Nikkei: Canon and Nikon to announce mirrorless pro models

[ahsanford]

According to the post on the DPR website, mirrorless sales were down in December/ January and SLR sales were slightly up.

Mirrorless is NOT taking over SLR sales anytime soon, so perhaps Canon and Nikon may be wasting money on a dying horse.

Saw this today:

https://photorumors.com/2018/04/02/february-cipa-report-dslr-cameras-production-has-better-numbers-than-mirrorless/

But let's see the trend over time. I still see CaNikon driving an overall SLR-heavy [SLR / Mirrorless] sales ratio until they decide to change that by pulling mirrors from their Rebel level rigs.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

When you get to FF, it won't be much smaller.

You'd think that, but Sony repeatedly poops on that notion (as well as itself) when it continues to do this with each generation of A7 product (see pic).

And they are not the only ones: compare an EOS M1 (the original M model) vs. an M5. Even with a common mount and sensor size, form factor can vary wildly.

- A

Two comments to make......

The first is that you could make a FF DSLR with the EF mount the size of a SL-1 quite easily....

The second comment is about the size of the two pictured mounts here. Note that the Canon mount has space around the sensor, and how the Sony munt is cropping off the corners of the sensor..... and also note that once you have a lens mounted in that hole, that it will crop further. This may not be as big of a problem with wide angle lenses, but as you go longer, the vignetting will get worse and worse. The Canon mount was designed so that a long FF lens would have a clear view of the sensor.... the Sony was not.

 

[BillB]

My take on offering a thin mount and EF mount setup -- it would work fine if:

• Canon announces both models on the same day.
• Canon opened with "We aren't going to remake EF in this thinner mount. You'll get a few smaller f/4 zooms and wide f/2.8 primes and that's it. For the rest, use the adaptor." (i.e. you have been warned -- don't put all your eggs in this mirrorless basket.)
  
• Canon reassures EF users that all is well and EF will live on as the Company's flagship lens portfolio.

That could work.

If you don't do the above and release just one model with a thin mount and wait for market pressure to make you put out an EF one, too much damage may be done in the interim. Foolish young/impulsive people will have horrific stories of flipping all their gear too soon, feel buyers' remorse, etc. and existing EF users might panic that EF is to Canon what the A mount is to Sony.

Canon should make a clear decision on the mount, frame up their future plans and help buyers opt-in with confidence.

- A

Rather than announcing two mounts on Day 1, it seems to me that Canon could simply roll out its first mirrorless with an EF mount, keeping open the option of a smaller FF mirrorless down the road with another mount, maybe the EF-M or possibly a third mount.

 

[siegsAR]

My take on offering a thin mount and EF mount setup -- it would work fine if:

• Canon announces both models on the same day.
• Canon opened with "We aren't going to remake EF in this thinner mount. You'll get a few smaller f/4 zooms and wide f/2.8 primes and that's it. For the rest, use the adaptor." (i.e. you have been warned -- don't put all your eggs in this mirrorless basket.)
  
• Canon reassures EF users that all is well and EF will live on as the Company's flagship lens portfolio.

That could work.

If you don't do the above and release just one model with a thin mount and wait for market pressure to make you put out an EF one, too much damage may be done in the interim. Foolish young/impulsive people will have horrific stories of flipping all their gear too soon, feel buyers' remorse, etc. and existing EF users might panic that EF is to Canon what the A mount is to Sony.

Canon should make a clear decision on the mount, frame up their future plans and help buyers opt-in with confidence.

- A

Rather than announcing two mounts on Day 1, it seems to me that Canon could simply roll out its first mirrorless with an EF mount, keeping open the option of a smaller FF mirrorless down the road with another mount, maybe the EF-M or possibly a third mount.

Or maybe Canon will offer an in lens mount modification service, like what Sigma does.
Adapter but built in. ;D

 

[gmon750]

When you get to FF, it won't be much smaller.

You'd think that, but Sony repeatedly poops on that notion (as well as itself) when it continues to do this with each generation of A7 product (see pic).

And they are not the only ones: compare an EOS M1 (the original M model) vs. an M5. Even with a common mount and sensor size, form factor can vary wildly.

- A

So what? I have big hands. The Canon wins hands-down in ergonomics and comfort while STILL taking stellar shots. I can understand the smaller=better mentality, but my camera needs to be manipulated a lot with hands and that Sony would cramp mine.

enough with the fixation on small.

 

[tmroper]

When you get to FF, it won't be much smaller.

You'd think that, but Sony repeatedly poops on that notion (as well as itself) when it continues to do this with each generation of A7 product (see pic).



- A

But Sony doesn't keep making smaller cameras. Just the opposite. Using your A7R example: the rev. 1 came in at 465g, 127 x 94 x 48 mm, while the current A7RIII comes in at 657g, 127 x 96 x 74 mm. Plus, to have a battery life equal to the 5DMIV's, the Sony needs the grip. Meanwhile, the 5D MKIV is slightly smaller and lighter than the 5D MKIII. Now, granted, these aren't huge differences. And the Sony *bodies* are certainly smaller. But even Sony are apparently realizing the benefits of larger bodies--especially the grip (on the body), which was very minimal on rev. 1 for all the Alphas, and has gotten increasingly beefier.

 

[kphoto99]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

 

[BillB]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

Well, if they are going to keep producing EF 100-400 lenses for the DSLR market, why not just sell an EF/EF-X adapter, starting on Day 1?

 

[Don Haines]

But this post won't make sense to some folks who see the new mount as Canon's only future i.e. a thin mount = Canon will rebuild all of EF in this smaller mount, which will take 20 years just to replace what they already have and it won't be fundamentally better or smaller.

- A

Tell me how long does it take to take for example the 100-400 EF lens, add a ~25mm permanent extension on the back and sell it as EF-X lens?
My guess about 6 months maybe.

If you were adding an extension on the end of the lens, it would require a complete redesign of the lens and all the optics. The elements all have to work together to give the quality we expect from modern designs. My suspicion is that this might improve some of the wide angle lenses, but that it would hurt the long lenses. Everything is a tradeoff, you can't get something for nothing and gains in one place become losses in another....

 

[ahsanford]

But Sony doesn't keep making smaller cameras. Just the opposite. Using your A7R example: the rev. 1 came in at 465g, 127 x 94 x 48 mm, while the current A7RIII comes in at 657g, 127 x 96 x 74 mm. Plus, to have a battery life equal to the 5DMIV's, the Sony needs the grip. Meanwhile, the 5D MKIV is slightly smaller and lighter than the 5D MKIII. Now, granted, these aren't huge differences. And the Sony *bodies* are certainly smaller. But even Sony are apparently realizing the benefits of larger bodies--especially the grip (on the body), which was very minimal on rev. 1 for all the Alphas, and has gotten increasingly beefier.

A9 and A7R3 got thicker, yes, but few really care about that. The basic front/rear view form factor, grip size, spacing from the grip to the mount, etc. is still a travesty.

The camera is too small for average sized hands wielding a 24-70 2.8. That should never happen. I've eard all sorts of 'well, they scooped out some finger room on this one and the vertical grip really makes it sing', but the grip remains too small and too close to the mount for the faster lenses people surely will put on them.

- A

 

[jayphotoworks]

Two quotes that make it plain as day- why mirrorless from Canon/Nikon, and why now:

Sony also pushes the backs of both companies by pushing out mirrorless and enhancing its presence in the professional market.

Sony’s mirrorless cameras are seen on the rise, and Canon and Nikon need to accelerate plans for a full frame mirrorless camera.

Previous denials from this forum that Sony has anything to do with Canon's plans to announce a mirrorless are astounding.

Personally, I don't find facts astounding...but that's me.

Since Sony didn't have a 1-series competitive model until the a9, that model obviously enhanced their presence in that market. 0 + 1 = 1, even Captain Obvoius can do simple arithmetic.

'Are seen' is perception. The perception in certain media outlets is that Sony's FF MILC are on the rise. The market data do not support that perception, but some news/entertainment outlets don't let reality get in the way of publication. Also note that the second bit of your quote is canonnews' interpretation of the Nikkei article, not a quote from the Nikkei news article. Perception again.

Perception is what the media sells. Every media outlet has some form of bias.. Want right-wing? watch Fox News, want left-wing? watch CNN. Media outlets are only interested in trying to get a slice of your attention. For many, why would they post about a company churning out humdrum products when they can comment about the newest underdog with its newest bag of tricks. Do those tricks really work that well? Does it matter? What matters is this type of news sells better than letting everyone know the old stalwart has 50% market share this year.

Most people are simply not going to fact-check absolutely everything, and that works in the media's favor. Trump's been doing it ever since he started his campaign and he eventually got voted in, with the persistent coverage of his campaign. I'm sure some people simply voted for him due to the media presence.

This perception must be as good as fact if Nikon and Canon have been so frantic to push out rumors and interviews about releasing mirror-less products in short order these days. If they simply relied on market data, they probably wouldn't have even bothered!

 

[Talys]

A9 and A7R3 got thicker, yes, but few really care about that. The basic front/rear view form factor, grip size, spacing from the grip to the mount, etc. is still a travesty.

The camera is too small for average sized hands wielding a 24-70 2.8. That should never happen.

There is an easy solution for that. Just use an FE 28-70/3.5-5.6. It solves the whole size problem, and it looks sexy. 10 FPS still sounds the same, and you can still impress yourself with how much your underexposed dog can have his shadows lifted to look like a member of the canine species.

RAWR!

Now, in seriousness, when you read Sony reviews, a HUGE proportion tell you that f/4's are nearly indistinguishable from f/2.8's and that they're good enough for any mortal, plus they're smaller and lighter and all that. Lack of weather sealing rarely gets much play.

I can't believe, for example, the praise that gets heaped on the Sony 24-105/f4. It's terrible at 24mm f/4 with very severe vignetting, that remains even after the lens profile is applied. What do you see in reviews? Shots taken stepped down to f/6.3! I mean, wtf

 

[neuroanatomist]

What do you see in reviews? Shots taken stepped down to f/6.3! I mean, wtf

Presstitutes.

 

[Hector1970]

It is inevitable Canon and Nikon will go mirrorless on full frame and probably this year.
If only to disrupt Sony a bit in that market.
I don't think Canon will risk a mount change. This is tricky for them. Long term they might be more a lens company than a camera company as I feel camera's are coming to a limit in terms of producing discernibly better photographs. Focusing for things like BIF or sport could be more intelligent, low light performance could be better more FPS but there are few major leaps of improvement left in terms of image quality. Incremental improvements yes but nothing amazing.
You'd want to producing lens that have the widest customer base possible to keeping the EF mount would do that.

 

[fingerstein]

I would put things like this:
Is there any competitor for A7, A9? No!
Is there any Canon version of GH5? No!
Does Canon has any alternative for Sony's declicked aperture ring with AF, like Sony? No!
Is there any Canon DSLR/Mirrorless that offer 4k, Clog, different bitrates and fps like Sony, Panasonic? No!
Making ND filter adapter for EF lens to a 4k Canon mirrorless could compete directly with C700!

 

[ahsanford]

You'd want to producing lens that have the widest customer base possible to keeping the EF mount would do that.

Which is precisely why Canon wisely took the EOS M platform and gave it the existing EF-S moun--

Oh, wait.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

You'd want to producing lens that have the widest customer base possible to keeping the EF mount would do that.

Which is precisely why Canon wisely took the EOS M platform and gave it the existing EF-S moun--

Oh, wait.

Except that the target markers for entry-level Canon APS-C MILCs and any forthcoming Canon FF MILCs are really not very overlapping – the former is mainly those new to ILCs, the latter is mainly those with APS-C dSLRs, and the largest market segment of APS-C dSLR owners will have at least one EF-S lens.

 

[ahsanford]

Except that the target markers for entry-level Canon APS-C MILCs and any forthcoming Canon FF MILCs are really not very overlapping – the former is mainly those new to ILCs, the latter is mainly those with APS-C dSLRs, and the largest market segment of APS-C dSLR owners will have at least one EF-S lens.

Fair, sure -- and Hector's point is not incorrect (I agree with him but perhaps not the rationale). EF is a monster to leave. There's no denying that.

But with EOS M, Canon still saw that making things smaller with a new mount was worth the trouble.

...for a very large pool of consumers.

...that are buying their first ILC.

...and "time and trouble" was only to make a handful of regularly bought/sold EF-S lenses (5-7 or so?).

Those ellipses above are fundamentally different for FF. That's why I think it's anyone's guess on the mount. For any good argument you can make about how difficult EF will be to leave and re-engineer in a thinner mount, some of us can us just fold our arms and say 'it really is all about the perception of being smaller' and say that Canon will go thin and do the work if they think they must.

I remain undecided. EF would delight me, but I would not be stunned one bit if Canon went thin.

- A

 

[Talys]

Except that the target markers for entry-level Canon APS-C MILCs and any forthcoming Canon FF MILCs are really not very overlapping – the former is mainly those new to ILCs, the latter is mainly those with APS-C dSLRs, and the largest market segment of APS-C dSLR owners will have at least one EF-S lens.

Fair, sure -- and Hector's point is not incorrect (I agree with him but perhaps not the rationale). EF is a monster to leave. There's no denying that.

But with EOS M, Canon still saw that making things smaller with a new mount was worth the trouble.

...for a very large pool of consumers.

...that are buying their first ILC.

...and "time and trouble" was only to make a handful of regularly bought/sold EF-S lenses (5-7 or so?).

Those ellipses above are fundamentally different for FF. That's why I think it's anyone's guess on the mount. For any good argument you can make about how difficult EF will be to leave and re-engineer in a thinner mount, some of us can us just fold our arms and say 'it really is all about the perception of being smaller' and say that Canon will go thin and do the work if they think they must.

I remain undecided. EF would delight me, but I would not be stunned one bit if Canon went thin.

- A

There seem to be a disproportionate number of people on the internet who claim to be in the market for a FF mirrorless (or be very excited about one), yet, based on their portfolio, or just stupid things they say, seem to be unlikely to be good candidates to run out and blow $4,000+ on a few starting basics.

I call it the "jilted camera syndrome" -- someone goes and buys a $500 camera, and doesn't like what they shoot (or it's even worse than what they get out of their smartphone), so they go buy a $1,500 camera, maybe trading their $500 camera for $200 at the camera shop, and then find out that their pictures didn't get any better. But hey, these reviewers tell them the $3,000 camera will take amazing pictures...

...When they should have probably just learned to use their $500 camera Do they go out and buy the $3,000 camera? Who knows. It's a big commitment.

Two years later, they are using their smartphone for all their pictures, and saying how their Galaxy or Pixel or iPhone has made them love photography again. And there's a bunch of 500 shutter count cameras for sale

 

[test123]

The rest of the Nikkei article (accessible for registered users) says both Canon and Nikon
will announce professional full-frame mirrorless cameras in the latter half of 2018,
speeding up their initial plans of a 2019 introduction. Since Sony sells full-frame mirrorless
for 20-30 man yen, both companies will presumably follow at a similar price point.

The reason given is that Sony cameras are increasingly being used by professionals,
for example to cover the recent Olympic games.

An unnamed Canon executive is quoted as saying, "The full-frame mirrorless will presumably
eat into some of our DSLR sales, but if we underestimate the mirrorless market now, customers
will leave us in the long run". The article mentions that Canon was late in transitioning from
film to digital, but succeeded in becoming the market leader. Canon and Nikon would like to
concentrate on the lucrative DSLR business, but the shift to mirrorless is moving ahead regardless.

CIPA statistics indicate that of the 25 million digital cameras sold in 2017, 7.5 million were DSLR's
and 4 million mirrorless. However the mirrorless growth year over year was 30%, whereas the
number of sold DSLR's reduced by 10%. Neither Canon nor Nikon can afford to ignore this fact
any longer (it says).