What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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.

When we started this discussion, I used the phrase 'everyone wins' because you got the gear that best meets your needs and Canon sells more cameras anyway.

According to you, people should use the best tools and market share arguments are stupid in that context. I'd argue that people actually do choose the best tools to meet their needs. Canon's market share means that the majority believe that Canon best meets their needs. But you stated that people who choose Canon are bllissfully ignorant, implying they are not using the best tools. Ergo, you have determined what tools are best...and anyone who thinks differently is ignorant. Sounds like you need a metacognition checkup.

 

[In-The-Dark]

mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)

Apparently when the Olympus E-M1 came out and incorporated phase detect AF to supplement the contrast detect, they started having AFMA issues.

well, that was 4 years ago, i think, Re: the EM-1.
i've read somewhere about the canon M5 not having AFMA in it's menu, so i assumed there's no need for AFMA.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

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?

Seriously? A massive volume of ship-jumpers? Canon has been gaining market share, further increasing the margin by which they lead the ILC market.

Very likely survive the mirrorless revolution? In 5 years, Canon went from having no mirrorless cameras to being #2 in Japan (the largest MILC market), and according to knowledgable sources (e.g. Thom Hogan) Canon is now #2 globally. And that's with an average of one new body per year and only 7 native lenses, a small fraction of the development resources they put into the multiple lines of dSLRs. That pretty stronly suggests they'll do more than 'likely survive', if they do decide to seriously invest in mirrorless, they'll likely end up leading that market segment, too.


And, more importantly, I have truly lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum with heads so thick they don't even feel it when reality smacks them on the pate.

 

[Orangutan]

And apparently it cost them no profits.

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.

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

Can you cite your sources on the ship-jumpers? As the old adage says, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

 

[Talys]

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.

There's a huge difference between Canon and Kodak: people abandoned Kodak, while Canon's market share has remained steady or grown, year over year.

It may not be what you want to hear, but different people have different priorities, and a lot of folks may not care a whole lot about what's important to you. By your accounting, Canon makes inferior cameras today and they've made vastly inferior cameras for more than a decade. Now, I don't ascribe this success on Canon's part to the theory that most people are sheep and buy terrible products year after year, nor do I buy into the likelihood that a minority is much smarter and that everyone should buy the products they feel are better. While that might help some people sleep better at night, it's unlikely to be true.

Instead, I think that Canon builds a system with options that form a combination of features and prices that hit various sweet spots. I, for one, made a conscious decision to switch to Canon, from Nikon, after a very brief flirtation with MFT. I have never regretted it.

If I had different priorities -- if I cared about the carry size of the body, if I cared about video, if I didn't despise electronic viewfinders, if I didn't mind going through three batteries or more a day, and if I didn't enjoy the mountains of third party accessories that are available -- I'm sure I would probably want a Sony. If my primary goal was to have a DSLR that had a sensor that would let me play boost X or Y or Z in post, I'd probably run out and buy a Nikon D850.

But my priorities go the other way. To me, Light >> Composition >> Lens > Sensor. If I slotted ergonomics and build quality in there, I'd put it at least equivalent in importance to sensor; maybe even as important as the optics. Quite frankly, every single one of my favorite photos could have been taken with a 2008 camera using what was good glass at that time.

What makes them my favorite photos is the lighting, the drama, the subject, the moment, the story. It surely isn't the megapixels or dynamic range or corner sharpness or a zillion other metrics used to score equipment these days. In my priorities, the improvements in strobes and flashes and light modifiers has done more for me than the improvements in sensors. For heavens sake, I wouldn't even trade 2 steps of DR for Fusion arca-swiss plates.

Now, I'm happy with all those people who have different priorities than me. Go buy that Sony and shoot 4k video, or have an awesome little package that allows you to cut out a tiny part of a photo and go wild in Lightroom to turn it into a pretty decent image. I'm happy for you; truly, without any sarcasm, I think that every additional person who enjoys photography is a win.

 

[kurt765]

No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.

Why do you assume they're ignorant?

In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.

 

[dak723]

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..."

I just love these BS Kodak stories. It's pretty odd then, based on the above comment, that it was Kodak that was the leader in digital sensor technology in the 1990s. That at least as late as 2005, they had the highest market share of digital camera sales in the USA, and were 3rd globally.

By BEN DOBBIN
The Associated Press
Thursday, November 10, 2005; 9:09 PM

ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- For the fourth straight quarter, Eastman Kodak Co. retained its lead over Japanese rivals Canon Inc. and Sony Corp. in the U.S. digital-camera market.
In the July-to-September period, digital camera shipments to domestic retailers rose nearly 13 percent to 5.6 million from 5 million a year earlier, research firm IDC of Framingham, Mass., reported Thursday.
Photography-equipment maker Kodak shipped 1.25 million digital cameras in the quarter _ 21 percent more than in last year's third quarter _ and its market share rose to 21.3 percent from 19.8 percent, IDC said.
Canon and Sony were tied for second place, each with 1 million shipments and a 17.7 percent slice of the U.S. market. But longtime front-runner Sony, which clung to the No. 1 spot with a 20 percent share a year ago, backpedaled while Canon made up ground on its year-ago share of 16 percent.
Fuji Photo Film Co. jumped from seventh to fourth place with 483,000 shipments, an 8.6 percent share, while Olympus Corp. slipped down to a 7.1 percent share and a virtual tie for fifth with Nikon Corp. Next was Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard Co. with 6.7 percent.
Worldwide, Kodak ranks third in digital camera sales behind Sony and Canon.

Kodak also made the first commercially available DSLR camera in 1991. They manufactured the first DSLRs sold under the Canon brand name (the Canon D2000 and D6000).

So, no, Kodak was not caught napping, nor were they slow to jump into a new technology or new innovations. Kodak's DSLRs were eventually surpassed when Nikon and then Canon got into the race. (Kodak was there first, how about that!) What Kodak didn't do was make lenses. And as we've seen, no one so far has succeeded in making a camera system for someone else's lenses (and Kodak chose the Nikon mount for their first affordable DSLR). Most of their digital cameras were cheaper point and shoots - and we know where that market went.

 

[dak723]

No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.

Why do you assume they're ignorant?

In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.

Having bought and returned both the Sony A7 and A7 II, I am not ignorant as to what Sony brings to the table. But the "increased data capture" was negligible in the type of shots I take (daylight, landscapes) and the far better color rendition and tonal curves of the Canon sensor and processor were quite evident to me. Not to mention the better ergonomics and better lens portfolio. But despite all that, I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see the many advantages to the Canon cameras. I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see that the short flange distance is only an advantage for wide angle lenses and is a definite disadvantage to lenses of longer focal lengths. You have chosen the tools that work best for you, I understand that. Why can't you understand that those of us choosing a Canon camera are doing the same.

 

[mb66energy]

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.

That was the reason for the word if marked in red ... but: Taking out sub-minuscle fractions of posts doesn't help to show the whole picture about the question "Adapter or no adapter?" ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.

That was the reason for the word if marked in red ... but: Taking out sub-minuscle fractions of posts doesn't help to show the whole picture about the question "Adapter or no adapter?" ...

It seems pretty clear you were implying that using FD lenses is part of Canon's decision tree regarding FF MILC mount choice, and if you honestly believe that...wow. Just...wow. ??? :'(

 

[mb66energy]

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.

This is at least very diplomatic and should help to keep the blood pressure low / avoid heart attacks and headaches

But maybe this is the right way if they do not differ to much in terms of features. If the body with short flange distance is video enhanced it should not be crippled to much because this is the body where you can use the full plethora of lenses for cinematography.

 

[mb66energy]

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.

That was the reason for the word if marked in red ... but: Taking out sub-minuscle fractions of posts doesn't help to show the whole picture about the question "Adapter or no adapter?" ...

It seems pretty clear you were implying that using FD lenses is part of Canon's decision tree regarding FF MILC mount choice, and if you honestly believe that...wow. Just...wow. ??? :'(

No + additional reasons for short flange distance I mentioned here:

"I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too."

&

"You have omitted [reason 2 and 3] and I will give you a fourth reason for a mount with smaller flange distance mentioned by a lot of others: Lenses with lens elements near the sensor to enhance IQ / get very good IQ at lower prices. Mostly in the (ultra)wide range."

EOT

 

[kurt765]

No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.

Why do you assume they're ignorant?

In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.

Having bought and returned both the Sony A7 and A7 II, I am not ignorant as to what Sony brings to the table. But the "increased data capture" was negligible in the type of shots I take (daylight, landscapes) and the far better color rendition and tonal curves of the Canon sensor and processor were quite evident to me. Not to mention the better ergonomics and better lens portfolio. But despite all that, I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see the many advantages to the Canon cameras. I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see that the short flange distance is only an advantage for wide angle lenses and is a definite disadvantage to lenses of longer focal lengths. You have chosen the tools that work best for you, I understand that. Why can't you understand that those of us choosing a Canon camera are doing the same.

I do not constrain the better sensor tech to Sony alone. Canon has one camera with what I consider to be a modern sensor - the 5D IV. So you do not have to take everything that Sony has as being better. That is not what I am trying to say.

I'll put it this way: No, I do not understand why anyone would want a new Canon camera (mirrorless in this discussion but any camera really) to have anything less than a 5D IV class sensor in 2018. That doesn't mean that if they make a camera with old tech that people will decide it fits their needs and buy it, but why not push for the best? Shouldn't the next generation of cameras have the best stuff in them?

 

[dsut4392]

.

Some things are objectively true and scientifically measurable, like sensor dynamic range.

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.

Then there are facts like "a shorter lens mount can allow you to adapt almost any lens" that are also objectively true.

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.

OK, consider how you might make your subjective decision with the below criteria:
1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?
3) _all else being equal_, would you rather be able to adapt any lens to your camera body, or be limited to lenses with EF or longer flange focal distance? [On this latter point, your statement of "it also changes the way the optics _must be_ designed" is a fallacy, as optics designed for a longer flange focal distance work equally well (with an adapter) on a short flange camera, assuming the throat of the mount is wide enough. The differences in optical performance between some native lenses vs adapted (for instance as observed by Roger Cicala over at lensrentals) are due not to the flange focal distance but the different cover glass thickness assumed by the lens designer. Shorter flange distance _allows_ changes in optical design, but doesn't force them].
4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?

Leaving aside the potential to make the camera and a subset of lenses smaller and lighter by using a shorter flange focal distance, the ONLY inherent advantage of not having a mirror is that it's mechanically simpler. Absolutely everything else could be achieved in an SLR running in 'live view' with a hybrid viewfinder. So if you're not going to make it smaller, what is the advantage to the user of getting rid of the mirror?

A lot of noise keeps being made about a shorter mount needing to use an adapter for EF lenses. Sure, there's a theoretical impact of mount tolerances, but do people really think the impact is significant. Yes, there are real usability issues when using an adapter to mount lens brand A to body brand B using adapter brand C, but this has vastly more to do with reverse-engineering AF algorithms than the tolerances of the mounting surfaces. There would be absolutely nothing stopping Canon from implementing native EF AF algorithms when an EF lens is mounted.

I don't pretend to know what 'everyone' wants in a camera, but I know what I want in my next one is a smaller, lighter FF camera with a tilt-flip screen and top shelf IQ. The 3 friends I have that moved to Sony from FF DSLR (two from 5D3s, one from Nikon D800) all did so to get a more compact setup for hiking & travel. They all started using adapted lenses, and now shoot mostly native Sony glass. The main thing that has stopped me so far (6D shooter) is that I don't like EVFs. But with Canon putting a distinctly underwhelming sensor in the 6D2 I'm much less confident that my next FF camera will be Canon. To quote Steve Jobs, "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will".

The market share argument is all well and good, but it's not indefinitely self-sustaining. For instance, on DPR today is an article claiming Nikon took #1 and #2 sales positions for FF ILC in December https://www.dpreview.com/news/7401041032/nikon-claimed-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-camera-market-for-december-2017.

 

[Larsskv]

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.

+1! Making an EF mount mirrorless with Canon ergonomics cannot take much effort from Canon, and will satisfy pros and many enthusiasts. I see it as realistic that they will also release a smaller FF mirrorless camera with shorter flange distance and high (L) quality, but not very fast lenses, like Zeiss Batis for Sony FE mount. The number 1 reason for not doing so would be limited market share/expected profit from the targeted enthusiast market.

 

[Talys]

1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?
3) _all else being equal_, would you rather be able to adapt any lens to your camera body, or be limited to lenses with EF or longer flange focal distance? [On this latter point, your statement of "it also changes the way the optics _must be_ designed" is a fallacy, as optics designed for a longer flange focal distance work equally well (with an adapter) on a short flange camera, assuming the throat of the mount is wide enough. The differences in optical performance between some native lenses vs adapted (for instance as observed by Roger Cicala over at lensrentals) are due not to the flange focal distance but the different cover glass thickness assumed by the lens designer. Shorter flange distance _allows_ changes in optical design, but doesn't force them].
4)_all else being equal_ would you like the option of some lenses that are more compact than the same focal length and aperture in EF mount?

1) All things being equal, I want as much DR as possible. If the sensor can cover a hundred trillion colors from infrared to ultraviolet and record it all perfectly at a thousand frames a second, great.

2) All things being equal I want my camera as light as possible, full stop. In terms of camera size, I want my BODY appropriately sized to the LENS I will most often use. I also want the bottom of my body to be deep enough to accommodate an arca swiss plate horizontally.

3) Whether things are equal or not, I will never, ever use a lens adapter to match current lenses with current bodies. Full stop. Ain't gonna happen no matter what the benefits are. If things aren't equal, I would rather spend $20,000 on new equipment than have an adapter stuck onto my camera body. ****** that. I hope I made that part clear

4) All things aren't being equal. I want my small travel lens to be as small as possible and I am willing to give up optical quality and big aperture, and I'm willing to buy new stuff to make that happen. I want my big pro lens to be whatever size they need to be to give me the best output at "reasonable" prices. For example, a Canon vs Sony 70-200/2.8 might be a little better or a little worse, one way or the other; personally, I think they're close enough in optical quality, though I think the Canon's construction is significantly more rugged. But anyways, I won't happily pay the Sony premium on the lens. This is part of a "new lens system problem": if Canon came out with a new mount and all new shiny lenses that were slightly smaller and slightly better in every way, they'd be 50% more expensive for a long time, and the improvements would (probably) be too small to justify the price, for me.

Lens weight: frankly, if it's under 1kg, I don't care at how big or heavy it is, within reason. If it's an important lens to me (like a 70-200 and 100-400), the 1.5kg range is fine. Sure, it can be a little lighter, but whether it's 200g either way isn't going to be determinative of which I buy.

I should add:

5) All things being equal, I'd rather have decent weather seals in an expensive camera. This isn't a deal-killer for me, but if the top tier camera doesn't have this, there would have to be at least one thing that was out of this world that I wanted out of it, where there wasn't an alternative elsewhere.

6) Whether things are equal or not, battery life while I'm looking through the viewfinder is very important to me. It doesn't matter how good electronic viewfinders are, if I keep running out of battery while I'm staring down the viewfinder, the camera is junk.

7) I don't care if the camera can even record video. Since 80D and 6DII, I have never recorded even 1 second of video on any device other than my smartphone. If, one day, I want to be an amateur videographer, instead of making my $4000 camera do something it's not ideal for, I'll just go spend a bit more and buy... or rent.. an entry level professional camera rig. There's a reason that the 6 o'clock news isn't produced on a Sony A7R or a Canon or Nikon DSLR.

 

[Mikehit]

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.

Hang on. You are on a complete tangent there. You are talking about sensor design, not mirrorless vs DSLR. So I am not sure where the 'shorter lens mount fits in there. This is the confused argument that often comes up, where people equate Sony's superior image quality with it being mirrorless - it isn't.

 

[Talys]

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..."

That is just a pathetic analogy. Show us where Canon have said they do not think more dynamic range is not needed. Show us where Canon have said mirrorless will never take off.
The problem on your side of the fence is that you think Canon have to act NOW! or they will be taken over as #1 in the camera market. Self-centred rot. I think Canon have judged the market, and the pace of the change in the market, quite well: they have kept their core market happy with significant improvements in their DSLR and have developed their mirrorless cameras in a way that they do not need to rush anything - just a slow and steady improvement that provides phtographers with that they need.

Sadly, this stems from the iPhone/Android trend of a release every year.

All I can say is, thank God Canon doesn't pop a new FF body every year or two. I would hate it, because I like having current generation bodies, even though I know they don't significantly improve my photography. So, frankly, most of my money would be wasted. I would much rather buy a new lens that makes possible something that was not previously.

 

[BillB]

No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.

Why do you assume they're ignorant?

In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.

 

[BillB]

No one said it did; it just indicates that lots of people believe Canon gear captures enough data to meet their needs.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If you don't know what you're missing then you won't miss it.

Why do you assume they're ignorant?

In the context of a new Canon camera, why would you not want the best technology available in that new camera. So for the new mirrorless camera, that would mean a sensor of the class of the 5D IV or Sony sensors. That is, unless you don't know what you are missing, in which case you are ignorant of the increased available quality of data capture or you just like the reduced dynamic range for reasons that completely escape me.

Having bought and returned both the Sony A7 and A7 II, I am not ignorant as to what Sony brings to the table. But the "increased data capture" was negligible in the type of shots I take (daylight, landscapes) and the far better color rendition and tonal curves of the Canon sensor and processor were quite evident to me. Not to mention the better ergonomics and better lens portfolio. But despite all that, I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see the many advantages to the Canon cameras. I do not consider you ignorant because you fail to see that the short flange distance is only an advantage for wide angle lenses and is a definite disadvantage to lenses of longer focal lengths. You have chosen the tools that work best for you, I understand that. Why can't you understand that those of us choosing a Canon camera are doing the same.

I do not constrain the better sensor tech to Sony alone. Canon has one camera with what I consider to be a modern sensor - the 5D IV. So you do not have to take everything that Sony has as being better. That is not what I am trying to say.

I'll put it this way: No, I do not understand why anyone would want a new Canon camera (mirrorless in this discussion but any camera really) to have anything less than a 5D IV class sensor in 2018. That doesn't mean that if they make a camera with old tech that people will decide it fits their needs and buy it, but why not push for the best? Shouldn't the next generation of cameras have the best stuff in them?

By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.