Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3]

3kramd5 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.

With IS enabled it’s fine.

:) But we are talking manual focus. ;) I have a Mamiya-Sekor 400mm f/6.3 lens and it is a real %itch for me to focus handheld through the viewfinder. Thank Canon for IS on long focal lengths. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L IS I had was great. Hand held in live view and at 5X or 10X? Ain't happening. Same thing, I think, through the viewfinder. So for me, I don't see how in the world 10X through the viewfinder would be of any benefit even on a 50mm lens. 24mm? Maybe. 50mm? Nope. Mounted on a steady tripod? Sure. Hand held? No way. Now, if I smoked a doobie and everything was in slow motion... no problem ;)
 
Upvote 0
Rocky said:
KeithBreazeal said:
On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.
Sony's first commercial product is a small transistor radio, Model TR55. Sony has never been in rice cooker business.

Before the name was changed to Sony... the company made a rice cooker. Same company, different name. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/09/sonys-first-failure-the-1945-electric-rice-cooker/

"...a prototype now sits ensconced in glass at the Sony Archives in Shinagawa."

But it was such a failure it was never released commercially.
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
3kramd5 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.

With IS enabled it’s fine.

:) But we are talking manual focus. ;) I have a Mamiya-Sekor 400mm f/6.3 lens and it is a real %itch to focus handheld through the viewfinder. Thank Canon for IS on long focal lengths. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L IS I had was great. Hand held in live view and at 5X or 10X? Ain't happening. Same thing, I think, through the viewfinder. So for me, I don't see how in the world 10X through the viewfinder would be of any benefit even on a 50mm lens. 24mm? Maybe. 50mm? Nope. Mounted on a steady tripod? Sure. Hand held? No way. Now, if I smoked a doobie and everything was in slow motion... no problem ;)

yes, it's still fine. I had no problem using focus magnification with a 400mm lens.
 
Upvote 0
CanonFanBoy said:
Rocky said:
KeithBreazeal said:
On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.
Sony's first commercial product is a small transistor radio, Model TR55. Sony has never been in rice cooker business.

Before the name was changed to Sony... the company made a rice cooker. Same company, different name. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/09/sonys-first-failure-the-1945-electric-rice-cooker/

"...a prototype now sits ensconced in glass at the Sony Archives in Shinagawa."

But it was such a failure it was never released commercially.

But it was mirrorless.......
 
Upvote 0
3kramd5 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.

With IS enabled it’s fine.

Point taken from CFB -- 10x may be a bit ambitious for handheld work. But the right multiplier (or peaking implementation) by Canon's bright folks can sort that out, I think.

As for saving space, either you find this attractive or you don't. I happen to see it both ways -- it only really matters if you dramatically lower your expectations on length/speed, but I still see that being valuable. If I could turn my 5D3 into something resembling an RX1R* for times when I want to keep things small, I would absolutely take that opportunity.

*I know it can't be that small, and I keep saying I still want a grip. So perhaps the best analogy would be to make my 5D3 feel more like a Rebel. There are times I would like that.

- A
 
Upvote 0
I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this $2,000 camera. It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.

Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR? Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.

I can't imagine going back to an OVF with no information, no focus peaking, no histogram, no view finder review of images. I can't imagine having to go back to having to listen to the clapping of my camera when I want to take a picture without drawing attention to myself, and a million other things.

I know people will call my a Sony fan boi or a troll, but I was really pulling for Canon for a long time. I just don't think they have the ability to pull off what Sony has been able to do. I don't think there is an ROI for
them to go head to head that way.

We'll soon find out, but that's what I think.
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

What in the EF mount is old technology? How is inferior to the technology in the Sony E mount?

Is there something in the EF mount itself that prevents EVF with info, focus peaking, histogram, etc, even in the absence of mirror?
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR? Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.

To your first question: you can stuff a great mirrorless design into an EF mount footprint. It will be a mirrorless camera and not an SLR. Why would Canon do this? Getting access to the latest mirrorless tech without having to buy new glass would delight their current customers, which might entice them to buy one of these shiny new bodies -- likely at a healthy profit margin.

As for the typewriter analogy: Can you tell me why exactly a fully functional mirrorless camera that's an inch longer in the mount than your A7 is antiquated? If it has a slick EVF and does everything through the viewfinder like that A7 of yours, has IBIS, 4K, etc. does that still make it ancient?

No. It doesn't. So... Oh, unless that sweet skinny A7 form factor is where the magic happens. Silly me.

That skinny form factor makes your lenses lighter and less expensive, right? Oh... No?

That skinny form factor means we get well built lenses with mechanical focus-- Oh.. they're all focus by wire?!

Do yourself a favor and consider decoupling the notion of an EF sized body from an SLR. You can make a mirrorless camera from the shape of an SLR with all the functionality of a modern mirrorless system. It's less crazy than it sounds.

- A
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
3kramd5 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.

With IS enabled it’s fine.

Point taken from CFB -- 10x may be a bit ambitious for handheld work.

But really, it’s fine. I used it with lenses as long as 400mm. The combination of ILIS and IBIS is quite compelling. I wouldn’t zoom in the EVF before finding the subject, but if you find it, then engage IS, you can MF quite effectively with the magnifier. Short focal lengths are no problem at all.
 
Upvote 0
Antono Refa said:
canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

What in the EF mount is old technology? How is inferior to the technology in the Sony E mount?

Is there something in the EF mount itself that prevents EVF with info, focus peaking, histogram, etc, even in the absence of mirror?

I'm not saying the EF lenses are inferior by any means (although I do think I recall reading that they are not optimized for mirrorless focusing, but that's another topic).

I'm saying that I don't think Canon has anything to gain by sticking with the EF lens mount for mirrorless. Judging by the comments on this site, most people with EF lenses don't have much interest in switching to mirrorless anyway.

Canon needs to appeal to new users who want to buy new lenses. EF users can always use an adapter.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR? Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.

To your first question: you can stuff a great mirrorless design into an EF mount footprint. It will be a mirrorless camera and not an SLR. Why would Canon do this? Getting access to the latest mirrorless tech without having to buy new glass would delight their current customers, which might entice them to buy one of these shiny new bodies -- likely at a healthy profit margin.

As for the typewriter analogy: Can you tell me why exactly a fully functional mirrorless camera that's an inch longer in the mount than your A7 is antiquated? If it has a slick EVF and does everything through the viewfinder like that A7 of yours, has IBIS, 4K, etc. does that still make it ancient?

No. It doesn't. So... Oh, unless that sweet skinny A7 form factor is where the magic happens. Silly me.

That skinny form factor makes your lenses lighter and less expensive, right? Oh... No?

That skinny form factor means we get well built lenses with mechanical focus-- Oh.. they're all focus by wire?!

Do yourself a favor and consider decoupling the notion of an EF sized body from an SLR. You can make a mirrorless camera from the shape of an SLR with all the functionality of a modern mirrorless system. It's less crazy than it sounds.

- A

I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.

For the record, I wouldn't call the OVF a benefit by any stretch. I think it is one of the biggest downsides of using a DSLR.
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
I'm not saying the EF lenses are inferior by any means (although I do think I recall reading that they are not optimized for mirrorless focusing, but that's another topic).

I'm saying that I don't think Canon has anything to gain by sticking with the EF lens mount for mirrorless. Judging by the comments on this site, most people with EF lenses don't have much interest in switching to mirrorless anyway.

Canon needs to appeal to new users who want to buy new lenses. EF users can always use an adapter.
EF lenses work fine with Live view and DPAF on Canon cameras, they are excellent and serviced by Canon for many years after being discontinued.
Sony has a long way to go to catch up. Service takes forever, and costs so much that places like Lens Rentals say they just buy a new one because service is so expensive.

Canon may or may not benefit from a new mount. Stores and warehouses full of EF lenses may suddenly see sales plummet because buyers will be waiting for the lens they want to come in a new mount. The hit to value of inventory could be significant. Sony had nothing to lose, so for them, it was a good decision.


Certainly, users with $10,000 worth of lenses will not be wanting to dump them and replace them with basically the same thing. If there is a new mount, and that is likely, Canon will have a feature to use EF lenses. That's already leaked.
I don't see new users being a significant market for a mirrorless camera or lenses. You might fool a few, but most people that are going to lay out $5K for a camera plus lenses will do a little research and find that the new lenses will not work on their existing Canon DSLR's.
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.

For the record, I wouldn't call the OVF a benefit by any stretch. I think it is one of the biggest downsides of using a DSLR.

Ok, you don't value what an OVF brings, cool. Some birders/wildlifers look through their OVF with the power off as a spotting scope, others value the much higher battery life and responsiveness an OVF allows. But you prefer the EVF, histo, readout, etc. Totally fair. Everyone has their own take on this.

But you also asserted that:

canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

...and I answered your question. Canon has two paths forward with FF mirrorless:

  • The A7 route, if you will: thin mount + new lenses and the option for folks to use EF with an adaptor. Canon will sell some new tiny lenses and adaptors, but one would presume their body sales would be lower with their existing customers as they may not be fond of adaptors or prefer a beefier/chunkier body.

  • The EF route: pull the mirror from a 6D2 or 5D4 and allow EF glass to work natively on it. They won't sell any tiny new lenses or adaptors, but presumably many more of Canon's current customers will be likely to buy one of these because usage will be seamless to their FF SLRs they use today.

Either path makes Canon a lot of money. Only Canon knows what will make more. But to suggest Canon wouldn't benefit from an EF mirrorless body has no basis. They 100% would make money off of it.

- A
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
Either path makes Canon a lot of money. Only Canon knows what will make more. But to suggest Canon wouldn't benefit from an EF mirrorless body has no basis. They 100% would make money off of it.

- A

I think you make good points, and I agree with them for the most part. I would say though that Canon could have gone that route with the EOS M, they could have stuffed a mirrorless camera in an SL1 body, but they chose to go with a new more flexible body style and a new lens mount. I think they'll do the same for their full frame offering too.

In any case, we're all just arguing over the margins here because we love thinking about camera gear for some odd reason :D.

I've seen some pretty stunning pictures made with some really questionable gear. Good skills will out shoot the best gear any day of the week. Here's to hoping the excitement I get from buying new gear will lead me to get out more to continue working on my skills.
 
Upvote 0
I will never understand how the EF mount is somehow technologically crippled in today's environment when speaking about mirrorless. How so? What could a new mount offer that the EF mount doesn't already offer?

Some call a mirrorless mount a "thin" mount. I don't understand that. Thinner camera? Yes. Thinner mount? How so? How much thinner? How do we know Canon's mount will be thinner? I understand that in reference to Sony FF bodies, but the mount? I don't know. What does the thickness or thinness of the mount have to do with it? Doesn't flange distance mean more?

At any rate, we'll soon know what Canon will do.
 
Upvote 0
3kramd5 said:
ahsanford said:
3kramd5 said:
CanonFanBoy said:
but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.

With IS enabled it’s fine.

Point taken from CFB -- 10x may be a bit ambitious for handheld work.

But really, it’s fine. I used it with lenses as long as 400mm. The combination of ILIS and IBIS is quite compelling. I wouldn’t zoom in the EVF before finding the subject, but if you find it, then engage IS, you can MF quite effectively with the magnifier. Short focal lengths are no problem at all.

My experience has been very different. Maybe you are running FF. I don't know. On a M43 camera the crop factor is x2 already. You might have very steady hands. Some of us don't. 400mm at 5x or 10x, sorry, I have trouble believing you had sharp results handheld with it zoomed like that through the viewfinder. Maybe you did, but I don't believe it. It wasn't easy and fine, anyway. You keep talking about IS or IBIS. Remember, a Canon mirrorless body probably WON'T have IBIS. So forget about that. Fine with IBIS? Maybe. MF lens with no IS and no IBIS? Not. Tripod required. Then, when zoomed 10X... how do you know your composition is correct? With a short focal length, it seems like composition would be even more critical.

Not trying to argue, but I cannot imagine trying to compose a photo on a 400mm lens or even 50mm lens at a 10X zoom while looking through the viewfinder and hand held. It's bad enough in live view on a tripod. At least then, though, I know my composition is correct before zooming.
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this . It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.
...
Is the $2,000 camera your total investment in the system?
You either have to buy lenses for your $2,000 camera or adapt the Canon lenses that perhaps you had.
In the former case, on average Sony lenses equivalent to the L-glass class are 30% more expensive than Canon and adding to it upgrading the camera body every 9-12 months, so in the long run there is no benefit here.

If you adapt Canon lenses, you need a decent adapter that adds to the cost of ownership. Tell me whether your camera with adapted lenses can internally fix the vignetting, distortion, color shift, softness, etc.? or it just urges you do it in post? This will be another hurdle and may need to change the workflow.

And finally, how dependable your $2,000 camera will be in the long run when it need to be serviced and fixed?

The point, as has been said several times before, is that the cost of of ownership of a camera system is much more than the camera itself.

Canon is not going to produce anything to match what you have in your $2,000 camera. They will produce something that is usable, dependable, and with the feature set that work in almost every imaginable scenario in the long run. These all contribute to affordability of the system. That is what I expect to get not toys with gimmicks.
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
canonographer said:
I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.

For the record, I wouldn't call the OVF a benefit by any stretch. I think it is one of the biggest downsides of using a DSLR.

Ok, you don't value what an OVF brings, cool. Some birders/wildlifers look through their OVF with the power off as a spotting scope, others value the much higher battery life and responsiveness an OVF allows. But you prefer the EVF, histo, readout, etc. Totally fair. Everyone has their own take on this.

But you also asserted that:

canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

...and I answered your question. Canon has two paths forward with FF mirrorless:

  • The A7 route, if you will: thin mount + new lenses and the option for folks to use EF with an adaptor. Canon will sell some new tiny lenses and adaptors, but one would presume their body sales would be lower with their existing customers as they may not be fond of adaptors or prefer a beefier/chunkier body.

  • The EF route: pull the mirror from a 6D2 or 5D4 and allow EF glass to work natively on it. They won't sell any tiny new lenses or adaptors, but presumably many more of Canon's current customers will be likely to buy one of these because usage will be seamless to their FF SLRs they use today.

Either path makes Canon a lot of money. Only Canon knows what will make more. But to suggest Canon wouldn't benefit from an EF mirrorless body has no basis. They 100% would make money off of it.

- A

The two paths are not mutually exclusive. A high end EF mount mirrorless and a smaller EFX (or whatever it will be called) could both be released without much trouble. That was not really a strong option for Sony and non existent for Nikon.
 
Upvote 0
canonographer said:
I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this $2,000 camera. It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.
Does it work with my 550EX?

canonographer said:
Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?
As if Canon customers get more money to spend on Canon gear each time Canon adds a new mount?

Or do you really believe every Canon customer has every Canon lens he or she wants?

canonographer said:
People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR?
Fast startup time, long battery life, more responsive viewfinder with higher dynamic range, dedicated AF sensor... just to name a few.

canonographer said:
Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.
No, "going back to using a typewriter" is going back to using a film camera.

Which, by the way, was a good learning experience, which some people seem to unfortunately lack.
 
Upvote 0
It would be benefitting Canon if they announce something before Christmas. Or put different: I'd surely have an impact if they have nothing to offer for full frame enthusiats.

Sony A7III has been around for quite a while now and it got a lot of marketing attention as well as VERY good ratings in every review. Plus I'm sure they will drop the price right before Xmas, also for A6300 and A6500. Good luck with that $1599 EOS M5 Mark II, when Sony's gonna offer their A6500 for half of that price.

I'm not a Sony fan and I'm still waiting for Canon to release something to replace my 6D (and that doesn't rip a hole in your pocked like the 5D4). But as it stands now, a lot of people already had enough waiting and switch to Sony. You can see that clearly in price comparison lists here in Europe, shortly after its release A7 III jumped on rank 1. And a lot of Sony lenses also kicked Canon lenses from the first ranks of the selling charts.

Canon knows they have to pull the ripcord or on Xmas they'll see the second big wave of pro photogs jumping on the Sony bandwagon.
 
Upvote 0