Why the obsession with mirrorless, rather than features?

[Ozarker]

It is great that there are so many choices out there.

When talking about smaller and lighter remember one thing: A heavier system will give less vibration or movement during operation.

I realize that that is exactly the argument made against DSLRs by the mirrorless fans.

However, heavier also means less shake and movement caused by the camera holder. Someone is going to ask me why I know that. Because it works that way with hand guns.

The great whites weighing so much is a good thing. A really good thing.

A real lightweight gun is subject to heavier kick and movement during operation and also more movement in the hands of the shooter compared to the same round fired from a heavier handgun.

While a camera has far, far less internal movement than a handgun, you are still pulling a trigger (shutter button), and still having to hold steady to get the shot. That's why we use tripods and monopods or sand bags... same thing in the gun world. Both hobbies use the word shooting.

Sony A7 II, A7r II and A7s II all have built-in IS on the sensor. It works very well. I've shot some night shots @ 1/10 hand-held. Getting sharp images is not that difficult with primes, wide open end.

I'm sure it does, but that was not my point. Heavier still means less movement when pressing the shutter button or when shooting in a strong wind, etc. While IS can compensate for some bad technique, some technique is so bad that a lighter setup can only be detrimental.

 

[Ozarker]

Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition.

And yet...Canon first release rapidly became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest global market for that segment, trouncing all but one model from one manufacturer. So it may be that your doubts are misplaced (unless, of course, you're going to judge 'trouncing' by your personal standards, DxO's Biaesd Scores, or some other totally subjective set of criteria).

+1. Canon has a mad level of excellence at getting their s--- to work well consistently.

Will their first FF mirrorless offering have the highest resolution, most responsive EVF? No.
Will it have the fastest AF? Hell no.
Will it have the best sensor? [Giggle.] Oh, you were serious. Next question.

But what it will have is the basic guts of a solid working rig: excellent ergonomics, solid build quality, menus that don't make you want to kill someone with a hammer, and an assload of lenses, flashes, accessories you know and love will work with it on day one.

It will be under-spec'd feature by feature against Sony, but it will still sell very, very well. And it will have a far, far, far less likelihood of letting you down with a knuckleheaded technical miss like the Nikon D600 debacle, Sony light leaks, Sony compressed RAW, etc. based on its very good quality track-record.

- A

Not to mention lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

Ideally, what I really want, is a body that will fit with the lens inside a bottle holder. Those are extremely common, designed to be readily accessible and they're basically made to hold something the same size and weight as a large lens.
Whether the lens is in your hand or in your pack, I want a camera body as small as possible.

You can absolutely make an FF mirrorless platform that is small. No problem.

You just need to:

• Give up f/2.8 zooms and only sell f/4 zooms
• Give up on f/1.4 primes and only sell f/2 or f/2.8 primes
• Give up on anything over, say, 150mm -- it will be too difficult to control without a monopod or other stabilizer.

This is how A7 started (see bullets above). But once the nicer primes and adapted Canon L lenses came in, the platform got bigger and heavier for many reasons, but the need to counterweight those bigger lenses was part of that evolution.

So, yes, you can make a fairly tiny FF mirrorless system. But Canon offering the EF adaptor effectively annihilates that opportunity -- people will bolt all sorts of heavy EF glass on it, and unless it has a substantial grip on the body, folks will ask for that grip. That's that. Might as well launch with a stout body built for the EF stable of lenses.

I happen to want a small platform myself (as I don't shoot long focal lengths or use heavy pickle jar f/1.4 primes), but I don't think we are going to get it. I think if you want small, go EOS-M, if you want comprehensive, go FF mirrorless.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

Let's keep things in perspective. SOME people will use large/heavy lenses SOME times ... But not everybody, not all the time. Only a tiny minority of (Canon) camera owners are solely or mostly photographing birds in flight with long telelenses. Majority of all images are taken at FOV somewhere between 24mm and 135 mm (FF equivalent).Most of the time, mirrorless gear will be very small and light. Yes, a few photographic situations will call for larger gear. No problem. It is easy to make small/light cameras heavier and larger. But it's not possible to chop off parts of large gear and still keep it functional.

That's part of the reason, why mirrorless cameras will totally displace mirrorslappers within a very short timeframe. Just like CDs finished off vinyl within only 3 years. Yes there are still vinyl records and CDs made and bought. But only by very few die-hards. Same thing is happening to mirrorslappers right now. Won't cry for them. Bury those söapper clunkers and be done with it.

 

[ahsanford]

Let's keep things in perspective. SOME people will use large/heavy lenses SOME times ... But not everybody, not all the time. Only a tiny minority of (Canon) camera owners are solely or mostly photographing birds in flight with long telelenses. Majority of all images are taken at FOV somewhere between 24mm and 135 mm (FF equivalent).Most of the time, mirrorless gear will be very small and light. Yes, a few photographic situations will call for larger gear. No problem. It is easy to make small/light cameras heavier and larger. But it's not possible to chop off parts of large gear and still keep it functional.

This is the pipe dream I also subscribe to. I want a system built around size and I don't need longer FLs, but that isn't what's going to happen, IMHO.

Take a 70-200 f/2.8 -- that's a staple professional lens for a jillion uses. It's not a specialist sports/birding tool. That lens weighs nearly 4 pounds with ring and hood, and it will get bolted on to Canon's future FF mirrorless platform -- no question about that. That needs to be gripped/handled balanced somehow, and it's not an exotic need.

Canon could put out a svelte little FF mirrorless system, but what pro will migrate away from being able to do everything to a system where it's not practical/ergonomic to continue to do everything? So I believe that making a dainty/skinny body rewards enthusiasts but will frustrate many pros. I would argue that system will not pay itself off over time because pros will stick with their SLRs instead.

- A

 

[brad-man]

Let's not dismiss the possibility that DO and alloys will be refined and become more economical and allow for smaller and lighter lenses at all FLs. Physics is physics, but it can be messed with. When there's money to be made, folks can get pretty clever...

 

[sdsr]

You can absolutely make an FF mirrorless platform that is small. No problem.

You just need to:

• Give up f/2.8 zooms and only sell f/4 zooms
• Give up on f/1.4 primes and only sell f/2 or f/2.8 primes
• Give up on anything over, say, 150mm -- it will be too difficult to control without a monopod or other stabilizer.

This is how A7 started (see bullets above). But once the nicer primes and adapted Canon L lenses came in, the platform got bigger and heavier for many reasons, but the need to counterweight those bigger lenses was part of that evolution.

So, yes, you can make a fairly tiny FF mirrorless system. But Canon offering the EF adaptor effectively annihilates that opportunity -- people will bolt all sorts of heavy EF glass on it, and unless it has a substantial grip on the body, folks will ask for that grip. That's that. Might as well launch with a stout body built for the EF stable of lenses.

That's what people tend to think, and I used to as well, but I wonder just how true it is, at least if you're prepared to learn to use your lens-supporting hand as the main weight-bearer - which it surely is anyway whenever you're using a heavy lens. On my a7 bodies I don't use anything as heavy as a 70-200 2.8 (but I don't with a dslr either), but I do use e.g. the EF 200 2.8, Rokinon 135 f2 and Helios 40-2, all of which are fairly heavy (at least by mirrorless standards), without a grip or other added support (e.g. monopod, tripod), and don't find the experience any more difficult ergonomically than when they're attached to a dslr. (In every other respect they're easier to use on an a7, thanks to IBIS, the focusing and exposure advantages of EVFs, etc.)

(And if you're willing to go mf and vintage, the lenses you can attach to a mirrorless camera can be smaller than their modern equivalents - some 50mm f1.4 lenses are tiny; the FD equivalents of the 1.2 L lenses are smaller and lighter; and so on. But please don't - their prices have been going up enough since the mirrorless thing took off as it is....)

 

[AvTvM]

using a 70-200/2.8 Ii on a EOS M 1/2/3 is only difficult because there is no built-in viewfinder and one has to hold the small camera plus heavy lens *at arms length* to frame the image. "Compact camera salute".

With a built-in EVF and EOS M3 body+grip size use of a 70-200/2.8 would be be no big issue (for me).

 

[jrista]

Probably more interst than obsession.

Shooting off the LCDis not a bad thing. I think of many reasons it could be a benefit in the future.

IMO mirrors are a holdover from the non-digital days. It's a dinosaur that hasn't meet it's time yet.
We might be fans of the conventional view finder and mirror because were set in our way. But change will eventually come and it will be at a slow pace.

It will be a while. Problems will have to be solved like overheating, AF efficiency and speed and other. Plus once it arrives they will have to convert the masses who love dinosaurs.

+1
Canon moves slowly. Some interpret that as resistant to change, others as "make sure it works before you sell it"... Once the bugs are out and the overall performance of mirror less exceeds mirrored cameras, you can expect the switch....

I expect that one day, the 5D? and 1D? will be released as mirror less....

This is a bit of a misnomer. Canon cannot directly benefit from other companies such as Sony "working out the bugs" and then suddenly switch without having any problems. The things that currently limit mirrorless cameras and the things companies that sell mirrorless cameras are fixing and resolving are the same things Canon is going to have to deal with if and when they finally decide to take the plunge. However, because they have delayed, they aren't going to be ahead of the curve...they will be behind it.

Unless Canon is cranking away on some unknown technology in a box somewhere, hiding it from the world, not even filing any patents on it, it seems doubtful Canon will just race out the gate on a mirrorless winner that trounces all the competition. DPAF is their SOLE mirrorless-benefitting technology at the moment (one which they hardly even use for mirrorless...or have they even used it at all??)...and there are several companies (Sony does NOT appear to be one of them) out there now working on the same thing (and some of the patents filed over the last year seem technologically superior to Canon's approach.) Canon will not hold this theoretically superior technological advantage with DPAF for long, especially if they refuse to implement it broadly in the cameras that can best benefit from it.

And yet they have the EOS-M, proof that they are working on Mirrorless......

Proof that they are piddling half-heartedly with mirrorless, at best, and that really has nothing to do with solving key technological issues to make mirrorless head-to-head competitive against top of the line DSLRs. If Canon was serious about Mirrorless, they would take it, and their biggest mirrorless competitor, head on and deliver a highly compelling product. They have been through generations now, and it still hasn't gained a foothold in what is potentially one of the largest markets for it.

Canon has put the bare bones minimal effort possible into their mirrorless offerings so far (which, I guess, is their M.O. really.) That isn't going to get them over the technological hurdles very fast, and it will leave their mirrorless offerings trailing both the competition, and their own DSLR options, for a long time. Canon's SOLE compelling mirrorless technology is DPAF, and I don't think it's been put in an actual mirrorless camera yet! By the time they finally get around to doing that, someone else will have the same kind of technology, and will likely already have it in a commercial product.

I'm sure Canon will do fine whenever they get around to doing anything (how could they not, with the kind if undying fanbase they have?), but they nor their products deliver much to excite me these days. It's just endless small evolutions on previous technology, and the one thing I really want still hasn't been delivered. But, that's just me, apparently. I'm biding my time for a 5D IV...it'll be the only Canon camera I buy for years once it comes out, assuming I don't find something else capable of driving my 600mm lens at full speed before it finally gets here.