What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

Hector1970

EOS R
Mar 22, 2012
1,184
356
Firstly my personal preference is to have a native EF Mount.
This is more out of practicality than knowledge.
I've invest heavily in EF lens. I naturally distrust adapters. I always feel they take away from performance.
Even the extenders I'm not convinced about. Yes they work better on the big whites but even then I think the lens are slightly less good and I'm not sure if the picture cropped is better than the lens extended or not.

Weight - I find the 1DX II too heavy and big. The 5DIV size is the biggest I would work with. I'd be happier with a a slightly smaller / lighter camera but it wouldn't have to be as small as a Sony.

Viewfinder - yes it has to be really good , focus peaking etc needs to be there

AutoFocusing - needs to be on par with the mirrored cameras at least

FPS needs to be 16FPS to 20 FPS. I think it will be key to its commercial success. At the high end its the compelling reason to go mirrorless

Battery Life - It needs to be good. Mirrorless just eats batteries. It needs a substantial battery

No interest in Video as I think 4K is overkill (and requires big hardware to process) but I'm sure it would be good regardless.

I'd have no interest in attaching legacy lens. I think this would be a minority pursuit easily catered for by adapters.

My concern would be is that the Canon camera would not be the best it can be if Canon persisted with the EF mount. Nikon is gambling they can make a superior mirrorless camera if they change the mount.
I have a lack of knowledge on the theory here.

All things being equal (assuming a parallel world where Canon don't have an amazing set of current lens).
Would Canon then be better advised to drop the EF mount and design one specifically for mirrorless?
 

RJ_4000

I'm New Here
Jul 16, 2014
10
1
Belgium
Hi again

Just an additional comment:

Will the mirrorless replace the DSLR or not ?

Well,
if you look at pro sport photographers, as an example, they need to nail down the right shot.
The exact instant that will be... paid for.
That's why we see this continuous quest for faster frame rate, faster AF,...
At some point, a next step will obviously be a continuous 8K VIDEO shooting (32Mpixels * 30fps)
Then you have more frames to pick from.
To allow that, you need to remove the mirror.
And if you remove the mirror, well, you need that Electronic Viewfinder.

Another topic where mirrorless is better now (it started as a drawback but now is an benefit) :
They use Contrast AF.
Or, better, they use Phase AF first (from the full sensor) and they finalize it with Contrast AF.
This is more accurate.
And micro-AF adjustement is less needed. Or may be done automatically.
But you can't do that without the full sensor being used for AF. Which means no mirror in the light path.
Also the fact that you may actually perform the AF on (almost) any part of the frame is a HUGE benefit.
Eye-AF probably also benefits from that, since you are able to use more detailed image to AF. You just need more CPU-horse-power.

To be able to see what the final image will look like (WYSIWYG) is also a benefit.

I think all those things make a big difference. Therefore all Pros will want that sooner or later.

All DSLRs could do that while in Liveview, of course.
They just miss the EVF.
That's why I think, on short term, we'll see some Pro DSLR WITH an EVF on top of the OVF.
No compromise. Everything in the same box. One Human-Machine Interface.

There are also points where mirrorless actually LACK against a DSLR.

The obvious one is the lack of OVF.
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
And they are closer to the lens mount too.
So they get dirty much faster.
If Canon wants to launch a Pro Mirrorless, they should address that (why not to close the shutter if the lens is removed ?)

They pump more on the battery too, because they have to permanently feed this EVF.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,311
646
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
RJ_4000 said:
That's why I think, on short term, we'll see some Pro DSLR WITH an EVF on top of the OVF.
No compromise. Everything in the same box. One Human-Machine Interface.
That's not what they'll do. If anything they'll do a combined OVF/EVF which will potentially be the best of both worlds, if it can perform right.


RJ_4000 said:
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
So they get dirty much faster.
This is true, but conversely they are also much easier to keep clean.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
I have the M6, for me it serves as a travel backup camera and a good option for outings where I don't want to take a big camera – I choose to sacrifice IQ for portability. So, in a FF MILC for a second camera, I'd want it as compact as possible (if they could fit it in an M6 chassis, great!), a new, shorter mount with a small set of native lenses (small primes, small and therefore slow zooms), and an adapter for EF lenses. That would be not having to sacrifice IQ for portability. But...for a primary camera, I'd want a full size body (personally, 1-series size, I know, not gonna happen) and the good ergonomics that go with it, and a native EF mount.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
jolyonralph said:
New mount for me. As much as I'd be annoyed having to use adaptors it's time to move on. The 1986 EF mount has had a great run, but we have more exciting things ahead of us.
Yeah, like native f/2.8 zooms with an empty tube at the back to replicate the longer flange focal distance. Exciting!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
jolyonralph said:
RJ_4000 said:
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
So they get dirty much faster.
This is true, but conversely they are also much easier to keep clean.
Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to keep clean? I can see how the actual process of cleaning a MILC sensor *might* be considered easier...no need to use menus to lock up the mirror (but how big a deal is that, really) and a shallower depth for easier access (but all the cleaning tools have sufficient length to obviate that issue). But even if those steps are very slightly less cumbersome, if the sensor gets dirtier faster, you have to clean it more frequently. That's anything but easier, anyway you look at it.
 

Hector1970

EOS R
Mar 22, 2012
1,184
356
I assume he meant easier to clean.
I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed.
I use an Olympus as a light portable camera and dust has not been an issue yet (and I'm always changing lenses). I think its easier/quicker to switch lens on a small camera (when the lens are small too)


neuroanatomist said:
jolyonralph said:
RJ_4000 said:
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
So they get dirty much faster.
This is true, but conversely they are also much easier to keep clean.
Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to keep clean? I can see how the actual process of cleaning a MILC sensor *might* be considered easier...no need to use menus to lock up the mirror (but how big a deal is that, really) and a shallower depth for easier access (but all the cleaning tools have sufficient length to obviate that issue). But even if those steps are very slightly less cumbersome, if the sensor gets dirtier faster, you have to clean it more frequently. That's anything but easier, anyway you look at it.
 

RJ_4000

I'm New Here
Jul 16, 2014
10
1
Belgium
Hector1970 said:
I assume he meant easier to clean.
I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed.
That's what I just added to my comment above:
"Why not to close the shutter if the lens is removed ?"
 

exquisitor

EOS M6 Mark II
Apr 30, 2015
76
0
I agree with the opinion that mirrorless with native EF mount doesn't make sense. It would be essentially DSLR sized body with EVF. Why bother then, just do an external EVF. Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
exquisitor said:
Native mirrorless mount with flange distance of < 20 mm and an EF adapter is more flexible solution, allowing for smaller native lenses (unlike Sony FE lenses, which are essentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts).
Why are Sony FE lenses esentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts? Maybe Canon is great at lens design, but Sony and Zeiss just suck at it? Inquiring minds want to know... ;)
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,311
646
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
neuroanatomist said:
Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to keep clean?
Less space inside to collect dust that can then accumulate on the sensor, blowing the dust off the sensor for example is much more likely to blow it *OUT* of the camera rather than just hide it inside again.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,311
646
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
neuroanatomist said:
Yeah, like native f/2.8 zooms with an empty tube at the back to replicate the longer flange focal distance. Exciting!
Well, for photographers who only use their holy trinity lenses it's hard to understand the advantages of mirrorless that's for sure.

But strangely, not every photographer uses 2.8 zooms all the time.

Show me a lens with the quality and compactness of the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the EF mount please.
 

Tremotino

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 23, 2018
62
33
Munich
I really hope canon brings the hybrid mirrorless camera. 8) Doing so they would have the best of both. And it would be better than any other mirrorless camera because of this feature.

Body same as 1d or maybe another lineup for a 5d lookalike body with an electric viewfinder. With a simple button, you can switch between optical view or electric view. That would be so amazing.

Yeah, that's my first post. :D
 

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
47
10
docsmith said:
Keep it the same size....keep the EF mount.....so, what's the point?

I try to think about what a mirrorless camera could provide that I do not already have and all I come up with is spread of AF points and seeing exposure through an EVF. It would be nice to be able to look through a viewfinder and be able AF on close to the entire frame and see a representation of the image I am about to take.

Otherwise, I really do not read much of anything here that cannot also be applied to a dslr. As neuro has already said, switch to live view and our current bodies are mirrorless, even for my AF spread. I also like the talk about a modified hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder. That would be interesting. And by projecting information on the OVF screen, we already are starting to trend toward that hybrid situation.

So, very basic questions to ask, but "Why does removing the mirror make this better?" If you take size off the table, keep the EF mount, then I am not reading anything that necessitates removing the mirror. And I agree, I like the ergonomics of the current dslrs and I'd prefer an EF mount. Which is why I am happy with my dslr.

Conversely, "Why is the mirror better?" When the answer to this basic question is "it isn't better" then I can finally see the dslr to mirrorless transition. And then, it will mostly be to save money, moving parts, etc. Get into the mirror box, dedicated PDAF sensor, dedicated processor, etc, there probably is some savings.

So, this is a long way of saying, they had better nail that EVF and have it not only better than anything I've seen on the market to date but also mimic an OVF and save me some money while doing so. Otherwise, I'll never leave my dslr.
There are many more reasons than the ones you mention, just a few examples I can think of from personal use -

- AF is more accurate and needs no lens calibration, as it is on the plane of the sensor. This is not only true for native lenses, e.g. Sony A7Riii users are now getting tack sharp results wide open with notoriously difficult lenses such as the Canon 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc. because of this and Eye-AF. And those lenses are adapted, outperforming the native camera. Actually this is huge. Huge. Feels very weird to be thinking about lens calibration in DSLR-land again after getting used to mirrorless for a while.
- Use of ND filters is far easier, e.g., those who use it for portraiture with flash to kill depth of field can still see their subject and AF on them despite high stop NDs.
- You can use focus peaking/electronic split screen focusing with complete accuracy with MF lenses, or when MF overriding.
- Lack of mirror vibration/shock means pictures will be sharper, especially at lower shutter speeds, mirror lock-up becomes a thing of the past (again, this seems bizarrely antiquated, when thinking about DSLR after mirrorless).
- The mirror isn't better? Bearing in mind the above, explain to me what the mirror IS useful for?
- Have you actually looked through the EVF of one of the better latest generation EVFs? They are very far from the crapiness of the early ones. The latest Fuji ones are great, the GH5 is immense and the A7riii should be good too (although I haven't used the latter one myself). Make sure when you look through them that you have picture effects turned off and the contrast and colour adjusted to taste. When you're used to a real viewfinder, the picture effects and contrast and saturation turned up can be, understandably, too much. Mostly I use my Fuji with all that turned off to give a more natural picture and like it much better.
- Conversely, an advantage can be turning certain picture profiles on. E.g. with black and white, you get to actually see what you're shooting IN black and white. With Fuji you can even apply R/G/Y filters in cam and the preview matches that. You can also adjust contrast curves and it will match that. Sometimes it's nice to get things right in camera without guessing, or spending too much time on the computer later (I say this as someone who shot on film, then DSLRs for 30 years).
- Switching to live view is the same result? I don't think so. I like holding my camera to my eye 90% of the time, for a good many reasons.
- A hybrid viewfinder? Well, maybe. But again, explain what you think a mirror is actually giving you? Fuji a hybrid EVF/OVF in the X-Pro series. I own an X-Pro 2 and have used it extensively for two years. I've used the OVF exactly once. My friend who tried it (who's a pro DP) did the same. I think this is quite common judging by others who use the X-Pro 2. The EVF is so good, the OVF is redundant. Next time I'll buy an X-T2 and save myself some weight and cost!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
jolyonralph said:
neuroanatomist said:
Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to keep clean?
Less space inside to collect dust that can then accumulate on the sensor, blowing the dust off the sensor for example is much more likely to blow it *OUT* of the camera rather than just hide it inside again.
When you blow on a sensor, the airflow bounces off the sensor and first goes to the sides, then forward where there’s a lip for the mount. Lots of surfaces for the dust to stick to, I don’t think the dust is all that much more likely to blow out. The smaller space and opening may actually create more turbulence that’s more likely to deposit dust on sensor box surfaces, which can later fall back on the sensor.

In any case, you’re describing subtle differences – not really consistent with, “...much easier to keep clean.”

Personally, I don’t find that to be true in practice, comparing my 1D X to my EOS M cameras.
 

3dit0r

EOS M50
Dec 4, 2017
47
10
Hector1970 said:
I assume he meant easier to clean.
I was wondering also as someone pointed out above why on a mirrorless camera there isn't some short of shutter coming down when a lens is removed.
I use an Olympus as a light portable camera and dust has not been an issue yet (and I'm always changing lenses). I think its easier/quicker to switch lens on a small camera (when the lens are small too)


neuroanatomist said:
jolyonralph said:
RJ_4000 said:
Then , the sensor has no protection against dust or spills while the lens is removed.
So they get dirty much faster.
This is true, but conversely they are also much easier to keep clean.
Can you explain how MILC sensors are easier to keep clean? I can see how the actual process of cleaning a MILC sensor *might* be considered easier...no need to use menus to lock up the mirror (but how big a deal is that, really) and a shallower depth for easier access (but all the cleaning tools have sufficient length to obviate that issue). But even if those steps are very slightly less cumbersome, if the sensor gets dirtier faster, you have to clean it more frequently. That's anything but easier, anyway you look at it.
FWIW I've used three brands of Mirrorless ILCs now, over several years (Fuji, Olympus, Sony). I have had far less problems with dust than I ever had on Canon or Nikon DSLRs. In fact I can only recall one instance of having to remove a noticeable dust spot from a Fuji shot once. On my 1DsMkii, I had severe dust issues constantly. The D700 and 5Dmkii were an improvement though.

This despite mainly shooting primes (so more regular lens changes) on the mirrorless cameras, and mainly 24-70 zooms on the Canon/Nikon bodies. No idea why, just my experience of real-life use.
 

RJ_4000

I'm New Here
Jul 16, 2014
10
1
Belgium
3dit0r said:
There are many more reasons than the ones you mention, just a few examples I can think of from personal use
- AF is more accurate and needs no lens calibration, as it is on the plane of the sensor. This is not only true for native lenses, e.g. Sony A7Riii users are now getting tack sharp results wide open with notoriously difficult lenses such as the Canon 50 1.2, 85 1.2, etc. because of this and Eye-AF. And those lenses are adapted, outperforming the native camera. Actually this is huge. Huge. Feels very weird to be thinking about lens calibration in DSLR-land again after getting used to mirrorless for a while.
- Use of ND filters is far easier, e.g., those who use it for portraiture with flash to kill depth of field can still see their subject and AF on them despite high stop NDs.
- You can use focus peaking/electronic split screen focusing with complete accuracy with MF lenses, or when MF overriding.
- Lack of mirror vibration/shock means pictures will be sharper, especially at lower shutter speeds, mirror lock-up becomes a thing of the past (again, this seems bizarrely antiquated, when thinking about DSLR after mirrorless).
- The mirror isn't better? Bearing in mind the above, explain to me what the mirror IS useful for?
- Have you actually looked through the EVF of one of the better latest generation EVFs? They are very far from the crapiness of the early ones. The latest Fuji ones are great, the GH5 is immense and the A7riii should be good too (although I haven't used the latter one myself). Make sure when you look through them that you have picture effects turned off and the contrast and colour adjusted to taste. When you're used to a real viewfinder, the picture effects and contrast and saturation turned up can be, understandably, too much. Mostly I use my Fuji with all that turned off to give a more natural picture and like it much better.
- Conversely, an advantage can be turning certain picture profiles on. E.g. with black and white, you get to actually see what you're shooting IN black and white. With Fuji you can even apply R/G/Y filters in cam and the preview matches that. You can also adjust contrast curves and it will match that. Sometimes it's nice to get things right in camera without guessing, or spending too much time on the computer later (I say this as someone who shot on film, then DSLRs for 30 years).
- Switching to live view is the same result? I don't think so. I like holding my camera to my eye 90% of the time, for a good many reasons.
- A hybrid viewfinder? Well, maybe. But again, explain what you think a mirror is actually giving you? Fuji a hybrid EVF/OVF in the X-Pro series. I own an X-Pro 2 and have used it extensively for two years. I've used the OVF exactly once. My friend who tried it (who's a pro DP) did the same. I think this is quite common judging by others who use the X-Pro 2. The EVF is so good, the OVF is redundant. Next time I'll buy an X-T2 and save myself some weight and cost!
Most of those points (not the ND filter one) are also true in Liveview with a DSLR.
All you miss is an EVF.
Add an EVF and you have it.

I own several (serious) Mirrorless camera.
But looking through a GOOD OVF (5DSR, 1DX) ALWAYS gives me more excitement.
I want the image I see.
At the end, that has me producing more good pictures (to my taste).
I see the benefits of an EVF. I want BOTH in my main camera.
(I could live without OVF on my secondary camera.)
OK, that's me.


(Focus peaking, by the way, is far from perfect.)
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,787
923
UK
www.flickr.com
neuroanatomist said:
scyrene said:
Each to their own, but that only works if money is no object. The 500L II is £8k while the 600L II is £10.5k. That's a hell of a difference for 100mm, when the 1.4x TC gives you 200mm extra for £300.
Sure, but the TC also costs you a stop of light, and spending an extra £2,5k does not. ;)
Heh, good point!
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
jolyonralph said:
Show me a lens with the quality and compactness of the Sony Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 on the EF mount please.
The Sony FE 55/1.8 is about the same size and weight as the Canon 50/1.4 (the Sony is skinnier and longer, volumes are approximately the same, only 10g difference in weight), and the Canon is 2/3-stop faster. I have no doubt that if Canon wanted to design a $1000 50mm f/1.8, it could easily be the same quality and compactness of the Sony 55/1.8. In other words, there’s nothing about the FE 55/1.8 lens that’s unique to it being designed for a MILC.

If you prefer actual to theoretical, consider the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4 for the EF mount. It is 2mm larger in diameter and 1mm shorter than the Sony FE 55/1.8, which I’d call similar compactness. Simliar IQ if you compare the two lenses at f/1.8.

Thanks for playing!