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

Canon has market share advantage in ff and my guess is that they make their money now selling glass. This market is not growing so if it was me making a business decision of ff mirrorless I would want it to sell into my extensive base which means using exiting glass without an adapter. Futher, Canon is falling behinf Niken with its af for sports and bif (see a. morris reasons for switching
www.birdsasart-blog.com/2018/01/24/why-i-switched-from-canon-to-nikon/

So, Canon needs to have a reason for existing ff canon user to switch. First no afma is a big deal. Two the mirrorless af has to be equal to Nikon for fast moving objects and the af needs to be good in low light. They need to have a small light ff the size camera of say an sl2 size and a regular size one that is light. The controls need to be similar to existing high end eos so there is no learning curve for existing canon users. The camera needs to be priced so canon makes money but reflects the cost savings canon incurred with no mirror. It needs to be priced less than current models and certainly less than Nikon's ff when they announce one.

Overall, the new ff mirrorless camera needs to be such that existing canon eos users will "want" to buy one. That gives canon two streams of profit for existing ff users...a new camera plus lenses. This camera is just a way to try to extend the cash flow for eos cameras in a declining market and protect the sports and bif market from Nikon and for everyone else from the likes of Sony.

Bp
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.

Canon does it for the C700 - it costs 450 euro (labour only, without the mount, 1400 with a mount supplied).

This projects is doing it for a film SRL:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bringing-back-the-analogue-slr-camera

But its technology, tolerances, and aims look far below what someone would expect from a Canon camera, especially an high-end one... ;)
 
Upvote 0
unfocused said:
neuroanatomist said:
AvTvM said:
Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.

The only market segment that holds growth promise is full frame mirrorless? LOL.

Wait...what... you don't think $2,500+ camera bodies are the only growth market? :)

No, I'm quite sure they are...in the AvTvM Universe. But in there, the overall market is limited to one person.
 
Upvote 0
LDS said:
neuroanatomist said:
For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.

This projects is doing it:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bringing-back-the-analogue-slr-camera

But its technology, tolerances, and aims look far below what someone would expect from a Canon camera, especially an high-end one... ;)

464 backers. P.T. Barnum called it.

One of my favorite aspects of the design:

Reflex is the first analog camera to have both flash and continuous light source (LED) on board giving photographers the freedom to choose their preferred method of lighting. Both flash and LED have 3 intensities.

The LED actually has 4 intensities – high, meduim, low, and covered by hand. ::)
 

Attachments

  • Go Back to Design School.png
    Go Back to Design School.png
    184.2 KB · Views: 340
Upvote 0
Larsskv said:
infared said:
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.

My thought was that the first camera would give dedicated customers the benefits of shooting mirrorless with their existing lens quiver....and the second, perhaps smaller camera in my mind would be totally PRO too...with fast pro glass..a whole new top notch system that we could grow into...kind of like a heroin addict going on methadone... 8) ??? :P
 
Upvote 0
AvTvM said:
2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.

Professionals: why do professionals face tighter budges and have fewer earnings opportunities? What is your source for this?

I would submit that people who make their living primarily from photography can get the job done with their 5+ year old camera they still have around. In the context of their work-related assets/expenditures, the cost of a camera body is still very small.


About folks who don't want to spend more than $1,000: This thread is about full frame mirrorless, and the people with this budget should not buy a full frame camera of any sort, Canon, Sony, or otherwise.

You will spend more money on lenses and accessories, everything will be bigger, and you'll forever want things in the lineup that are ungodly expensive if you think that another thousand bucks in the hobby is more than you want to spend. What is the point of buying an A7RIII (which is way over that budget anyways), if you can't afford G-Master lenses?


I get it, you want everything packed into the "best" camera. The smallest size, the best optics, the best video, etc etc etc that can do it all... weddings, birds, studio, billboards, youtubes, whatever. I am different from you. I fundamentally believe that not every task is best served by the same tool, and that a pack-it-light camera body will not in my lifetime be the same device as a best-in-class sports/wildlife camera body. I do not mind owning a mirrorless with a set of mirrorless lenses, and a DSLR with a set of DSLR lenses, and a cinema camcorder with cinema lenses.

I don't think there is a "best" form factor, because the use case dictates what form factor to use. I don't want to shoulder a DSLR to take photos. I don't want to hold a tiny camera or use it on a gimbal for 5 hours. I don't want to pack a DSLR and 3 gigantic lenses when I'm travelling light.
 
Upvote 0
BillB said:
kurt765 said:
BillB said:
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.

We're talking about what we want in a future product. Do you want another 6D2 or would you rather get another 5D IV type sensor in the new product?

You have your Sony, I have my 5DIV, and I said that I don't think that a new Canon FF mirrorless is going to have a 6DII sensor in it. So what is the point of your question?

I also have a 5D IV. I think that sensor is the best one Canon has ever made, and that they should have that kind of sensor in a new mirrorless camera or any other camera they ever make going forward. You seem to agree, I guess, with your response, but you were accusing me of not understanding why anyone would buy another camera. I was saying I don't understand why anyone would not want a 5D IV type sensor in a new product compared to what they did with the 6D2, as an example. Get it? So we agree right?
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
464 backers. P.T. Barnum called it.

Still each one sent almost £300 - hope for them they get something... they don't really look interested in a mirrorless...

neuroanatomist said:
One of my favorite aspects of the design:
The LED actually has 4 intensities – high, meduim, low, and covered by hand. ::)

It's a "manual" camera, isn't it? :D

My favourite one is the lens mount slides in from the bottom - I don't want to think what happens to the lens if it doesn't stay in place...

Anyway for a project like this it's important to avoid to have to make lenses also, which are more complex than a camera body to build. I can't see any company with a big line-up like Canon feeling the need to support other lenses, it won't be a strong selling point but maybe for around 464 photographers.

Different story in video cameras where being able to switch to PL mount can be seen as plus - but the way a lens is used for stills and video is quite different.
 
Upvote 0
kurt765 said:
BillB said:
kurt765 said:
BillB said:
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.

We're talking about what we want in a future product. Do you want another 6D2 or would you rather get another 5D IV type sensor in the new product?

You have your Sony, I have my 5DIV, and I said that I don't think that a new Canon FF mirrorless is going to have a 6DII sensor in it. So what is the point of your question?

I also have a 5D IV. I think that sensor is the best one Canon has ever made, and that they should have that kind of sensor in a new mirrorless camera or any other camera they ever make going forward. You seem to agree, I guess, with your response, but you were accusing me of not understanding why anyone would buy another camera. I was saying I don't understand why anyone would not want a 5D IV type sensor in a new product compared to what they did with the 6D2, as an example. Get it? So we agree right?

Sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. I didn't intend to accuse you of anything, and likely misunderstood what you said you couldn't understand. Basically, the only reason I can think of for preferring a camera with the 6DII sensor would be price. The 6DII costs less than $2000, and I can't think of any camera with a 5DIV class sensor that can be had for that price new. So yes, I agree with you about the 5DIV sensor being preferable to the 6DII sensor.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
dsut4392 said:
1) _all else being equal_,

_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.

Neuro, I usually respect a lot of what you post, but on this thread you seem to be deliberately combative and obtuse.
None of my "all else being equal" questions related to anything that was beyond the realms of Canon's current technical capability, nor were any of them mutually exclusive. The only thing that those decision points affect is market positioning/segmentation.

As historical market share numbers evidence, Canon has a history of usually doing well at the market positioning, but as they say in the finance industry, "past performance is not indicative of future results". The market share numbers also only reflect Canon's pewrformance against it's actual competitors, and say nothing about how much better or worse Canon might have done had they built different cameras.
 
Upvote 0
dsut4392 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dsut4392 said:
1) _all else being equal_,

_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.

Neuro, I usually respect a lot of what you post, but on this thread you seem to be deliberately combative and obtuse.
None of my "all else being equal" questions related to anything that was beyond the realms of Canon's current technical capability, nor were any of them mutually exclusive. The only thing that those decision points affect is market positioning/segmentation.

As historical market share numbers evidence, Canon has a history of usually doing well at the market positioning, but as they say in the finance industry, "past performance is not indicative of future results". The market share numbers also only reflect Canon's pewrformance against it's actual competitors, and say nothing about how much better or worse Canon might have done had they built different cameras.

His point, though is that rarely, if ever, does "all else being equal" apply.

I mean, it's like saying if a 5D3 and an 5D4 were the same price, which would you prefer? But they're not the same price, so the question doesn't make sense.

You can't have more DR without sacrificing something (like budget or brand or mount)

You can't have a size reduction without sacrificing something (like a size gain somewhere else, ergonomics, whatever).

etc.

Life is full of compromises and camera gear is no different. It's a jigsaw puzzle of what you want, rarely with one "this is perfect" entry. Usually, some grass on the other side is greener, and some looks like rot. But in fact, I would submit that most photographs that are amazing could have been taken with technology several generations old.

Most of it is marketing wizardry, to convince you of the whole "if all else were equal" thing -- like "if you could have everything in your A7RII but better, wouldn't that be great?" except, it hits you in the pocket book, and for most people, their pictures in their A7RIII aren't going to be a whole lot different than the ones that came out of their A7RII. Likewise, if you can't take amazing photos with a 5DR3, don't expect it out of your 5DR4, or any other camera. That's not to say they're not happy with their purchase and aren't happy to forking out the cash, of course -- this is all part of the wizardry :) :)
 
Upvote 0
Talys said:
dsut4392 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dsut4392 said:
1) _all else being equal_,

_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.

Neuro, I usually respect a lot of what you post, but on this thread you seem to be deliberately combative and obtuse.
None of my "all else being equal" questions related to anything that was beyond the realms of Canon's current technical capability, nor were any of them mutually exclusive. The only thing that those decision points affect is market positioning/segmentation.

As historical market share numbers evidence, Canon has a history of usually doing well at the market positioning, but as they say in the finance industry, "past performance is not indicative of future results". The market share numbers also only reflect Canon's pewrformance against it's actual competitors, and say nothing about how much better or worse Canon might have done had they built different cameras.

His point, though is that rarely, if ever, does "all else being equal" apply.

I mean, it's like saying if a 5D3 and an 5D4 were the same price, which would you prefer? But they're not the same price, so the question doesn't make sense.

Exactly. Even if the options presented are technically feasible, they're not available. We could play the 'what if' game all day long, and be right where we started.

But sometimes it's fun...

1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?

More, of course. Who wouldn't? But what if it costs an extra $200. Or means switching to a brand without the lenses I want. Or the electronic implementation that allows more DR at low ISO results in comparatively more noise and less DR at high ISO? Nothing in life is free...


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]?

I don't want my camera any smaller, and not significantly lighter, than my 1D X. Not the answer you were expecting, perhaps. I use f/2.8 zooms frequently, and I've tried smaller cameras – the balance is poor, and my hand hurts after a short period of use. I can use my 1D X and a 70-200/2.8 all day with no issues. As for a grip, there is always some flex between grip and body, and that flex leads to vibration when mounting on a tripod, because the connection point is the grip. So a grip is really not an optimal solution, removing and replacing it to use a tripod is a royal PITA.


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].

Using any lens would be great, but I'd rather not use an adapter...and as long as the native mount has a lens selection that meets my needs, the native mount is preferable to an adapter. Interesting that you mention Roger's article on the sensor stack effects...did you also read his article from about a year earlier on the physical problems that can result degraded optical performance? It was entitled, "There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters." THe data are from his optical bench, so the sensor stack is irrelevant.

[quote author=Roger Cicala]
So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.
[/quote]

'There is no free lunch' is just another way of saying that all else is not equal.


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?

Sure, as long as the optical quality is maintained. But would it be? And if so, would the cost be the same?

So, we're back where we started. If all else was equal...but it's not. Like me ol' Irish Da told me, wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.
 
Upvote 0
Talys said:
dsut4392 said:
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.

#1 & 2 agree, obviously.

Re your #3, I actually had another point "_all else being equal_ as long as it has an EF mount you could build it out of brie cheese and I don't care" :) I took it out as I didn't want to flame bait, but as you've raised the issue would you mind giving a reason other than "I just don wanna!". You do realise that there is no reason Canon couldn't implement exactly the same AF algorithms as in EF mount, so your EF lenses would perform exactly how they do now? Adapters sucked on Sony because they couldn't nail focus due to reverse engineered AF, and sucked on EOS-M because the body didn't offer enough power. Why assume Canon couldn't make it work?

Re #4, why do you insist 'all things aren't being equal?' Sony has compact lightweight lenses with optical compromises to suit the travel end, and honking big G-Master lenses for the "I must have the best possible IQ" crowd. They mount on the same body. Shorten the flange distance and you can keep your red rings and big whites (on an adapter), and buy some new compact designs when Canon drops the price (because we all know Sigma, Tamron and Tokina will get on board with lenses optimised for short flange once the market leader does).

Re #5 I haven't killed a dslr yet (not even a rebel) despite using them in some fairly challenging places covering the summit of Mt Kenya, behind Icelandic waterfalls, back-country snow camping, tropical downpours at Angkor Wat, the Sahara desert in mid-summer and many places in between. I treat my cameras as a tool, and don't baby them. That said, I'm not a pro, so I get to towel it off and put it away rather than having to keep shooting as the rain pours. Weather sealing is nice-to-have but not a drop-dead requirement for me.

#6 Agree.

#7 I don't shoot much video, but don't think this will fly for marketing reasons, nor does it make much sense from a design point of view. Depending on resolution, downsampling vs crop, codec choices etc canon may need to improve their digic chip, but once you have live view and a fast memory pipeline (which you need for high frame rate stills shooting anyway), implementing video is mostly a software thing. Canon already have the guts of pro-level software from their C-line, or could re-use the code from 5D4 for virtually no cost. At this point it's probably cheaper for both development and production to include video than omit it.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
Talys said:
dsut4392 said:
neuroanatomist said:
dsut4392 said:
1) _all else being equal_,

_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.

Neuro, I usually respect a lot of what you post, but on this thread you seem to be deliberately combative and obtuse.
None of my "all else being equal" questions related to anything that was beyond the realms of Canon's current technical capability, nor were any of them mutually exclusive. The only thing that those decision points affect is market positioning/segmentation.

As historical market share numbers evidence, Canon has a history of usually doing well at the market positioning, but as they say in the finance industry, "past performance is not indicative of future results". The market share numbers also only reflect Canon's pewrformance against it's actual competitors, and say nothing about how much better or worse Canon might have done had they built different cameras.

His point, though is that rarely, if ever, does "all else being equal" apply.

I mean, it's like saying if a 5D3 and an 5D4 were the same price, which would you prefer? But they're not the same price, so the question doesn't make sense.

Exactly. Even if the options presented are technically feasible, they're not available. We could play the 'what if' game all day long, and be right where we started.

But sometimes it's fun...

1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?

More, of course. Who wouldn't? But what if it costs an extra $200. Or means switching to a brand without the lenses I want. Or the electronic implementation that allows more DR at low ISO results in comparatively more noise and less DR at high ISO? Nothing in life is free...


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]?

I don't want my camera any smaller, and not significantly lighter, than my 1D X. Not the answer you were expecting, perhaps. I use f/2.8 zooms frequently, and I've tried smaller cameras – the balance is poor, and my hand hurts after a short period of use. I can use my 1D X and a 70-200/2.8 all day with no issues. As for a grip, there is always some flex between grip and body, and that flex leads to vibration when mounting on a tripod, because the connection point is the grip. So a grip is really not an optimal solution, removing and replacing it to use a tripod is a royal PITA.


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].

Using any lens would be great, but I'd rather not use an adapter...and as long as the native mount has a lens selection that meets my needs, the native mount is preferable to an adapter. Interesting that you mention Roger's article on the sensor stack effects...did you also read his article from about a year earlier on the physical problems that can result degraded optical performance? It was entitled, "There Is No Free Lunch, Episode 763: Lens Adapters." THe data are from his optical bench, so the sensor stack is irrelevant.

[quote author=Roger Cicala]
So when I hear people cavalierly talking about putting an adapter on their camera I tend to cringe. When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems.

'There is no free lunch' is just another way of saying that all else is not equal.


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?

Sure, as long as the optical quality is maintained. But would it be? And if so, would the cost be the same?

So, we're back where we started. If all else was equal...but it's not. Like me ol' Irish Da told me, wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.
[/quote]

You have a bunch of valid points, but they're all based on the assumption that the status quo is the only compromise that makes sense. And you argue with a straight face that some alternative compromises "might be technically feasible but aren't available", in a thread talking about a hypothetical camera that isn't available. Circular argument much?

- I would have bought a 6D2 that cost $200 more and had the 5D4 sensor, but I'm never buying the one they built, and never buying a 5D4. Canon killed the replacement/upgrade path for many 6D owners with the sensor decision they made.
- I'm not representative of every customer, but I'm not alone. I shoot mainly travel and backcountry adventure, as do most of my friends, and none of them want a 1D size (or even 5D size) body. Even if the lenses stay the same size, 200g less weight in my camera is almost an extra day's food I can carry. For someone who wants a big body, why bother going mirrorless? There's nothing a mirrorless body can do that couldn't be done in an SLR with the mirror locked up - the features people like about mirrorless don't magically disappear if you add a mirror in front. Why not ask for a camera with the best of both worlds? Selling something on the _absence_ of a feature is the classic 'Emperor's new clothes'.
-I read most of what Roger posts, but either missed or had forgotten that post.
-The 'top quality lens' and the 'compact lens' could be but don't have to be one and the same. Like you say, the situation dictates the compromise.

For all that argument, a loathing of EVFs is the main thing that's held me back from going the Sony route, and there is no objective reason to think a Canon EVF would be significantly nicer.
 
Upvote 0
I think that sensor tech can always improve but really I am cool with what I have with 6D. what I am craving for are:
  • Amazing focus that goes closer to the edge of the sensor and can see in the dark. I still have trouble in focus and recompose sometimes when the subject moves even a bit or my technique is off.
  • HUGE bright EVF or OVF {DONT CARE FOR THE SCREEN ON THE BACK}. this is what makes the experience of photography immersive for me; the moment when something clicks in focus.
  • Sensor stabilisation. I can use lighter lenses if i have this.
  • if an adaptor is needed then its just a cheap dumb contact extender and the lenses focus as well as they do in dslr. don't want another piece of glass messing with the image.
  • small i.e. more portable.
  • tilt screen
 
Upvote 0
Sorry, late to the party, but I may as well chip in.

kurt765 said:
Orangutan said:
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.

You realise how arrogant this makes you sound? Everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? Please.

kurt765 said:
Orangutan said:
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.

You mentioned objectivity earlier. While there can be objectively more or less of something, there cannot ever be objectively better or worse anything, because those are value judgments. Some people want lower resolution, some higher. While most people would prefer more DR, some people prefer images with higher contrast and therefore lower DR in the final image. I repeat: 'better' is not objective, and you are betraying your personal preferences by using it in this way.
 
Upvote 0
AvTvM said:
always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
* what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
* Canon knows everything better, no make that "best". ... as proven by sales, market-share, profits ...
* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ... thinly disguised as "sarcasm"

So lets just state the facts ... and see how they react [patterns #1-3 above sure to come!]

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.

3. objective fact: Canon EF-mount has been fantastic [arguably best in industry] for DSLRs, but is technically not the best and not even a "good" solution for mirrorless cameras

What follows? Best success to be had with a small & lite [= new, short FFD mount of course], yet decently capable mirrorless FF cam - 1 step above EOS M5, not 3 steps above. Something around "6D II class" performance. Priced maybe 1499 body ... 1999 with decent kit zoom [eg EF-X 24-85/4 IS STM]. Plus a range of compact lenses [moderately fast primes and f/4 zooms plus unavoidable f/5.6 consumer zooms] ... that don't all cost 1k/2k/3k per unit.

High-end? Yes too, but in overall picture really for bragging rights [Marketing] only.

You can hardly call people out on being biased or ignoring facts. Or you can, but it makes you an arch hypocrite.

Your facts... well, I think the majority of the market has always wanted something fairly small and light, but above all cheap - but as others have mentioned above, that generally precludes full frame digital cameras. Clearly there are still enough buyers wanting other things for it to be worth the while of Canon - and Nikon, Tamron, Sigma, etc - to produce big, heavy lenses and bodies that offer long focal length, extreme robustness, etc. As for EF - well, what is it about mirrorless that means EF is best replaced? I've read all these interminable arguments on this thread and many others, but nobody seems to have unequivocal evidence that mirrorless bodies mandate lens mounts that offer anything special other than maybe slightly smaller and lighter lenses in a restrictive range of focal lengths - and even then, some argue that it is mostly down to most mirrorless bodies until now having had smaller than FF sensors.

You are ignoring the original issue: what does *full frame* mirrorless have to offer for it to be a success? FF DSLRs could be smaller - they are not, not because of the mirror, but because of the ergonomics of full frame lenses. You are so caught up in your own desires, you ignore that many lenses (and the preference of users who specialise in the areas that those lenses are for) will never be much smaller, so for those people, a small body is not only not a priority, but a bad move.

AvTvM said:
A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.

Well plenty of good reasons have been presented on both sides. You're ignoring the pro-EF side. Be biased and blinkered if you want, but don't pretend you're not. Once again, can you clearly state what the 'benefits of a short-flanged new mount' are, besides smaller size <80mm focal length?
 
Upvote 0