Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I owned 5d3, 1dx, Fuji x100s, a7, a7r, a7s and a7rii and I found your comments are quite b.s

Similar b.s 6d is a better camera than 5d3. Didn't you ended up replaced your 6d with 5d3?

4/3 system is on the way out...

Dylan, let's spin this a different way. Follow the chain of logic:

1) You are at Canon designing a FF mirrorless platform with interchangeable lenses.
2) You wish to convert photography professionals to this system.
3) Though the lenses will not come overnight, you plan to offer something as comprehensive as the EF line or Nikon F line, either natively or through adapters.
4) A good number of your lenses will be large and heavy, because, you know, physics.
5) The FF rig cannot be too small/light in comparison to the larger lenses or it will be awkward to hold, so you build a stout body that can counterweight up to 200mm lenses comfortably, and offer a grip to further stabilize/counterweight even larger glass than that.

In other words, to flip the world's photographers to FF mirrorless, you have to go big.

To pursue a small/thin/light FF mirrorless platform would require you cap focal lengths to something pedestrian (say, 135mm) and would have you forego fast lenses in favor of slower ones. That system will only sell to enthusiasts or rangefinder lovers. No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, and once they have that lens, they'll need to hold on to it somehow.

So I contend you leave the tiny rig game to APS-C mirrorless and give 'em what they want for FF mirrorless. Go big or go home.

- A

 

[moreorless]

Talking about light angles as well I wonder if there isn't a sizeble problem in the future for FF mirrorless?

There does seem to be a lot of money being put into multi layer Sigma Forevon like sensor design which might finally make it into a mainstream FF ILC in the coming years. The problem I suspect there though will be that multi layer design will be even more intolerant of light hitting the sensor at an angle than current sensor tech is, you look at the recent Sigma DP0 and far from those mythical ultra small wideangle lenses its 20mm equivalent is massive.

I suspect the reason for that is that even on APSC the light angles need to be heavily corrected hence longer lens designs. It could well be that the other Sigma DP cameras all have quite modest lens designs in terms of not being that wide or that fast to avoid this issue and keep them more compact.

Moving to a mirrorless mount could potentially mean you end up with a lens system that can't be used on newer sensor tech. I suspect such tech might be even more likely now the Sony sensor division has spilt off and would now likely have even kless problem producing something that ultimately damages their camera division.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

Always a good read here!

Leica has, with the SL, daringly gone where Canon can now follow (and should and probably has been investigating...). Mirrorless is not about size and weight (AKA Sony Marketing and earlier 4/3rds ethos), rather this mode is a reasonable step into the future of "screens", historical compatibility and social technology.

Canon cannot abondon the EF line and their first several FF MILCs (I hate the sound of "MILK",-and the taste for that matter...) will be optimized for this system. Battery technology is improving, screens are improving, everything is more and more linked/connected/pinpointed and Canon will give us something when they feel all of these elements are good for us.
Leica can (even if the product destroys their brand's core message) charge large sums of money and deliver the best EVF, backwards lens compatibility and social connectivity -- and then put out a new model every year and sell to their small market.
Canon will follow when the time/price/tech is right, and they will try not to destroy their photog empire historically based in SLR-modus-operandi. Over 60 years Canon has done a pretty good job innovating and shifting from: Rangefinger, to SLR, to AE SLR, to AF SLR, to DSLR. I trust their ability to transition here as well.

I want to see an EOS 1M! ...Do you guys remember when canon had the D30 and the D60? -- well, it is time for Canon to do that same name swap again with the M line and have a 1M, 3M, 5M, 10M, 20M, etc..

Finally, bravo to Sony for putting a small fire under their asses -- but there is a reason Sony puts out new models so quickly.

Cheers

 

[moreorless]

There is of course the potential to develop a more extreme FF version of EF-S lenses where the rear element pushes into the body to maximise any size saving that can be head but again to be that's starting to look quite limited.

 

[douglaurent]

[/quote]
The small size of the Sony FF mirrorless body comes with a massive tradeoff in ergonomics, functionality and battery life that frankly is not worth it if you are even only at the semi-pro level, nevermind pro level.

Not true at all, and i say that as owner of 100+ expensive Canon products. You can assign app. 10 buttons on an A7RII camera, have a third weel just for ISO and can work way faster than with any Canon camera. Ergonomics and battery life are perfect if you use a handgrip for 100 bucks and beat any 5D3. The Sony system has flaws, but so many advantages from focus peaking to modern 4k video to in-body-stabilisation to swivel screen, that you will extremely miss in current Canon products.

And the reason behind is the company's strategies. Sony and Panasonic said: in our top products like the A7R2 or GH4 we give out all features that are available for the money. Canon does artificially limit products, so they think they will make the people buy 3 products instead of 1 to have the same features. But many won't do that anymore. Canon should wake up and at least release a 5D4 with better specs than expected. 4K 60fps video, and not something less because they want to protect a 1DX2 for example. Also why not have a 5D4 lineup with two bodies, so one can have a swivel screen? That's the minimum they need to come up with.

 

[Bernard]

You can assign app. 10 buttons on an A7RII camera, have a third weel just for ISO and can work way faster than with any Canon camera.

...and if you have a second body, you need to spend half a day re-assigning the same 10 buttons. Only they've moved (because it's been 6 months and Sony's released 3 new iterations/bug fixes), and the menu system has changed. So now you've got 2 cameras with 20 buttons that do slightly different things and aren't labelled.

I totally get that this kind of thing is considered "fun" by those who spent their childhood memorizing complex button combinations on their PlayStation. I'm not in that camp. I want a camera system with a predictable and consistent interface, so that I can concentrate on images. I can't even imagine what 10 additional functions are needed. Here's what I use: ISO (base or 1600, nothing else), exposure comp, image review/zoom. I shoot raw, manipulation is done in post, don't need instagram filters in the camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Ergonomics and battery life are perfect if you use a handgrip for 100 bucks and beat any 5D3.

LOL. Don't let your perceptions overcome reality, you only sound foolish. a7RII is rated for 290 shots on a full charge, the 5DIII for 950 shots. Does your 100-buck handgrip hold four batteries? Because that's the only way it would 'beat any 5D3'... :

 

[Lee Jay]

I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired.

Then you have a bunch of junk hanging all over your body, having few or no controls on it, being loose or falling off, and just making the overall system much less comfortable, integrated and usable.

My 7D Mark II is absolutely as small as I'd ever want it to be. I don't mind lighter, as it really doesn't hurt much, but smaller is just more painful, slower, and harder to use. These Sony mirrorless cameras have the worst ergonomics of any cameras I've ever seen aside from genuine compacts. I don't care if they could walk on water and violate the laws of physics with their EVFs, I wouldn't buy one because they are too small and too hard to use. The only thing I'd consider using one for is mounting on my telescope where I'd use it without touching it or using the EVF. And they'd have to be under $500 for me to consider one for that use.

 

[tcmatthews]

For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1. Compared to old film 35 cameras the modern DSLR is huge. I do not know why modern DSLR cameras with the advancement in electronics need to be so large. I do not like cameras like the Canon SL1 because they are small/round instead of small/thin. I prefer the ergonomics of the Sony A6000. I still would like to see a Rebel F (full frame rebel). Body style similar to the Sony A7 with a mirror box bum like on the Canon AE-1. It would not even have to be mirrorless but that would likely make it easier to manufacture.

I now think that APC-S mirrorless cameras are pointless there is not enough size difference between them and full frame mirrorless. If you want small go m4/3.

 

[tcmatthews]

I don't get all the clamoring for larger bodies. It is so easy to attach all sorts of grips and rigs to make small gear larger, heavier and bulkier ... if so desired.

Then you have a bunch of junk hanging all over your body, having few or no controls on it, being loose or falling off, and just making the overall system much less comfortable, integrated and usable.

My 7D Mark II is absolutely as small as I'd ever want it to be. I don't mind lighter, as it really doesn't hurt much, but smaller is just more painful, slower, and harder to use. These Sony mirrorless cameras have the worst ergonomics of any cameras I've ever seen aside from genuine compacts. I don't care if they could walk on water and violate the laws of physics with their EVFs, I wouldn't buy one because they are too small and too hard to use. The only thing I'd consider using one for is mounting on my telescope where I'd use it without touching it or using the EVF. And they'd have to be under $500 for me to consider one for that use.

Personally I find the size of the 7D and 5D bodies unbearably large. That is why I bought a 60D instead of a 7D. I never considered buying a camera that size until I bought my Tamron 150-600. When you have a lens of that size it dwarfs the body. But I think adding a grip to the 6D would fit me better than a larger camera.

 

[Dylan777]

I owned 5d3, 1dx, Fuji x100s, a7, a7r, a7s and a7rii and I found your comments are quite b.s

Similar b.s 6d is a better camera than 5d3. Didn't you ended up replaced your 6d with 5d3?

4/3 system is on the way out...

Dylan, let's spin this a different way. Follow the chain of logic:

1) You are at Canon designing a FF mirrorless platform with interchangeable lenses. ==> Hope to get some employee discounts

2) You wish to convert photography professionals to this system. ==> Very wishful thinking

3) Though the lenses will not come overnight, you plan to offer something as comprehensive as the EF line or Nikon F line, either natively or through adapters. ==> Pancake/Prime 20/21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm -same size as current EF135mm, even 200mm - same size as EF 200f2.8

4) A good number of your lenses will be large and heavy, because, you know, physics. ==> Skip f1.2 lenses

5) The FF rig cannot be too small/light in comparison to the larger lenses or it will be awkward to hold, so you build a stout body that can counterweight up to 200mm lenses comfortably, and offer a grip to further stabilize/counterweight even larger glass than that.

In other words, to flip the world's photographers to FF mirrorless, you have to go big. ==> Again, wishful thinking. More like accommodate to current FF DSLR.

To pursue a small/thin/light FF mirrorless platform would require you cap focal lengths to something pedestrian (say, 135mm) and would have you forego fast lenses in favor of slower ones. That system will only sell to enthusiasts or rangefinder lovers.

No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, ==> How did you come with that?

and once they have that lens, they'll need to hold on to it somehow. ==> How about we hold it with our “hands and fingers”

So I contend you leave the tiny rig game to APS-C mirrorless and give 'em what they want for FF mirrorless. Go big or go home. ==> Look at Fuji lines, do you think we see much diff. between FF mirrorless(a7) Vs crop, in term of size? For what I know, 3200 6400ISO in lower light doesn’t look pretty at all. Why not get rx100 or s100(pocket-size) if IQ is not important in our photography.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, ==> How did you come with that?

and once they have that lens, they'll need to hold on to it somehow. ==> How about we hold it with our “hands and fingers”

I've used an adapted M/M2 with my 70-200/2.8 and 85/1.2L...it's an ergonomic nightmare.

 

[dolina]

Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.

I'm simply arguing that mirrorless isn't bringing that many new photographers to the market. It's just another form of dedicated camera. Mirrorless rigs are just another option for the existing pool of folks interested in photography.

When we talk about new photographers being created, I think of the GoPro, a DXO One, a Sony Q module, and yes, the cell phone -- in which something out of the realm of traditional 'cameras' gets people jazzed enough to shoot regularly.

It goes without saying that the cell phone plus (critically) the internet is creating orders of magnitude more photographers than any dedicated rig ever will.

- A

As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.

Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.

 

[Darkroom317]

For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1. Compared to old film 35 cameras the modern DSLR is huge. I do not know why modern DSLR cameras with the advancement in electronics need to be so large. I do not like cameras like the Canon SL1 because they are small/round instead of small/thin. I prefer the ergonomics of the Sony A6000. I still would like to see a Rebel F (full frame rebel). Body style similar to the Sony A7 with a mirror box bum like on the Canon AE-1. It would not even have to be mirrorless but that would likely make it easier to manufacture.

I now think that APC-S mirrorless cameras are pointless there is not enough size difference between them and full frame mirrorless. If you want small go m4/3.

Because the cameras have more electronics in them and also extra features that have become popular and even considered necessary. 35mm cameras used to be just be a housing for the film with a shutter and winding mechanism possibly with an in camera metering system, now there is so much more stuff in the camera. Look at lens sizes in the past. Autofocus, image stabilization and electronics have made lenses larger as well.

 

[Lee Jay]

For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1.

Which was my very first camera. And it was too small, too hard to use, and had lousy ergonomics. Film was the saving grace for that camera - you didn't want to take too many shots with it because it didn't hold very many, changing film is a pain, and it's expensive.

Digital means I can shoot 2,000 shots in a few hours no problem, and that means I have to have way better ergonomics than the horrible ergonomics I tolerated in the film days.

 

[ahsanford]

Dylan, let's spin this a different way. Follow the chain of logic:

1) You are at Canon designing a FF mirrorless platform with interchangeable lenses. ==> Hope to get some employee discounts
2) You wish to convert photography professionals to this system. ==> Very wishful thinking
3) Though the lenses will not come overnight, you plan to offer something as comprehensive as the EF line or Nikon F line, either natively or through adapters. ==> Pancake/Prime 20/21mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm -same size as current EF135mm, even 200mm - same size as EF 200f2.8
4) A good number of your lenses will be large and heavy, because, you know, physics. ==> Skip f1.2 lenses
5) The FF rig cannot be too small/light in comparison to the larger lenses or it will be awkward to hold, so you build a stout body that can counterweight up to 200mm lenses comfortably, and offer a grip to further stabilize/counterweight even larger glass than that.

In other words, to flip the world's photographers to FF mirrorless, you have to go big. ==> Again, wishful thinking. More like accommodate to current FF DSLR.

To pursue a small/thin/light FF mirrorless platform would require you cap focal lengths to something pedestrian (say, 135mm) and would have you forego fast lenses in favor of slower ones. That system will only sell to enthusiasts or rangefinder lovers.

No pro is going to walk over to this system without that killer 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4, ==> How did you come with that?
and once they have that lens, they'll need to hold on to it somehow. ==> How about we hold it with our “hands and fingers”

So I contend you leave the tiny rig game to APS-C mirrorless and give 'em what they want for FF mirrorless. Go big or go home. ==> Look at Fuji lines, do you think we see much diff. between FF mirrorless(a7) Vs crop, in term of size? For what I know, 3200 6400ISO in lower light doesn’t look pretty at all. Why not get rx100 or s100(pocket-size) if IQ is not important in our photography.

- A

Dylan, in the end, if you don't agree with #2, the rest of the chain of things that follow won't make sense. If you don't care about flipping pros to this system, yes, you are absolutely right -- you can make it smaller, limit the max aperture of the lenses to keep lenses smaller, etc. In effect, if you don't agree with #2, sure: you can make an FF mirrorless system play the 'small' card like Fuji did in APS-C. Absolutely.

But I contend that Canon will not go to FF mirrorless to simply say 'We have FF mirrorless, too!'. I believe that they will eventually be compelled to go to FF mirrorless because their SLR professionals will eventually defect to other companies without such a platform being offered by Canon. That is the overwhelming premise with the rest of my argument: mirrorless is the inevitable future and Canon needs to think highest-end with that future or risk losing it's biggest spending customers. Hence: bigger lenses + a need to hold those bigger lenses, hence: a bigger body.

Personally, I would love a small FF mirrorless platform as I rarely shoot above 100mm and today I gladly would give up a stop of speed on a lens to halve its size -- but I am not a professional and I am not the target demo for such a product platform. I think Canon has to go big/comprehensive/inclusive to get those folks.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.

Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.

Can't argue with how you choose to perceive something, but the facts and sales data don't support that perception.

Keep in mind one very important 'specific attribute' that dSLRs have, which is lacking in mirrorless: popularity. dSLRs outsell MILCs ~3:1 – that means your family/friends/neighbors are more likely to have a dSLR, your local store is more likely to have a larger selection of dSLRs, etc. That's something that will be pretty obvious to new photogs.

 

[ahsanford]

As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.

Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.

Agree for the most part -- mirrorless appears less intimidating at first glance. What I am saying is: if mirrorless didn't exist today, those exact same numbers of not highly technical people needing a camera would still exist today.

In other words, though those people may choose mirrorless now that it's an option, mirrorless isn't the reason why they are in the Best Buy or Target in the first place. It's not a market expanding product offering, it just poaches folks from the existing market.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For all of those that say the Sony A7II family cameras are two small keep in mind they are almost exactly the same size as the Canon AE-1.

The issue is all the controls and buttons on a Digital Camera. A AE-1 did not have any tiny buttons that had to be operated. You set ASA when the film is inserted, and have the shutter speed, winder, and shutter button.

Focus and aperture are on the lens.

I have issues even with large cameras that have buttons everywhere. I find my fingers pressing buttons on the small bodies and that becomes a issue.

A AE-1 size is fine if there is a place to place a large hand without pushing buttons. I have several AE-1 cameras as well as a FT-QL, and Nikon F, and most other camera brands as well.

 

[Ruined]

Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.

I'm simply arguing that mirrorless isn't bringing that many new photographers to the market. It's just another form of dedicated camera. Mirrorless rigs are just another option for the existing pool of folks interested in photography.

When we talk about new photographers being created, I think of the GoPro, a DXO One, a Sony Q module, and yes, the cell phone -- in which something out of the realm of traditional 'cameras' gets people jazzed enough to shoot regularly.

It goes without saying that the cell phone plus (critically) the internet is creating orders of magnitude more photographers than any dedicated rig ever will.

- A

As it appears to me, new photogs considering an interchangeable lens camera will buy into a mirrorless system rather than SLR. Unless SLR has a specific attribute lacking in mirrorless.

Again, new photogs are not highly technical and will only care about what is obvious to them.

If you mean ILCs on the US, no way. Canon Rebel is still #1 entry level seller far ahead of any mirrorless options in the US.