What's Next from Canon?

[jrista]

I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.

Very unlikely. The pixels are too small to be divided in half, at least by Canon with their current fabrication technologies.

Canon's fabrication tech is only limited (supposedly, we don't really know this for sure) in the fabs for APS-C and FF. Canon already moved to 180nm fabrication several years ago for their small form factor sensors. The SX-50's sensor is 1/2.3", so it would be manufactured by their newer fabs. I'd be surprised if Canon wasn't using a smaller fabrication process than even 180nm for these sensors, honestly, but there isn't much information in the sensor world on Canon's fabrication tech (at least, they certainly don't seem to headline nearly as much as the other major players in the smartphone and video market sectors.)

 

[Sella174]

Out of curiosity, what kind of photography do you do, Sella?

Archival ... so mostly I document people and their interaction with their environment ... building a record of what was then and what is now. I find it a lot less stressful to just take heaps of photographs of an old building before it is torn down, than to fight for its preservation ... and then of course what is put up in its place.

And dogs, horses, birds, lizards, butterflies, and when I get another cat, cats.

From your previous posts, plus looking at your existing gear list... you can really benefit from getting anything that was released within the last 2 years (i.e. 70D, 6D, 5DIII or even the 1DX). Just saying...

In terms of pure megapixels, possibly (but see below); in terms of almost anything else, no ... well, OK, since they released the 70D and 5DIII, yes ... but by this time mirrorless has shown its stuff and I kind of like the concept.

My father in-law has a 5D Classic, and my cousin just got a 70D, and he was blown away by the IQ... he had a T1i before getting the 5D. After checking out the 70D, he plans on selling the 5D and getting a 6D.

I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better. The 6D equates to roughly 8MP equivalent in APS-C, which is the same as my 30D ... so, in my warped opinion, no big improvement there; as for the low-light capabilities of the 6D, well, over here the sun is so bright that I'm nearly always on ISO200 (because it's a good trade-off).

The other thing is your lenses, you have nothing under f/2.5... perhaps a 85mm f/1.8???

Don't need 'em ... I'm not a razor-thin DoF warrior. And when I really want to go for shallow DoF, I've got MF primes for the job - which is another reason why mirrorless pulls my interest.

So, please stop dumping on my gear. It works for me.

But just as an aside, if Canon right now announces a new "EOS 10D" that is basically a mirrorless version of the 70D (dual-pixel AF and EVF), with availability by June/July of this year, then I'll buy two of 'em, right there and then. Plus I'll probably buy another three lenses. :-\

 

[Arctic Photo]

[/quote]

I looked at the 60D when it was a few months old (borrowed one for a week) and found the images from my 30D much better.

[/quote]

I find that strange. I had the 60D before I got my 5DMkIII and my brother in law had the 30D before he got his 6D. When we shot together with the old gear it he 60D pretty much always came out on top. Maybe we're just looking for different things.

I agree with you on the mirrorless, I will definitely get me a mirrorless in some shape as a complement. I wish for an updated M, otherwise I'll just get an M really cheap. It will be perfect for its purpose.

 

[Velo Steve]

Not responding to any one post...

On the G1X II: without a viewfinder, it's a toy camera to me. I'm fine with EVF or optical, as long as it's a good view and I can hold the camera properly. I'll probably not look at this line again unless the viewfinder is integrated, rather than an add-on.

I do use a smaller powershot occasionally, when my 5D III is too much to carry. The right fixed-lens higher quality camera WOULD be tempting.

On the low ISO topic - my default ISO is 400. In the rare cases where I have the light, stability, and slow-moving subject to go lower, I will. Much more often, I'm pushing the ISO up to keep the shutter speed within reason. A bald eagle hunting on a winter morning just isn't going to stop and let me shoot at 1/8 second.

As a result, lower noise at ISO 3200 would be worth a lot more to me than amazing image quality at ISO 100.

The best way for Canon, Sigma, or some other third party to get my money right now would be a big sharp telephoto that doesn't cost a fortune. I know there's a lot of expensive glass (or fluorite) in the big lenses, but the jump from say a 300mm F4 for under $1400 to a 600mm F4 for over $12000 is pretty daunting.

Telephoto isn't the only thing I do, by the way. It's just that from 24mm to 200mm I'm happy with the equipment I have. I'm much more limited by my skill and creativity than by the hardware until I get to the longer focal lengths.

One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.

 

[Sella174]

One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.

In a mirrorless system the sensor is active all the time, so you can leverage that to do stuff you cannot do with a DSLR (in mirrored mode), like subject tracking using face recognition, and metering using the light that actually falls on the sensor (no more using the histogram to determine critical exposure), and heaps more because the camera can now effectively "see" what's going on. Obviously all this can be done in LiveView mode, but getting rid of the mirror permanently just simplifies the process.

 

[sanj]

When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos),....

?????

16.9% of my SLR shots are at base ISO, 3% fewer than are at ISO 1600.

Similar percentages for me as well.

 

[Canon1]

...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...

I just don't understand comments like that. While Canon may be a bit slow on updating its APS-C sensors, I don't know how anyone can really criticize the 1D, 5D or 6D sensors. Canon customers ripped Canon for emphasizing megapixels over ISO performance, so Canon got conservative on the megapixels and produced sensors that outshine the competition in ISO performance.

Slightly, and only on higher ISO levels.

When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos), SoNikon completely destroys Canon's ancient sensors in terms of pure IQ and dynamic range. Canon hasn't even gotten rid of the dreadful shadow banding yet. Wtf?

Canon is only interesting for lenses now days. My EF-glass lives a happy life on my A7R. A tiny mirrorless camera that blows the 5D and 1DX out of the water. The difference in IQ is so big that I'll most likely never use my 5D3 again.

I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO. I'd be willing to bet there are a hell of a lot more people who photograph some kind of action or shooting in low light, than there are people who photograph more still scenes. Even wedding photographers shoot at higher ISO settings, many of them even shoot at very high ISOs on purpose for that grain-like aesthetic in black and white. You have all the olympics shooters, sports shooters, street photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, concert and event shooters, air show and race shooters, the paparazzi, photo journalism is at high ISO as much as lower ISO, etc.

People who shoot at lower ISO? Landscape photographers, maybe macro photographers (although if your going for extreme macro with an MP-E 65 or extension tubes, your at least at ISO 400 if not 800 or more), studio photographers (however when it comes to studio photography, you have total control over light, shadow, and scene DR, so having more stops of DR isn't a necessity...it's simply a nicety.)

Oh, and, you have amateur photographers! However, amateurs shoot at low ISO all the time out of ignorance, not because they need to. Once an amateur becomes something else, the chances they will use higher ISOs more than lower ISOs greatly increases.

So, yeah. I STRONGLY dispute the notion that "most" photographers use base ISO. Far more things in the world involve action of some kind, in which case you are either full manual and explicitly choosing a higher ISO, or your using a priority mode and choosing your shutter speed in one way or another (leaving ISO on auto, in which case it will most certainly float above ISO 100 and 200 the majority of the time.)

I rarely shoot below ISO 1000. But I also don't shoot in the mid day when the light is strong (and harsh). For me it's the bookends of the day that I'm out and why it is so important to me that ISO perfomance is improved over DR.

 

[eml58]

I rarely shoot below ISO 1000. But I also don't shoot in the mid day when the light is strong (and harsh). For me it's the bookends of the day that I'm out and why it is so important to me that ISO perfomance is improved over DR.

Yes, I'de agree with this & jrista's previous comment, certainly with my own Wildlife Photography my 1Dx & 5DMK III are always set on ISO400 or ISO800 and depending on available light I move from that base point.

Even my Underwater Photography is generally at ISO200-800, Macro with Flash may get down to ISO100 but rarely.

Most wildlife is at it's best early morning late afternoon, so I very rarely get to use ISO100/200 unless I'm shooting People/Objects in the middle of the day.

 

[Lee Jay]

One question: am I right in perceiving that mirrorless is more about the buzzword than about function? I know that mirrors can be noisy, slow, and bulky. Still, I get the feeling that a large group of people have just decided that it's what they want, regardless of whether they will get better photos for the size or price.

In a mirrorless system the sensor is active all the time, so you can leverage that to do stuff you cannot do with a DSLR (in mirrored mode), like subject tracking using face recognition, and metering using the light that actually falls on the sensor (no more using the histogram to determine critical exposure), and heaps more because the camera can now effectively "see" what's going on. Obviously all this can be done in LiveView mode, but getting rid of the mirror permanently just simplifies the process.

This also causes a drastic loss of battery life, and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras and the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF. There are only two reasons I want a hybrid viewfinder - video and focus assist when using my telescope.

 

[Sella174]

This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...

Which is solved by bigger batteries ... which is why I keep shouting for people to stop harping on "the small size of mirrorless" as a feature. Make a mirrorless camera as big as 5DIII and cram the sucker full of batteries.

... and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras ...

For some. But isn't it great that you can actually turn it off, huh?

... the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF.

Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.

 

[Stone]

didn't we hear that Canon has an exciting pipeline last year as well and if I'm not mistaken the year before? At this point, it's put up or shut up, I happy with my current kit and Canon won't be getting another dime until I actually see something worth buying...

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...

Which is solved by bigger batteries ... which is why I keep shouting for people to stop harping on "the small size of mirrorless" as a feature. Make a mirrorless camera as big as 5DIII and cram the sucker full of batteries.

... and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras ...

For some. But isn't it great that you can actually turn it off, huh?

... the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF.

Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.

I'm not a fan of mirrorless. But if the size and ergonomics are equal to the 7D, fully compatible with EF / EF-S lenses without adapter, and the viewfinder evolves much compared to current, I would like to have one. However, may not be more expensive than DSLR cameras such as the Olympus cameras are today.

 

[jrista]

This also causes a drastic loss of battery life ...

Which is solved by bigger batteries ... which is why I keep shouting for people to stop harping on "the small size of mirrorless" as a feature. Make a mirrorless camera as big as 5DIII and cram the sucker full of batteries.

... and the resulting information overload is distracting. I turn it all of in my EVF cameras ...

For some. But isn't it great that you can actually turn it off, huh?

... the EVF is lousy in every way compared to an OVF.

Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.

Well, as always, nothing is so simple.

First, when it comes to batteries, even if someone makes a "mirrorless" with the same body design as a 5D III, it wouldn't necessarily be so easy to just cram it all full of batteries. For one, batteries are where a significant part of camera weight comes from. For the people who care MOST about camera footprint, size and weight are the two things they really only care about. In which case, they honestly don't care that an ultra tiny mirrorless camera that can barely be controlled with one hand, let alone two hands, has a microscopic battery with a microscopic battery life.

Batteries are also one of those areas of manufacturing that governments just love to regulate. Batteries utilize a number of relatively toxic chemicals and highly reactive metals. Environmentalists hate batteries, so governments regulate the crap out of batteries. The 5D II and 7D batteries were great, there was nothing wrong with them, however the 5D III had to be released along with a new battery type because of Japanese regulations. It's still compatible with the old ones, but in Japan, you have to use the new ones. Same deal with the 1D X, it's battery had to be completely redesigned to conform to Japanese and EU regulations. Stuffing some super large battery into a 5D III sized mirrorless would be fraught with regulatory issues...so it is probably far from as easy as it *sounds*.

When it comes to EVFs, in most respects even with the newest and greatest versions from 2013, they are woefully inadequate to those of us who NEED what OVFs offer...unlimited dynamic range, higher resolution than even the best theoretically possible with an EVF (@1" eye relief), 100% realtime behavior (i.e. the motion of subjects is replicated in real time by the OPTICAL viewfinder system), and are already capable of offering a considerable amount of functionality in a HUD-style display via the kind of transmissive LCD technology Canon uses in their current OVFs. Tricks like focus peaking, live hud histogram, face identification blinking, and a whole host of other features could actually be implemented in an OVF with a transmissive LCD. You do not actually HAVE to switch to an EVF in order to do these things. All you really need is a high resolution RGB metering sensor (something like what the 1D X has), and you would have all the information you needed to render all sorts of information onto an OVF Trans LCD real-time, superimposed over a REAL image that is not limited by the dynamic range of the sensor or EVF screen.

Canon has hinted at a Hybrid VF. I'm honestly curious to see what that is. I am hoping it is something like I've described above, because IMO that would be the best of both worlds. Even the BEST of EVFs from last year fall far short of what is necessary on the DR and resolution fronts. Dynamic range is doubly limited...first it is limited by the sensor, and second it is limited by the design of the EVF screen itself. Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light...you would basically have a blue/green screen. EVFs have a very long way to go before they compare to OVFs, especially if OVFs eventually get more embedded HUD technology in their Transmissive LCD layers (at which point, I honestly do not think an EVF could EVER compare to a TLCD OVF).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have the Mark I that cost me about $150 net with all the rebates going on in 2012.
The MK II has the same sensor and a faster lens, but is it sharper? Promised faster autofocus, but not the dual pixel AF. No tough screen either. It doesn't even have the tunnel viewfinder, you must pay $$$ for one.

It does have WI Fi, but you could use a Wi-Fi card on the old one.

I'll just keep on with the one I have.

 

[Sella174]

Well, as always, nothing is so simple.

I've found that most times "experts" refuse to see the obvious solution because it is too simple according to them. I've also found that most times solutions really are very simple. But that's just me ...

First, when it comes to batteries ...

Yes, in a hyper-regulated society ... glad I don't live in one.

When it comes to EVFs ... Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light ...

Actually, there's a very simple solution for this problem as stated by you ... only I don't work for Canon (or Nikon), so they can go figure it out for themselves ... 8)

 

[jrista]

Well, as always, nothing is so simple.

I've found that most times "experts" refuse to see the obvious solution because it is too simple according to them. I've also found that most times solutions really are very simple. But that's just me ...

LOL. Well, at least your blissful in our ignorance. ;P

First, when it comes to batteries ...

Yes, in a hyper-regulated society ... glad I don't live in one.

Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan.

When it comes to EVFs ... Resolution in EVFs needs to be over 5000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1.25" eye relief for 20/20 vision. It needs to be over 12,000ppi in order for pixels to be invisible to the human eye at 1" eye relief for 20/10 vision. However, 12,000ppi is likely impossible, as the pixels would have to be so small, you would be filtering out red light ...

Actually, there's a very simple solution for this problem as stated by you ... only I don't work for Canon (or Nikon), so they can go figure it out for themselves ... 8)

??

 

[mkabi]

Depends. Definitely so in 2012; it became better in 2013; and next year it'll be even better. For comparison, I remember a time when we all felt that film was still soooo much superior to digital and "pros" wouldn't touch it for serious work. But look at where we are today. So please don't judge EVF's on how they are now, as the technology is constantly being improved.

:
yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?

 

[Sella174]

LOL. Well, at least your blissful in our ignorance. ;P

;D

Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan.

So Japanese legislation forbids us to place more than ... what? ... two batteries in our cameras? I don't really understand this part of your argument. Sure, I'm all for removing certain hazardous chemicals from batteries, but said removal also removes it from batteries for use in "traditional" DSLR camera. Obviously I'm seriously missing something here ... ???

??

No dice. It's my idea and Canon (or Nikon) ain't gettin' it for free. :-X

 

[Sella174]

yeah, like the 30D is over the 60D, and how the 6D is the same in terms of APS-C of the 30D?

Huh?

But seriously, photography is a very subjective subject and just because you don't like my style doesn't make me wrong. Unless, of course, you actually think that my style is wrong and then you're the one who's wrong.

On the other hand, IF you're one of those "photographers" who believes that you can only take decent pictures with the latest and most expensive gear, you've got a lot to learn about the art that is photography.

 

[jrista]

Actually, that doesn't matter. You still face the problem, because Canon is a Japanese company, and most of their manufacturing occurs there. The Japanese regulate the economy within which the cameras you buy are built. You have to not only deal with their regulations, you have to pay for them too, if you buy cameras made in Japan.

So Japanese legislation forbids us to place more than ... what? ... two batteries in our cameras? I don't really understand this part of your argument. Sure, I'm all for removing certain hazardous chemicals from batteries, but said removal also removes it from batteries for use in "traditional" DSLR camera. Obviously I'm seriously missing something here ... ???

Let me put it this way. While Canon might end up with more empty space inside of a 5D III camera body once they make it "mirrorless", they wouldn't necessarily be able to easily fill it with more battery. The likelihood that they keep using their current battery designs is very high, as redesigning the battery wouldn't only involve just the relatively small R&D cost to do so...but also the regulatory burden to make sure that whatever battery they designed conformed to Japanese regulatory specifications. It isn't just chemical makeup, those kinds of regulations usually rather inane and stupid, because it is a politician or his assistant drafting up the laws, neither of whom are ever engineers themselves, and they are basing their regulatory decisions based on not only insight they might glean from some short interviews with engineers, but also environmental lobbies and a whole host of other interests all tugging at each other. In the end you end up with ridiculous things like limitations on maximum amp-hour capacity, maximum physical size, etc. that really do nothing to solve any interested parties problems or concerns...instead it finds the least objectionable middle ground that results in the least amount of complaining from all interested parties...and totally gimps the consumer's options and capabilities. Even as it stands now, the 5D III batteries could be larger, as there are some decent space cavities inside the 5D III body...but they aren't, because of regulatory limitations.

Another example is the 30 minute limitation on video recording length. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to limit how long a video clip can be in a DSLR with video capability. It is most assuredly not a technological issue for DSLRs to stop recording at 29:59. The sole reason that limitation exists is because the EU and I think one other regulatory region require it, and as far as I gather, that regulation is based on lobbies from dedicated video recording device manufacturers for things like camcorders who wanted to squelch any legitimate competition from DSLRs (i.e. they were too weak to innovate and compete in an open market, so they went running to nanny government to lay on the spankings and send to their rooms on the only competition they have faced in a decade... )

Problem is, it's too difficult for manufacturers to build one model for the EU, one model for Japan, and another model without these inane limitations for the rest of the world. So they build one model that fits within the limitations of all the regulations of all the regulatory regions they sell their products in...and everyone regardless of their actual market ends up having to deal with regulations that don't even exist in their own country.

??

No dice. It's my idea and Canon (or Nikon) ain't gettin' it for free. :-X

Er...whatever...