Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[fullstop]

@rrc - thanks for explanation. Yes, I can follow your "advanced math" ;D
So you go by the assumption that number of shots would be directly proportional to mAh only. Possible. But there can also be other advantages to more recent power packs compared to older ones, beyond just more Watthours. That's one of the reasons why I also included comparison to what Fujifilm is doing.

The main difference between the two packs is their internal circuit design. The newer battery pack has less internal resistance and, thus, less energy loss from internal heating. It will therefore last longer on a single charge and be less prone to overheating.

https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery

Have not seen any claims by Canon as to whether or not they implemented similar improvements going from LP-12 [2012] to LP-E17 [2015] type.

Innovative Fuji and/or their battery supplier manage to get 430 shots on their entry level X-T100 out of a 1260 mAh power pack, which is - mathematically and real life - a way better ratio than what you would assume for Canon [430 vs. 338].

But even if your assumed direct relation for LP-E12 vs. LP-E17 for EOS M50 were correct, I'd still prefer 18% more shots per charge from LP-E17. And I'd even more prefer 430 shots per charge. If your preferences are for lower shot yield and more spare batteries, its your problem.

@3kramd5 Canon has "marketing nerfed" their M50 customers by (at least) 18% battery reach. It was not done by the evil witch you may believe in, but by Canon corporation in a conscious decision to "marketing differentiate" EOS M50 in one of its most important characteristics [sensor, IQ, AF, power, EVF/LCD] compared to EOS M5. And that decision is based on disregard and disrespect for their "entry level" customers.


PS: what would you guys think of a car maker that would just re-use an old, small fuel tank, in a new, small car with little reach - although a newer, larger fuel tank were also readily available that would give customers (at least) 18% more reach per gas stop?

Yeah, I know, some of you would probably say it is "only to the benefit of customers", because in case of an accident with fire there will be less fuel in the tank to burn the car's driver and passengers. ;D

 

[fullstop]

@Talys: I am really impressed that Fujifilm manages to get a much higher number of shots per charge and like their transparent, consistent and *fair to customers* use of standardized power packs across all their X cameras from "entry level" to hi-end. Overall however, I much prefer the Canon EOS M system, mainly for the user interface and the EF-M lens lineup. As opposed to Fuji and Sony, Canon offers very compact, optically very decent, very inexpensive lenses that cover almost everything I'd ever want in a crop system. And on top of it native tie-in to the EF lens world. Even if I would not own Canon EOS DSLRs and EF glass, I'd probably still select Canon EOS M as my "non FF" camera system.

Unlike the whiners who constantly whine about the "oh so limited, poor selection of EF-M lenses" and clamor for f/1.4 or 1.2 EF-M primes and then turn around to say, that mirrorless "holds no size advantage when fast and/or longer lenses come into play" - I commend Canon for their EF-M lens line-up. For me and for the target audience - both people looking for a smaller setup to supplement their DSLR systems as well as for "smartphone/P&S upgraders", Canon EF-M lens assortment is right on the mark. Addition of a compact, decent, moderately fast tele prime would be the last element to make it "really excellent". 8)

And no, I don't "whine" and i am no blind "Canon basher" I am paying Canon customer and criticize Canon for real, factual shortcomings of their products and even more so for "marketing nerfs" and other questionable business practices and decisions. Rest assured, that this forum is closely followed by Canon. There are not so many Canon-focused internet fora of this size and influence. Canon marketing / market research is smart enough to collect all feedback and "sense the waters", not only in the form of surveys of pro users or "ambassadors of light". No matter what some folks here incessantly claim and seem to believe: it is by no means "totally irrelevant" to Canon, if and how we CR forum dwellers discuss, commend and criticize Canon products here and compare them to competitive products. Based on "specsheet specs" and on "real use experiences". 8)

 

[BillB]

@Talys: I am really impressed that Fujifilm manages to get a much higher number of shots per charge and like their transparent, consistent and *fair to customers* use of standardized power packs across all their X cameras from "entry level" to hi-end. Overall however, I much prefer the Canon EOS M system, mainly for the user interface and the EF-M lens lineup. As opposed to Fuji and Sony, Canon offers very compact, optically very decent, very inexpensive lenses that cover almost everything I'd ever want in a crop system. And on top of it native tie-in to the EF lens world. Even if I would not own Canon EOS DSLRs and EF glass, I'd probably still select Canon EOS M as my "non FF" camera system.

Unlike the whiners who constantly whine about the "oh so limited, poor selection of EF-M lenses" and clamor for f/1.4 or 1.2 EF-M primes and then turn around to say, that mirrorless "holds no size advantage when fast and/or longer lenses come into play" - I commend Canon for their EF-M lens line-up. For me and for the target audience - both people looking for a smaller setup to supplement their DSLR systems as well as for "smartphone/P&S upgraders", Canon EF-M lens assortment is right on the mark. Addition of a compact, decent, moderately fast tele prime would be the last element to make it "really excellent". 8)

And no, I don't "whine" and i am no blind "Canon basher" I am paying Canon customer and criticize Canon for real, factual shortcomings of their products and even more so for "marketing nerfs" and other questionable business practices and decisions. Rest assured, that this forum is closely followed by Canon. There are not so many Canon-focused internet fora of this size and influence. Canon marketing / market research is smart enough to collect all feedback and "sense the waters", not only in the form of surveys of pro users or "ambassadors of light". No matter what some folks here incessantly claim and seem to believe: it is by no means "totally irrelevant" to Canon, if and how we CR forum dwellers discuss, commend and criticize Canon products here and compare them to competitive products. Based on "specsheet specs" and on "real use experiences". 8)

If Canon is indeed closely monitoring this forum, we can hope that Canon gives your comments the consideration that they are due.

 

[3kramd5]

@3kramd5 Canon has "marketing nerfed" their M50 customers by (at least) 18% battery reach. It was not done by the evil witch you may believe in, but by Canon corporation in a conscious decision to "marketing differentiate" EOS M50 in one of its most important characteristics [sensor, IQ, AF, power, EVF/LCD] compared to EOS M5. And that decision is based on disregard and disrespect for their "entry level" customers.

Yah, I’ve seen you assert that about 50 times. That doesn’t make it true, nor is that as probable as the marketing people having cost targets which the older battery helped satisfy.

From the get go, had you not positioned your accusation as a hard, undeniable fact, you wouldn’t have received the pushback you have. But then you doubled down a number of times; by now you’re probably 20 fullstops or more from the initial claim with no indication that you accept even one iota of what most consider a more likely scenario.

PS: what would you guys think of a car maker that would just re-use an old, small fuel tank, in a new, small car with little reach - although a newer, larger fuel tank were also readily available that would give customers (at least) 18% more reach per gas stop?

They often reduce fuel capacity as engines become more efficient (which is analogous to camera internals consuming less energy).

(All volumes in gallons, per google search)
2018 Toyota Camry: 14.5-16
2017 Toyota Camry: 17
2011 Toyota Camry: 18.5


(Also, in the same way you avoided using the non-word “n00b” back in Reply #180, I’ll avoid pointing out that you confused energy with charge in Reply #220. See? We can both relax a little.)

 

[fullstop]

EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?

But to Canapologists it would be "no problem, there are so many gas stations around, it is irrelevant". Right? ;D

 

[Mikehit]

EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?

But to Canapologists it would be "no problem, there are so many gas stations around, it is irrelevant". Right? ;D

If it was the difference between 230km per tank and 270km per tank then no, I would not care.

 

[fullstop]

EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?

If it was the difference between 230km per tank and 270km per tank then no, I would not care.

interesting. i would. Every drop of juice is even more valuable when supplies are so low.
18% is a noticable difference. Not to mention the 83% shots per charge advantage of the Fuji X-T100.

 

[Mikehit]

interesting. i would. Every drop of juice is even more valuable when supplies are so low.
18% is a noticable difference. Not to mention the 83% shots per charge advantage of the Fuji X-T100.

Why re you bringing the Fuji into this? You were comparing the tow Canon batteries.
While we are at it, the LPE-19 whups the Fuji into the long grass. Dumb Fuji.

 

[fullstop]

Fuji gets into play here because (even) their latest "entry class" camera X-T100, the most direct competitor model to Canon's EOS M50 gets 430 shots per charge.

Even with LP-E17 the M50 would have been at a significant disadvantage in the power department. With whimpy old LP-E12 battery, it is worse.

Maybe Canon marketing did not foresee this coming [X-T100 at 599 with decent power pack] and maybe, just maybe they are now really kicking themselves. But .... as much as i like the idea, THAT would be speculation, which I am not allowed by Can-apologists. ;D

 

[dak723]

I, for one, have seen the light! Hallelujah! From now on, battery size will be the most important spec when I buy a new camera! All hail the 18% more shots I might get with a bigger battery!! No longer will I need that extra spare! No longer will I cry out in pain when that "low battery" symbol appears! All is well with the world with a bigger battery! Hallelujah!

Color? Doesn't matter! Exposure accuracy? Only a fool cares about that! Autofocus speed? Who cares! Ergonomics?...Shmergonomics! Give me that bigger battery and I will being doing backflips for joy!!

Now that I have seen the light, I will fill every photography forum with posts regarding this wonderful discovery! Others will begin to see the light and the word will spread throughout the entire world!

Hallelujah!

 

[3kramd5]

EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?

Not necessarily, but I’m not in the target market.

 

[fullstop]

@dak haha, i sense a meak attempt to make fun of a very serious topic here! oO ;D

While your preferences may well be different, I do consider sufficient power supply to be one of the important specs in a (mirrorless) camera. At least as long as we are talking about a very low 235 shots [CIPA].

* sensor + image processing pipeline -> Image Quality
* AF performance
* lens lineup "native" and via OEM adapter
* quality of EVF + touchscreen LCD
* responsiveness, no waiting on anything
* functional user interface including logical menu system
* compact size, low weight
AND last but not least: enough power for all of the above.

Color is less relevant to me, i shoot only raw stills. No jpgs, no videos. Accurate exposure I take for granted in 2018. And best-in-class dynamic range is not even on the list when looking at Canon camera gear. ;D

 

[Durf]

In all seriousness, who in the hell actually shoots several hundred or a thousand or more photos every time they go out to take pictures?????

Perhaps a serious wildlife or sports photographer who spends all day shooting I imagine.....and I highly doubt they are using a camera that uses a LP-E17 or LP-E12 battery.

This thread has not been only derailed and become ridiculous, it has been fullthrottled....

 

[3kramd5]

But .... as much as i like the idea, THAT would be speculation, which I am not allowed by Can-apologists. ;D

Free free to speculate. We all do so. Where you went wrong was presenting speculation as fact, over and over.

In all seriousness, who in the hell actually shoots several hundred or a thousand or more photos every time they go out to take pictures?????

Perhaps a serious wildlife or sports photographer who spends all day shooting I imagine.....and I highly doubt they are using a camera that uses a LP-E17 or LP-E12 battery.

This thread has not been only derailed and become ridiculous, it has been fullthrottled....

Battery capacity matters far more for mirrorless cameras than SLR, but shots per charge is a poor metric.

Consider: I may look through a viewfinder for 15 minutes before taking a shot. With a mirrorless camera, I’m using significant power during that non-shooting time. With SLR, I’m using insignificant power during that non-shooting time. Shots per charge won’t tell you anything about that.

The above is a fundamental advantage reflex cameras have over mirrorless cameras. Which is funny since the instigator for these last several pages unapologetically asserts (i’m sensing a pattern) that SLRs have no advantages over mirrorless, when in fact an SLR can be capable of everything a mirrorless camera can do, but a mirrorless camera can not be capable of everything an SLR can do.

The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.

 

[fullstop]

my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.


PS kudos to Canon for that little EOS M beast holding up so well. It fell into the snow on a back-country ski randonee tour and i accidentally skied over it, lol. It was in dusty old lost places on many urbex tours. Has quite some scratches, dents and marks, and the body shell squeaks a little, when i press it, but it holds up. Only the LP-E12 battery is whimpy, rest is tough and solid.

 

[Durf]

my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.

LOL, a 1000 plus clicks at a single family event is a hell of a lot of pics!

I've been shooting digital since 2001 or 2002 and I have only on a few occasions shot over 300 pics in one day or even through one weekend, goes to show we all shoot differently.

If I shot like you I doubt I'd be using a camera with a LP-E12 battery.....

 

[Mikehit]

my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.

Family event, 6h with 1,000 clicks = 1 every 20 seconds.
Sounds like your family think you are about as interesting as we do. ;D

 

[Durf]

my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.

Family event, 6h with 1,000 clicks = 1 every 20 seconds.
Sounds like your family think you are about as interesting as we do. ;D

Isn't that almost a slow motion video? LOL

 

[fullstop]

Family event, 6h with 1,000 clicks = 1 every 20 seconds.
Sounds like your family think you are about as interesting as we do. ;D

thx Mike. you are absolutely right. as always.

PS: our family events sometimes last a fair bit longer than 6 hours. LOL 8) ;D

 

[jayphotoworks]

The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.

I look at it differently. I think modern reflex cameras today are simply mirrorless cameras being forced to support a legacy design. If you think about it, all modern reflex cameras are mirrorless cameras in mirror-lockup or live view mode (mostly). That means that it has two separate operating paradigms, one in OVF mode, and one in LV mode. In OVF mode, you can't shoot video or use subject detection and in LV mode, you can't use the off-sensor PDAF or OVF. It's also larger as a result of having to house the mirror and accompanying hardware.

If a reflex camera dropped the mirror, and made the camera perform just as well in LV mode than its reflex peers it wouldn't need to bother with the entire mirror-thingamajig. Hence cameras like the Sony A9 were created and that's just a first gen example. But it doesn't go the other way though, because if a reflex camera dropped mirrorless mode, you just stripped away 50% of what mirrorless can do today and still have to deal with the physical limitations of the mirror which will never move as quickly as not needing one to begin with.