mount setup.

Sony did some of this before rolling out a stampede of GM pickle jars. F/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes are offered.

Nikon is SOL on that front. Their lens pipeline is all f/1.8 primes and a host of staple pro f/2.8 zooms. Small is not in the DNA of the Z6/Z7 once you leave the body (though that 14-30 f/4 might be an intriguing little nugget).

​

But I still contend EOS-M cannot be the sole answer for Canon to people who say 'I want small and best IQ'. FF has to play there, too. Canon's big enough to do it as well as offering a stout ergonomic beast of a professional setup.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Even in the context of the dual viewfinder configuration I “proposed”

Sorry, dude. Missed that.

If hybrid/dual VF could come together and not ridiculously complicated or awkward ergonomically (changing which opening you put your eye to), then sign me up. OVF for demanding AF work or for saving battery power, EVF for the handheld manual focusing, silent shooting, etc.

That'd be great.

- A