What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
neuroanatomist said:AvTvM said:neuroanatomist said:exquisitor said:
Why are Sony FE lenses esentially the same size and weight as Canon EF counterparts? Maybe Canon is great at lens design, but Sony and Zeiss just suck at it? Inquiring minds want to know...
simple: because Sony E-mount was really only designed for APS-C image circle ... and only on second thought Sony decided to force it into use with FF sensors as well. For FF image circle Sony E-mount [as well as Canon EF-M mount] do not have optimally chosen parameters. Combination of 1. opening very narrow plus 2. FFD very short leaves not too many opportunities for lens design.
Oh, ok. Then I guess Nikon sucks at lens design, because their (rumored) FF MILC mount will be only 3 mm wider in diameter than the Sony E-mount, and it's actually got a 2mm shallower FFD.
if true, the parameters are very sub-optimal, yes. It would be repeating the same design Nikon may want to repeat the same prncipal design flaw that has riddled their F-mount all along ...
Nikon F: FFD 46.5mm / throat 44mm
Canon EF: 44 mm / 54 mm
... backwards compatibility at all costs ... has a high price.
Am very interested to see what Nikon really will bring ... especially since their audience seems to have even more "adapter-angst" than some Canonites.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Well I am a loyal customer who has spent beaucoup dinero on Canon cameras and associated paraphernalia, but if Canon doesn't start selling interesting EF-M lenses, there stands a very good chance that I will become disgruntled.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
When arguing about the best tools to use, Canon's marketshare is a stupid argument. You should use the best tools for what you want to do. For me for quite awhile now Canon has not made the best tools for my photographic purposes, so I got the best tool elsewhere. Why would anyone not want to use the best tools?
I guess my personal experience is different because I have found that I can't use the market share slider in Lightroom to recover the extra couple of stops of latitude I've been enjoying by using a different camera body. That's because market share does not improve the amount of data captured in my photos. Canon's market share doesn't pay my bills. But, having more data captured with every Sony shutter click has improved my images and reduced the time I spend processing the raw files and has virtually eliminated my need for using grad ND filters. THAT time savings is worth something to me.
I responded to the original post because I was baffled by the idea that a mirrorless camera to be successful has to be literally a DSLR with full-time live view EVF instead of a mirror and no other real changes. Since I have seen in my own experience how there are benefits to a shorter lens mount, I don't really know why you would want to just throw that away other than laziness because the OP can't be bothered with a native adapter. And furthermore, if everything Canon does is perfect because of their market share, then why even bother talking about what Canon needs to do to make a successful mirrorless camera because clearly the god king Canon knows best in all things and will bestow to its flock the ultimate camera they could ever want even if it has an old technology sensor like the 6D 2.
Upvote
0
jayphotoworks said:
So, literally all you're giving up is the touchscreen. Which is another "didn't know you needed it until you tried it" feature, of course.
But, fair enough. Touchscreens are kinda useful for moving an AF point around, especially if you don't have a good AF point "stick".
Either way, you could just go back to the tradition of interchangeable viewfinder, something which was accepted as a professional necessity back in the days of the Nikon F3 and F4. This is essentially what the OP is asking for. Zero benefits of mirrorless aside from the VF alone. Everything else, even IBIS, (coughPentaxcough) ...is possible in a DSLR.
Upvote
0
I'm glad you found what you want for your purposes.kurt765 said:
I think you misunderstand the argument about market share..
Ah, here's the problem: why do you assume that the best tool for you is the best tool for everyone else? Each person makes their own decisions about what's best for them in terms of price, features, lenses, accessories, etc. Lots of people choose to buy Canon gear, presumably because it suits their needs. This doesn't mean it suits your needs, so you can buy whatever works for you. So market share doesn't prove any objective truth about a camera; rather, it's an indicator that a lot of people believe it suits their needs.
Maybe other people don't need that feature.
No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.
It sounds like you chose the right gear for you. That doesn't mean it's the right gear for other people.
Not at all, they know what sells better than Nikon, Sony and all the others. I guess I have a question for you: if Sony gear is better not just for you but for everyone, Sony should have "won" by now, why haven't they?
Upvote
0
Oh my, some people are just too logical, it must drive the dodo birds nuts. These discussions about what "I want" just go on and on and on and ...
Jack
Jack
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:
Congratulations, it will be logic such as yours that eventually turns Canon into the next Kodak.
Seriously, true story: I actually met a silicon valley guy who did some consulting for Kodak back in the late 90's, when digital cameras were just barely getting started. The CEO of Kodak had a nearly identical attitude towards the potential of digital. Saying, basically, "people don't need that; we're going to stick to what we're best at, nothing could ever disrupt our market share, etc. etc..."
Here's what it seems many Canon fankids don't realize: even if you're happy with Canon's dynamic range, or whatever else it is, it is still in your best interest to encourage them to improve at roughly the same pace as the competition.
Until the latest Canons with on-chip ADC, Canon had a decade-plus of NEAR-ZERO improvement in dynamic range. In fact numerous bodies took steps backward, according to the taboo witchcraft known as lab measurements. Even now, they have a few sensor generations left to go before they could possibly catch up.
It may not be what you want to hear, but the truth is that Canon tries less hard to stay competitive, because they have the most market share. And users are doing a disservice to Canon when they make excuses for the shortcomings.
Upvote
0
I think we need two PROFESSIONAL FF Canon mirrorless camera bodies. BOTH need to compete with and exceed the top Sony cameras. One needs to have an EF Mount and be COMPLETELY compatible with current EF lenses...the other needs to have a new mount to take advantage of the shorter flange distance and have a new line of FF Mirrorless lenses moving forward and growing. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
Upvote
0
geekyrocketguy said:
he's 100% wrong if that was his point, i really didnt think it was.
a mirrorless camera regardless of mount offers a weight, manufacturing complexity, and size advantages. Not to mention AF, focus peaking, zebras, EVF styled live histograms, a nicer looking in viewer level and a mydrid of other usability improvements.
Compare the A99 against the A900. EVF versus non EVF camera. which one is smaller?
functionality and ergonomically the same, but the A99 is smaller in every dimension and weighs 100g less.
that would take a 5D Mark IV styled mirrorless down to around 790g. which takes it down to around the same weight as a 6D, but with the 5D Mark IV build quality. No one would mind that at all. it would take it to within 140g of the A7RIII that lacks sealing and build quality compared to the 5D Mark IV. So what's the problem here?
if it's a 5D styled camera body, having an EF mount or not having an EF mount makes little difference to the advantages of mirrorless as canon would see it.
they have minimal in the way of patent portfolio for mirrorless full frame lenses. All their lens portfolio is for lenses with a 40mm backfocus.
so what advantage is it for Canon to go with a shorter mount? None. except millions upon millions of additional R&D coming up with new lens designs and making sure they don't trip over someone else's patent.
Canon could make an A7R III sized camera using the EF mount. that isn't a problem. it would have the same cramped horrid ergonomics as said A7R as well.
the ergonomic necessity of the camera will determine the size and weight far more than the mount ever would.
also .. legacy lenses to the EF system. where do people come up with this? I can adapt M42, nikkor, OM, C/Y mount,etc already to the EF mount, I don't have to switch. there's more than enough legacy glass already available, and old legacy rangefinder glass rarely works on full frame mirrorless cameras because of incident light angles.
Upvote
0
Here we go again on DR. I never shoot low ISO as a rule due to higher shutter speeds and marginal light and every camera I've considered has the same or maybe even worse DR than Canon at my typical ISOs. Am I supposed to get all worked up about DR and abandon Canon. It's self focused reasoning that's being exhibited.
Get what is best for you and don't worry about Canon going under. Then quit posting doom and gloom about Canon. If they go under so be it, I don't have any shares.
Jack
Get what is best for you and don't worry about Canon going under. Then quit posting doom and gloom about Canon. If they go under so be it, I don't have any shares.
Jack
Upvote
0
Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.Orangutan said:
Fair enough, but when talking about future products there's no reason not to examine what the competition is doing and maybe hope for some of those features to make it over and improve the system we're talking about. Should Canon not look at what Sony is doing and adopt any of those ideas for theirs? The OP says no. I think that is baffling, because most of the rejected ideas are literally the major benefits for having a mirrorless system in the first place.
Once people are invested in a given system, it's expensive to switch, so when faced with other systems having some features that might be objectively better (like sensors for instance) there may be many reasons for not switching. It's not unique to cameras of course. On a smaller scale, if I switched phone systems I'd have to re-purchase all my apps for instance. What a hassle. The hassle has to be worth it and in my case it certainly has been with regard to what camera body I use. What sells the most doesn't automatically equate to the best. And again, in the context of this discussion of a new mirrorless Canon camera and what it needs to be successful, why would you not want to include features that competitors have in their products that are objectively better? (or even from within their own line of products for that matter).
Upvote
0
This is an empty assertion.Matthew Saville said:
If you'll notice, there was a recent thread about the fact that Canon has been asking their customers what they want in a mirrorless camera, and this current thread is about the soon-to-be released mirrorless FF. So your example of Kodak is meaningless: Canon is doing precisely what they should do: selling the current market what it wants, while simultaneously keeping an eye on the future.
No argument from me nor, I suspect, from anyone else on the forum. You and others fail to understand the simple message: buy what you want, and the market (in aggregate) will send the appropriate message to the manufacturers. Whingeing on these forums will do nothing.
And apparently it cost them no profits.
You misunderstand: they try less-hard to invest money in features their customers don't care to pay for. Personally, I'd love more DR, less noise and more MP in a cheaper, higher-quality body. But that wish, plus $5.00, will get me a ridiculous cup of coffee at Starbucks. Complaining doesn't help. Buy what works for you.
No one is making excuses, we're simply describing how business works in the real world.
Upvote
0
kurt765 said:
Sorry, I didn't realize that some Supreme Being designated you the arbiter and sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools'. Or maybe you just decided on your own to push your Lightroom God slider all the way to +100.
:
: :
Upvote
0
Why do you assume they're ignorant?kurt765 said:
I think they should look to their customers and to the competition, then build what they think will sell.
This is right: it has to be worth it. A lot of people have decided it's not. It's good that you chose the right gear for yourself; others are free to do that for themselves.
No one said it did. The assertion is that the one that sells the best is the one most people think suits their needs best.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "successful." To me that word means that it sells well. I think what you're asking is not what would make it successful, but what would make me buy it. I'll tell what that is: tracks BIF at least as well as the 7D2, great EVF, a bit more DR and less noise, and good throughput. Of course, it also has to fit my budget.
Upvote
0
Matthew Saville said:
Seriously, true story: I actually saw a turtle yawn once. I even took a picture of it. Oh, sorry...I thought it was share your irrelevant story hour.
Film to digital = paradigm shift
Flip phone to smartphone = paradigm shift (just trying to forestall the inevitable Nokia reference)
ILC with mirror to ILC without mirror = a minor variation (and it's not even clear that it's an improvement at this point)
Matthew Saville said:
Well, Nikon sensors started beating Canon sensors in DxOMark testing back in 2010. Then Sony started doing it, too. But who cared? Well, you did, apparently. I heard some guy here knew 10 other guys who cared, too. And jrista cared, cared so much that he said the 5DIII delivered poor, sub-par, unacceptable IQ. But the rest of the world went right on buying Canon, such that Canon gained market share, to the point where they now hold ~50% of the ILC market.
Seems you're another one of our forum members who thinks their own personal needs and beliefs represent those of the majority, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Matthew Saville said:
Now that's ironic, a post like that then you start talking about truth. Well done!
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Some things are objectively true and scientifically measurable, like sensor dynamic range. Then there are facts like "a shorter lens mount can allow you to adapt almost any lens" that are also objectively true. Perhaps you have not noticed that there's a discussion here about what sorts of things should be in the rumored Canon full frame mirrorless. I have expressed opinions in response to the original post and others that differ from those arguments. You are of course welcome to agree or disagree. And at no point did I say that I am the "sole determiner of what constitutes 'the best tools' as my argument only used my own experience as an example. But in the case of your post, you have turned the "contribute to conversation" slider down to -100. Well done.
Upvote
0
Sure, I know a lot of die-hard Canon shooters who will never switch. But most of them are still very pissed at Canon for not being as competitive as they could be.Orangutan said:
And, more importantly, I have truly lost count of how many Canon shooters I've met online and known in person who have dumped Canon for either Nikon or Sony. And, I've met hundreds of photographers in person, and thousands online, as a photography educator.
Their profit margins might be healthy, but they're still flushing money down the toilet. They'll very likely survive the mirrorless revolution, especially if they get things under way this year. But you're still missing my point: your dismissal of the massive volume of ship-jumpers is not doing Canon any favors. Instead, why not make fewer excuses, and encourage them to do better more often? What's the worst that could happen?
Upvote
0
kurt765 said:
True, but whether that's important for a particular photographer's needs is subjective, as is the question of whether it's worth the cost.
It also changes the way the optics must be designed. I'll leave to others to explain the pros/cons of that.
While certain measurable qualities may be objective, their importance to a particular photographer is decidedly subjective.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
