# Canon mirrorless: Status?



## canonvoir (Aug 18, 2014)

Is Canon working on another mirrorless camera to replace the M2 (even though the US doesn't officially have it)? The hybrid sensor in the M2 that had better high ISO capability and a good EVF would be enough.


----------



## Bob Howland (Aug 18, 2014)

Nobody knows or, at least, is talking about it.


----------



## e17paul (Aug 18, 2014)

canonvoir said:


> Is Canon working on another mirrorless camera to replace the M2 (even though the US doesn't officially have it)? The hybrid sensor in the M2 that had better high ISO capability and a good EVF would be enough.



If they don't then Rebel series cameras will become the bulky alternative to Fuji/Sony/Olympus/etc. The separate EVF for the G1X II shows that they have another ingredient in place for future mirrorless models. It reminds me of the messing around with autofocus before Eos was launched in 1987.

It will happen, it's just a question of when.


----------



## canonvoir (Aug 18, 2014)

I am giving the a7s a very serious look. I have accepted that no mirrorless will work for sports at the moment nor would I want to switch systems where there are limited lens selection. But for vacations, landscape, it could be a fun endeavor to play with and low light night photos are the ones I take the most of.

I was really hoping Canon would step up with something. My original M is ok for a day camera but that is about it and by ok I mean I have accepted the slow AF.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Aug 18, 2014)

yes at this stage one of life's great mysteries seems to be Canon's future plans re product releases...nobody really knows whats potting...so wait and see


----------



## jebrady03 (Aug 18, 2014)

All of the pieces of the puzzle are there. Besides the existing tech and lenses, there's:

Additional lens patents - obviously they won't all show up but Canon is still working on things...

DPAF from the 70D

EVF-DC1 - the EVF from the G1X II

Hinged touchscreen from the G1X II

I think it would be a HUGE mistake not to put those pieces of the puzzle together for consumers to purchase. The EOS M form factor, the 20mp DPAF sensor, an optional (or perhaps integrated) EVF, a hinged touchscreen (I think an articulated TS like on the 70D would be a mistake and would increase the size too much), a fantastic converter for using EF/EF-S lenses, and the now 4 native Canon M lenses covering from 11-200mm (17-320 in FF) with stabilized high quality glass plus a fast wide-ish/normal prime. IMO, all they need are a few primes (30 or 35 and 50) and it's a complete system for the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of users.

Now, I think the biggest question is whether the focusing speed of the system is related more to the lenses, or the sensor. My 35mm f/2 IS USM focuses pretty quickly on the EOS M, it's definitely faster than the native 22/2. To me, that means the limitation in that equation (M + 22) is NOT the camera, it's the lens' focusing motor. DPAF won't cure that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 18, 2014)

You only need to look at the public sales figures for mirrorless cameras to see why Canon is not pushing one. Sales are poor and dropping rapidly. Canon and Nikon executives have admitted this, and the sales figures bear it out. We do not know other than statements made saying that buyers in the US and Europe prefer DSLR's to Mirrorless, buyers see mirrorless as just another point and shoot. 

Manufacturers who produce products that don't sell are going to be in big trouble. There are some that produce a relatively few cameras for high prices to serve the niche market.

Sony sales of Digital cameras are plummeting like everyone else, they do not give information about specific types, but point and shoot cameras are certainly the biggest part of the drop. Their push for mirrorless cameras provides buyers with options, but don't forget... Sony drops divisions that are losing money and leaves buyers stranded. No more Sony PC's or Laptops, they exited that business. Sellers still have them in inventory, but Sony wrote them off.

With the Camera business hurting, they might be next.

Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.

Canon is doing relatively well due to strong sales in industrial segments, they were stung severely by the poor "M" sales, they will not send good money after bad.


----------



## canonvoir (Aug 18, 2014)

The Youtube videos of the M2 show that the sensor went a looooong way in speeding up AF. Probably a bit of both the lens and sensor working on the speed. Doesn't have to give me 11 fps in continuous focus, just not hunt forever for focus in low light/indoor.

As far as sales go, I am going to suggest that mirrorless for Nikon and Canon may be slumping but Panasonic and Sony are killing it. Global sales of mirrorless are up. *http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/02/mirrorless-camera-sales-rising-despite-continually-shrinking-global-camera* It is here in North America where adoption is slow or has slowed a lot. 

Can you blame us? Canon's first release of a piss poor implementation of such a camera would stunt growth all day long. Who operated the M and said, "We are good. Ship it. That AF will get better over time."? I won't rehash the issues but no tethered shooting is  .

Would be nice to have a smaller body camera that doesn't advertise "mug me for my gear" a lot of times.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

e17paul said:


> canonvoir said:
> 
> 
> > Is Canon working on another mirrorless camera to replace the M2 (even though the US doesn't officially have it)? The hybrid sensor in the M2 that had better high ISO capability and a good EVF would be enough.
> ...



Yeah, I was stunned to see Canon's first ever consumer EVF head to a high end point and shoot line like the G1X II and not be offered for the EOS-M.

I don't believe mirrorless is such a certain and imminent part of our future that Canon and Nikon will be overrun by it someday (as pundits at many photo blogs would believe), but both have tremendously underwhelmed with their mirrorless offerings to date.

Canon has to decide if they want to risk cannibalizing SLR sales and offer a more comprehensive mirrorless system. So far, the answer has been a resounding 'No'. They still lack:


An EVF
Native EF-M mount lenses
High quality lenses with USM (no, on an adapter does not count)

Until those things are offered, EOS-M will only be a second/third body for people with tons of Canon glass or a first body for people who don't know how much better their other options are.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

canonvoir said:


> Would be nice to have a smaller body camera...



*...without needing an adapter.* Adapters are a bridge to EF/EF-S glass until more EF-M lenses are made. But buying an EOS-M and then slapping an adaptor on it is a fail. The killer app for this system is size, and when you bolt the old mirror box distance back on, what's the point?

Small EF-M high quality primes with USM, an EVF, and DPAF would make this go from a no way to a no brainer for me. I don't need L primes --> just make them as good as the recent non-L IS USM lenses we've seen recently. I'd be ecstatic with that in a small EF-M form factor.

But the minute it looks like this (see attached), I'll stay with my proper SLR.

- A


----------



## canonvoir (Aug 18, 2014)

I use the M lenses. So the point is I want a smaller body and package. Having an adapter has its advantages. The M is currently a C sensor so I get a nice 1.6x multiplier. But the main use of my M is done in daylight. Higher ISO ability means Canon can stick with f/4 glass and not resort to larger lenses. I am all about a smaller package. 

I won't be sticking on my 300 2.8 unless I need that reach in the day time on something that is not moving. ;-)


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

Canon hopefully have learned their lesson. Do NOT bring sub-par specced gear (EOS-M) to market, asking WAY TOO HIGH PRICES for it (EOS-M). 

I definitely expect an 
* EOS M3
body size like EOS-M2, AF as good as Sony A6000/5100, sensor equal, Wifi built in, flash built-in priced competitively [i.e. around USD/€ 650 including EF-M 18-55] 
plus additionally 
* a much better specced EOS M "Pro 1" 
with kick-butt 7D II sensor, mirrorless class-leading DP-AF, fully articulated touch-screen 1920x1080 Full-HD res, WiFI, GPS and RT-Commander built in; 4k video like pany GH4, body size slightly smaller than Fuji XT-1, 1 thumb/select wheel in back, plus 1 dial close to shutter, priced competitively at around USD/€ 1299,- 
any time soon. 


Followed somewhat later by the announcement of the Canon FF EOS XL1" and "XL 3" mirroless cams plus new short-back lens mount Canon EF-XL and initial native lens selection of 24-70/4.0 plus pancake set of 20/2.8, 50/1.8 and 75/2.8. 8) 8) 8)

Guess, which one I will pre-order!


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> But buying an EOS-M and then slapping an adaptor on it is a fail. The killer app for this system is size, and when you bolt the old mirror box distance back on, what's the point?



The point is very simple. I want ONE fully capable camera system only. ONE battery type, ONE charger. ONE lens mount. ONE user interface to learn and know by heart and blindfolded. 

Whenever possible, I like to go really small and light. Small and light camera body plus one or a few small + light native short-flangeback lenses. I am willing to limit myself to and including 200mm on APS-C [witness the EF-M 55-200] or about 85mm focal length on FF.

Only ocassionally my shooting situations will require larger gear. Either studio (lights) or events in darkish places (speedlites plus fast glass), or a "longish tele" [in my case max. 400mm] or a Tilt-Shift or some other more "special" lens (fisheye 8-15, 100 Macro etc.],

In many of these shooting situations - especially with larger lenses) I also carry along and use a tripod and have my DSRLs in LiveView mode. So I do not use or need any of the mirror or OVF. I would be much better served by a small and light mirrorless camera. Especially if it had a fully electronic shutter without any vibrations and any noise. Plus EVF. E.g. for use at concerts (classical music).

I have no need whatsoever for a mirrorslappin' DSLR ... IF and when I get a fully capable (FF-sensored, 6fps, tracking AF as good as or better than Sony A6000 Fuji XT-1) small and light mirrorless camera. I'd be willing to bridge the time until then with a really good Canon EOS M3 ("Pro") with APS-C sensor.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.



Sorry, what do you consider "junk levels?" There is no such thing as "junk stock" and if there were such a thing, a stock with a 590.7 billion dollar market cap and a 12.5 P/E ratio would certainly not be one of them. Nikon is nowhere near its lowest stock price. Just because its stock has been on a slow steady marginal decline for a few month does not mean that Nikon is in any kind of long-term trouble.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately. Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions. They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities. Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.

I also do not understand why folks want _reach_ for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost. Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with. In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps. Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.

I think mirrorless ought to be well served from, say, FF equiv 24mm to about 85mm and stop there. Who wants to hold a pickle jar of a lens with a body as big of a deck of cards?

This also might serve as a way Canon could nerf (make less appealing) the EOS-M _in an intelligent way_ to protect SLR sales. Rather than withhold vitally needed tools (like a viewfinder) or cripple the performance (the AF), just limit the focal length options. Think of this sales pitch instead of what we have now: "EOS-M will give you stellar shots with all the viewfinder comforts and knobs and switches you love and great AF performance, _but only from 24-85mm FF equivalent._ If you want an ultrawide or a tele, please see our terrific line of EF-S and EF mount cameras."

But if you want Canon/Nikon to evolve *all* their hardware -- lenses, bodies, flashes, etc. -- into the smaller format, give up now. Won't happen for years and years. Again, consider a company like Sony/Fuji/m43 who is actively trying to build up _their_ mounts with more options. You'll find more joy there.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

Nothing can stop mirrorless. Only open question is how fast it's goint to happen. Some DSLRs will be avalaible for a long time, similar to MF cameras todays and vinyl records. 

It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect" DSLR sales by NOT offering the most attractive possible mirrorless camera systems. Economies are much better for mirrorless bodies. They can be produced quite a bit cheaper than correspondingly featured DSLRs [due to lack of mechanical elements needing very careful alignment and adjustment] .. but can be sold at rather similar prices. For that reason alone mirrorless will succeed. 

If Canon does not start to offer these soon and "in earnest", they will loose out. Including FF (135 format) sensors and lenses. No matter what their analysts may say. Others will offer these cameras and there will be market share losses. 

Yes, a 70-200/2.8 will always be a fairly sizeable lens. But most amateurs and pro's do not NEED a 70-200/2.8 ALL THE TIME. When more than 300mm focal length are used - especially with a fast tele lens, it is more often than not used on a tripod/gimbal or on a monopod. A small camera body will not hurt handling then ... all that's reuqired is to shift the lens-camera combination a bit backwards on the Arca plate attached to the lens collar foot to get it nicely into balance on the pivot point.


----------



## canonvoir (Aug 18, 2014)

I agree with this statement 100%. When long focal lengths are required you will see everyone grab their DSLR for the foreseeable future. Producing 300 2.8 + type lenses is so specialized I doubt Canon/Nikon make any real margin on those products. 

You want to be where the masses are. You need more affordable options for the economy of today. You need higher ISO performance to take advantage of f/4 glass instead of 2.8/2/etc. to reduce cost to consumers and get them in on your lenses. It is not only coming, mirrorless is here and Sony is hitting it hard. I am just deciding between the a6000 and a7s to tide me over until next year when things get real serious for mirrorless FF Sony cameras. I am going to try and wait for Photokina announcements but you know how us camera guys are about the opportunity for new gear. In the meantime, I have my first two Sony Zeiss lenses picked out and ready to order. 

Be ahead of the curve. Canon is so far behind I am not sure wtf they have been doing. I still can't believe we are left with an M in North America after all this time. One would surely realize the shortcomings of the M and fix them to pick up better sales. 





AvTvM said:


> Nothing can stop mirrorless. Only open question is how fast it's goint to happen. Some DSLRs will be avalaible for a long time, similar to MF cameras todays and vinyl records.
> 
> It makes no sense whatsoever to "protect" DSLR sales by NOT offering the most attractive possible mirrorless camera systems. Economies are much better for mirrorless bodies. They can be produced quite a bit cheaper than correspondingly featured DSLRs [due to lack of mechanical elements needing very careful alignment and adjustment] .. but can be sold at rather similar prices. For that reason alone mirrorless will succeed.
> 
> ...


----------



## zlatko (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I also do not understand why folks want _reach_ for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period.



I like the option of reach — I'd be very happy to see mirrorless shrink some big lenses. A 70-200/2.8 is a bear to carry (3.28 pounds!), not to mention even larger telephotos. By comparison, a Panasonic 35-100/2.8 weighs just 13 ounces and provides the same reach. Similarly, an Olympus 75/1.8 is tiny when compared with a Canon 135/2, thought they provide about the same reach. 

Canon could build some smallish lenses for a new generation of Eos M (with EVF and fast autofocus), like a 45-135mm/2.8 IS. Fuji is going to introduce a 50-140mm/2.8 lens for their X cameras, which is basically the same idea.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 18, 2014)

Eagle Eye said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon stock is rapidly approaching junk levels, they don't have as many other divisions that can prop them up.
> ...



As an investor, I'd say that any stock that is at only 90% of its original first-day opening price fifteen years later is a junk stock. I mean, if you played the market right, you could make money on Nikon stock by buying and selling at the right times, but as a long-term investment, a stock that isn't growing and pays minimal dividends is basically worthless.

By my back-of-the-napkin math, assuming the list of dividends is complete and accurate, if you bought a share of Nikon stock when it was first listed on the market fifteen years ago, you'd have seen an average annual growth (including dividends, but not including interest on those dividends) of about a third of a percent. If you don't include the dividends in the math, you'd have lost about 10% of your wealth. You'd just about do as well to stick the money in a savings account, or even under your mattress.

This is not saying that Nikon is in trouble, mind you—there's no reason to believe that they can't continue for a long time at these levels—but as a stock, they seem pretty uninteresting.


----------



## infared (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately. Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions. They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities. Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.
> 
> I also do not understand why folks want _reach_ for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost. Sure, it will pack in a bag far more efficiently when you take the lens off -- and I see a lot of folks rave about how small it truly packs down to -- but I always have a lens on my camera, so that awkward 'T-shape' of camera plus lens will still be a pain to deal with. In my mind, Canon should cap mirrorless to a FF equivalent of 85mm perhaps. Otherwise you get something like this (see attached) and I have no idea why on earth you'd do that without the bigger body as a counterweight and grip to properly wield that thing.
> 
> ...



That's what I did...I have two MFT cameras that complement my 5DIII.
I have two "full" kits...and let me say that my MFT kit is more than adequate for a LOT of my photography. It is high quality and a pleasure to use. It is too bad that Canon does not pursue this wonderful compact solution to photography in any really meaningful way. They could lead the pack. "To me" the M is not much of a camera.
..but I know that everyone does not feel that way..and that's ok.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 18, 2014)

Different cultures think in different ways. Americans are into *BIGGER is BETTER*. Asians seem to like *Hello Kitty*.

I like small cameras with prime lenses because they are inconspicuous. Many Very Serious Photo Enthusiasts like Full Frame Pro Bodies with 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses because they scream *"Hey look at me!!!"*

I like prime lenses between 14mmFF/28mmFF and 85mmFF/135mmFF. I don't have any need for 35mmFF to 60mmFF, they don't fit my shooting style. YMMV. What does suite my shooting style is *close-focusing*. An 85mm f/1.8 on a xxD (= 135mm FF) doesn't focus close enough for me. I'm much better served by an Olympus 75mm f/1.8 on a M4/3 camera (= 150mmFF).

As the world changes, different tools go into/out-of style. Will Canon pick the right tool or the wrong tool ???


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

If the #1 reason Canon isn't going all-in on mirrorless is to protect SLR (and EF lens) sales, the #2 reason has got to be the lack of clear market segmentation. _In this thread alone_, people have asked for different things:


People who want a compact 2nd body that works with their Canon EF/EF-S glass.
People who want a small set of high quality primes.
People who want a discreet camera system, usually for shooting street or photojournalism
People who want a simple, smaller sized camera system
People want _everything in the SLR market_ run shrunk down to mirrorless proportions

And people on other threads want something stylish or retro looking, have a hybrid VF, a grip, 87 color choices, etc.

And we wonder why Canon hasn't waded into this soup... : We should not be surprised EOS-M is half-baked at this point.

Consider: it's possible that Canon has put the following logic together... 

_'Mirrorless actually *is* the future, but specifically *what that future's market will be* is all over the place right now. It's best to let Sony/Fuji/m43 wade through the aforementioned buzzsaw of different users and different expectations, try and fail a bunch of times, until which time the market has clearly settled. *Then* we'll come in and roundly and thoroughly support that market with 2-3 dead on-target bodies and a proper lineup of lenses. We, Canon the almighty, *believe that the market will solidify into something we can divide and conquer faster than we will lose an unacceptable level of our core professional customers*. We might be wrong, we may lose the farm on this math, but it's the math we're sticking with.'_

This very well may be where they are. But as a stubborn SLR guy who is admittedly intrigued with mirrorless, I hope they don't take too long to pick something and get on with more native (EF-M) lens offerings.

- A


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 18, 2014)

another topic with several predictable replies. This one is fun though because AVTVMland is much more happy and blissful than dilbertland. 



AvTvM said:


> Canon hopefully have learned their lesson. Do NOT bring sub-par specced gear (EOS-M) to market, asking WAY TOO HIGH PRICES for it (EOS-M).
> 
> I definitely expect an
> * EOS M3
> ...



I still think the biggest problem of mirrorless is that it lacks any kind of real identity. It wants to be small and compact but those that have the $$$ to plunk down for it also want the IQ and speed you get in a standard body - for that you need a few more years because they R&D guys are faced with the problem of having all these great optical formula's that they have to reinvent in order to size it down to 'mirrorless size.' 

IMO, mirrorless only really takes off when EVF tech gets substantially better and can be placed in a standard FF body (same size as 5d, 6d, and 1dx) - FF mirrorless in a pro sized body with a native EF mount = no compromising on glass. 

right now the benefits of mirrorless aren't enough to the compromises one must make in glass and functionality (AF, EVF, FPS)


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2014)

from

www.mirrorlessrumors.com/cipa-data-mirrorless-cameras-shipment-growing-dslr-falling-even-in-us-and-eu


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm probably in the minority here, but I think everyone who wants a soup-to-nuts 'yes, we offer that' in mirrorless would be wiser to leave Canon/Nikon immediately. Fuji, Sony and the m43 gang will far, far better support your ambitions. They have multiple mirrorless body price points and all sorts of tiers of tiny/average/big sensors and cheap/okay/semi-pro build qualities. Plus, they have a ton more lenses that are native to the mount than with EF-M.
> 
> I also do not understand why folks want _reach_ for these microscopic bodies. I might be way off here, but mirrorless needs to be small. Period. The minute the camera gets above length X with lens attached -- let's say 6-8" -- I think the upside of that tiny body is lost...
> 
> ...



I kind of agree with this. Since any mirrorless is going to require a new lens system regardless of whether you stay with Canon or Nikon or go with some other brand, I don't get all the angst over Canon not rushing into this market.

Honestly, if I were dying for a mirrorless I would buy a Fuji. (Mostly because they are cool.) But, I also have never gotten why a mirrorless camera needs to have interchangeable lenses. As "A" says, the usable range for mirrorless is about 24-85 (I might suggest it could be a little longer, but not a lot -- maybe to 110mm or so)

If Fuji were to come out with a fixed lens zoom in that range or if Canon would improve a little on the G1X, I really think those would be better options.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I still think the biggest problem of mirrorless is that it lacks any kind of real identity. It wants to be small and compact but those that have the $$$ to plunk down for it also want the IQ and speed you get in a standard body - for that you need a few more years because they R&D guys are faced with the problem of having all these great optical formula's that they have to reinvent in order to size it down to 'mirrorless size.'



+1. The mirrorless market is a zoo right now. A thousand options that are partially being served by the various manufacturers = a hazy, risky investment for Canon and Nikon.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> IMO, mirrorless only really takes off when EVF tech gets substantially better and can be placed in a standard FF body (same size as 5d, 6d, and 1dx) - FF mirrorless in a pro sized body with a native EF mount = no compromising on glass.



-1 on that one (at least for me). FF mirrorless with an EF mount would be massive. Isn't the point of mirrorless to remove the mirror-box and skinny up all that thickness? 

I think you need a new mount based on the need to thin things up, which means you need (a) all new lenses or (b) a combination of new lenses and EF/EF-S lenses on an adaptor. Canon clearly has chosen the latter.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Honestly, if I were dying for a mirrorless I would buy a Fuji. (Mostly because they are cool.) But, I also have never gotten why a mirrorless camera needs to have interchangeable lenses. As "A" says, the usable range for mirrorless is about 24-85 (I might suggest it could be a little longer, but not a lot -- maybe to 110mm or so)
> 
> If Fuji were to come out with a fixed lens zoom in that range or if Canon would improve a little on the G1X, I really think those would be better options.



I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often. Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II. Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...

I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term. Just guessing, though.

- A


----------



## Aglet (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often. Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II. Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...
> 
> I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term. Just guessing, though.
> 
> - A



...and there's that great new Panasonic too.
But I think you've nailed it, it's more about profit than making the best possible all-in-one that would meet the needs of 95% of people, 95% of the time.
Build such an ideal camera and you'll only sell a lot of them until you saturate the market, then you'll be out of customers and unable to sustain a robust operation.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often. Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II. Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...
> 
> I think the reason why is manufacturers want lens pullthrough dollars, so the added cost / hassle of making it modular in as many body designs as possible is more profitable in the longer term. Just guessing, though.



You may be right about all that, though it's perhaps ironic that for some (doubtless a tiny minority) part of the appeal of mirrorless bodies is the ability to use lenses that aren't being made any more.... Plus, you have to wonder - yet again - at Sony's RX10 and the slightly newer Panasonic equivalent, with their supposedly excellent longish zoom lenses, which must make a lot of potential customers wonder why they should bother with Sony's and Panasonic's other mirrorless bodies. 

As for an earlier point you were making about mirrorless needing to be small, that may end up being true from a marketing perspective, but for some of us (who knows how many - I suspect few, though) mirrorless has appeal independent of size (I prefer EVFs and the absence of AFMA-causing mirrors, for instance). But if you do want to keep it small, you can compensate quite a bit for loss of reach, while keeping decent-size sensors, if you boost resolution. The extent to which you can crop on a Sony a7r when using a very sharp lens such as the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 is remarkable. And if you don't insist on speed, Sony (85mm 2.8) and Nikon (film-era 100mm 2.8 E) have shown that you can go fairly long while remaining remarkably small and light.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I'm intrigued why more fixed-mount lenses with a simple, high quality zoom aren't offered more often. Right now, the best bet for fixed-mount lens with a small, high quality zoom are some "cheaper" APS-C Leicas or the high-end point and shoots like the Sony RX100 series or the G1X II. Fuji has the X10, X20 bodies that do this as well, I think...



Panasonic makes the FZ1000 with a *1" sensor*, a fixed (=FF) f/2.8-f/40 25–400 mm lens and weighs 1.83 lbs (that's effing huge!).

Sony makes the RX10 with a *1" sensor*, a fixed (=FF) f/2.8 24-200 mm lens that weighs 1.79 lbs (also effing huge).

More than a little too large to fit the description small/light.


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

I strongly resent cameras with fixed lenses. Sony RX-1 ... bah, I'd never buy it. Even with a "bolted-on" zoom lens I'd feel narrowed in. I want to be able to change lenses if I and whenever I want to. Including usi9ng my 70-200/2.8 L IS II on my EOS-M at a concert. And put the TS-E 17/4 on that same EOS-M the next day when I am urbexing at some god-forsaken abandoned textile mill in the middle of nowhere. 

There is no reason whatsoever to limit myself - or even worse - let others limit me to a 24-85 eq. FOV. 

Since Sony has proven, that a capable, full-frame mirrorless camera does not have to be any bigger than a mFT or APS-C one ... that's what I really want. 

And btw. the mirrorless market (with lens mount) is no zoo, it is fairly simple. There are currently only four tiers to it,. and it will shrinkt to only two some time soon:


1" ... Nikon 1 ... bound to die. Sensor too small. Only one player without much of clue. Dead end, stay away. 
mFT - many players. also a dead end. Sensor too small relative to camera and lens size. Glass does not scale proportionately. Will be around for some years to come though. Enjoy it, while it lasts. Market leaders: Oly, Panasonic 
APS-C ... very reasonable budget alternative. One stop less photographic opportuniities at significantly lower cost than FF. As in DSLRs. Will survive for many years to come. Clear market leader: Sony/E-Mount. 
FF - 135 format. 36-24. Getting more affordable by the day. ANd really small. Inclduing nice pancakes that don't cost an arm and a leg. Clear market leader and innovator: Sony. 


Rather simple, isn't it? 

Canon? So far ... nowhere. EOS-M a success due to fantastic, but totally unwanted price/value position. And thanks to APS-C lenses that are small, really good IQ and dirt cheap. Hang in there and clamor for more and better things to come (bodies!)


----------



## Haydn1971 (Aug 18, 2014)

I still think FF Mirrorless is a flash in the pan, Mirrorless is most about being small, why shrink the body to fit a bigger sensor when most people couldn't tell the difference between a photo taken on a crop vs one taken on a FF

Mirrorless is here to stay, APS-C/M43 is where it will stay profitable, DSLR's will evolve into a Mirrorless world eventually, maybe 2-3 pro generations from now, we will be debating the merits of a Mirrorless full frame pro sized 5D/1D model range, mirrors will slowly drop away from the cheaper models, leaving a range of Mirrorless cameras with small EOS-M style, medium sized consumer APS-C models and pro sized APS-C & FF models


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 18, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> 1" ... Nikon 1 ... bound to die. Sensor too small. Only one player without much of clue. Dead end, stay away.
> mFT - many players. also a dead end. Sensor too small relative to camera and lens size. Glass does not scale proportionately. Will be around for some years to come though. Enjoy it, while it lasts. Market leaders: Oly, Panasonic
> APS-C ... very reasonable budget alternative. One stop less photographic opportuniities at significantly lower cost than FF. As in DSLRs. Will survive for many years to come. Clear market leader: Sony/E-Mount.
> FF - 135 format. 36-24. Gettinmg more affordable by the day. ANd really small. Inclduing nice pancakes that don't cost an arm and a leg. Clear market leader and innovator: Sony.



Thank you -- you actually are making my point for me. *IQ isn't everything in this market*. In mirrorless, the needs are so wide and varied _that the size of the sensor very well may not be the best way to 'tier' the market!_ A huge sensor typically means bigger lenses, and the folks in this market don't always welcome that. Size, features, and useability and IQ seem to be judged hand in hand in this market.

Food for thought: We're seeing some pros drop 'two sensor sizes down' and opt for the m43 rigs, while Sony is offering (effectively) _a point and shoot FF rig with a fixed lens?!_ Up is down! Dogs and cats living together -- mass hysteria!

Sprinkle in the availability of grips, hybrid VFs and weathersealed options and you see what I'm getting at -- *each sensor size is trying to say "Yes we can" to as much as possible*, and the definitive 'best' / market leader has not yet surfaced. All we know is that Sony has great FF sensors, Fuji has very good sensors and the ergonomics/soul of an older film camera, and that people really love their m43 rigs for some reason. None are a train wreck, none are categorical winners, and all are still innovating.

Again, I'm not arguing for Canon/Nikon to _avoid_ this market, but it makes some sense that they let this chaotic primordial ooze of a market evolve further before trying to conquer it.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I'm not arguing for Canon/Nikon to _avoid_ this market, but it makes some sense that they let this chaotic primordial ooze of a market evolve further before trying to conquer it.



there is nothing chaotic in the mirrorless market. Definitely less so than in the artificially crippled, "marketing-differentiated" world of DSLRs. Batteries, Battery grips, external WFT-Wifi bricks ... all of them totally incompatible even within one manufacturers line of cameras! Canon offering 5 different APS-C mirror-slappers in parallel - 1200D, 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D/7D II at the same time .. Nikon running 3 different APS-C DSLRs, all with the same sensor in parallel and moving towards 5 different FF DSLRs in parallel- D610, D810, Df, D4s + one new rumored. And to make the mess even worse ... all of these grandfather-DSLRs "video-optimized", although mirrorless cams will always win the video game. Naturally. No mirror to be flapped out of lights' way all the time! 

Now where's the primordial ooze? The mess. The clunkiness. The mirror-slappin. Fat, greasy, old and heavy 19-century mechanical tech stuff? Looks rather like Jurassic Park to me. Soon to go extinct.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 18, 2014)

How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
battery life. Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I'm not arguing for Canon/Nikon to _avoid_ this market, but it makes some sense that they let this chaotic primordial ooze of a market evolve further before trying to conquer it.



Correct. 

It's a small, immature and volatile market that is very overcrowded right now. The technology still leaves much to be desired. Most of the buyers will never own more than one lens (heck most DLSR buyers never get more than lens) so it's not like people will be locked into a particular system. 

Canon and Nikon have the resources to take it slowly and see what develops. They haven't ignored the market, but they aren't as desperate as the other players, so they have the luxury of waiting and watching. 

If they see the market growing, they will pounce. But for now, I can't blame them for not wanting to join the little guys who are bleeding to death.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 19, 2014)

...every post on this page is very very good and demonstrates why this site is worth reading.

The 'M', even without a viewfinder, is a decent device...(we own three of them)...and is fun to use--with a better low-light sensor and improved auto-focus abilities, Canon's next mirrorless will be a winner, I think.


----------



## Zv (Aug 19, 2014)

I've had my M for over a year. I originally bought it as a novelty / occasional use camera and partly to see what the mirrorless fuss was all about. I recently took it to Seoul as well as my 5D2. To my surprise I ended up using the M a lot more than the DSLR simply because hauling a backpack all day long got quite painful. Maybe I'm out of shape but it's a vacation damn it and I don't need or want a workout. The M was a blessing and together with the 11-22mm lens it pretty much covered what I wanted to shoot. 

Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use. Which is what a lot of people will want a camera for. I love the M as it is, even with its flaws I can work around and its still an enjoyable experience. All Canon need to do IMO really is improve upon it slightly and support the system to make it even better. Seriously, that 11-22mm lens is amazing! I highly recommend any wide angle fans to give a go! To have an image stabilized ultra wide zoom on a APS-C sensor / camera the size of your fist is incredible! Why is this not more popular??


----------



## SiliconVoid (Aug 19, 2014)

"Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use."

- They absolutely do, that is why so many people own both..


----------



## zlatko (Aug 19, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
> battery life. Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.



But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 19, 2014)

Zv said:


> I've had my M for over a year. I originally bought it as a novelty / occasional use camera and partly to see what the mirrorless fuss was all about. I recently took it to Seoul as well as my 5D2. To my surprise I ended up using the M a lot more than the DSLR simply because hauling a backpack all day long got quite painful. Maybe I'm out of shape but it's a vacation damn it and I don't need or want a workout. The M was a blessing and together with the 11-22mm lens it pretty much covered what I wanted to shoot.
> 
> Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use. Which is what a lot of people will want a camera for. I love the M as it is, even with its flaws I can work around and its still an enjoyable experience. All Canon need to do IMO really is improve upon it slightly and support the system to make it even better. Seriously, that 11-22mm lens is amazing! I highly recommend any wide angle fans to give a go! To have an image stabilized ultra wide zoom on a APS-C sensor / camera the size of your fist is incredible! Why is this not more popular??


Exactly why I picked up an M - to augment my 5D3 setup for vacations and general use. I now find myself using it far more than my FF because of the portability aspect. I just picked up the 11-22 - too early to praise or pan it - I have not even uploaded the test images as of yet.

I am looking forward to a surprise M3 from Canon for Photokina


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> there is nothing chaotic in the mirrorless market. Definitely less so than in the artificially crippled, "marketing-differentiated" world of DSLRs. Batteries, Battery grips, external WFT-Wifi bricks ... all of them totally incompatible even within one manufacturers line of cameras! Canon offering 5 different APS-C mirror-slappers in parallel - 1200D, 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D/7D II at the same time .. Nikon running 3 different APS-C DSLRs, all with the same sensor in parallel and moving towards 5 different FF DSLRs in parallel- D610, D810, Df, D4s + one new rumored. And to make the mess even worse ... all of these grandfather-DSLRs "video-optimized", although mirrorless cams will always win the video game. Naturally. No mirror to be flapped out of lights' way all the time!
> 
> Now where's the primordial ooze? The mess. The clunkiness. The mirror-slappin. Fat, greasy, old and heavy 19-century mechanical tech stuff? Looks rather like Jurassic Park to me. Soon to go extinct.



You speak as though a side needs to be taken, and that would imply you've missed my point. I'm not name-calling and pissing on mirrorless -- far from it. What I am saying is that it is a market in a very early stage and tiers/price points/styles of shooters are still being worked out.

DSLRs -- and thanks for bringing that up -- have violently clear feature sets that differentiate starter to upgrade to premium to pro to flagship. Are there too many price points? Yeah, probably. _But do you know exactly why each higher line of camera commands a higher price? _ You betcha. That lets shooters size up who they are and what features they need. Easy peasy. *It's not better and it's not worse than mirrorless. * It's just a more mature market where consumers know where they stand and can opt in as best suits their budget, shooting style, and needs. (Hint: Canon and Nikon both play this arena really, really well, and they print money here as a result.)

Mirrorless, on the other hand, is still figuring out what people are willing to pay for and what matters most. It's not just sensor size (see my prior comments on point and shoot FF rigs and feature laden / pro-build m43 rigs). And until that is figured out, Canon and Nikon coming in strong wouldn't be driving the market, they would be _stabbing at it in the dark_, and that's not either company's style. 

Canon and Nikon seem to be content to have a basic offering to appease their enthusiasts (there are strong EOS-M devotees on this very forum, even though they admit it has flaws) while the market sorts itself out. When it becomes clear what everyone wants, both will make a hard call on sticking with their mount/sensor combo and producing a ton of new lenses for it [Cough: Canon], or scrapping it for a new one that is more built for the future [Cough: Nikon]. 

In a sense, Canon and Nikon are waiting this market out before they are so committed to a mount/sensor combo that they have to ride it out in a poor competitive position. That's pretty wise in my book.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 19, 2014)

I'd love to see a mirrorless FF body that was large enough to hold, that matched the FF lenses in size and balance, that had a internal EVF, that had a battery big enough to take 900 photo CIPA rating, that had good tracking, that had fast autofocus, and so on.

We are edging closer, but its not in sight ... Yet. I'm sure its coming as soon as technology allows it. In the meantime, the compromises of a mirrorless combined with the high price do not make it attractive to me. People bought the "M" because of the low price. However, its only low because Canon is dumping them. A new improved model is going to be North of $800, and it will still be lacking.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 19, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
> battery life. Oh, wait - that's a Fuji XT1 in manual mode.



Leica M9 or M-E


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 19, 2014)

canonvoir said:


> As far as sales go, I am going to suggest that mirrorless for Nikon and Canon may be slumping but Panasonic and Sony are killing it. Global sales of mirrorless are up. *http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/02/mirrorless-camera-sales-rising-despite-continually-shrinking-global-camera* It is here in North America where adoption is slow or has slowed a lot.



If mirrorless sales really show a substantial longterm growth Canon will be forced to come up with some serious, so we customers will profit. They do have all the technical bits and pieces (dual pixel sensor) to make a decent mirrorless camera, the M was a fail because they didn't take mirrorless seriously. CaNikon only still are shitting their pants because a serious mirrorless technology may cannibalize their DSLR sales. In fact, this could indeed happen, so they finally might generate the same revenue with a much more expensive production of two lines of cameras - but also could generate new markets. That's a classic business risk, but once they will have to make a move. Nobody doubts that mirrorless is the future - as soon as fast electronic shutter systems are available. A DSLR is 100 % anachronism in digital age, but a Sony A7 type mirrorless still is 50 % anachronism with its mechanical shutter.


----------



## troppobash (Aug 19, 2014)

SiliconVoid said:


> "Point is I love DSLRs but I'm starting to think a small compact mirrorless makes a heck of a lot more sense for holidays and general use."
> 
> - They absolutely do, that is why so many people own both..



+100 

I went for G1X MK II for holidays and general work. Yes it only has a fixed lens and that's why I like it better than the M. I do not want to carry extra lens so I shoot with G1X II.

We live in a great time for photography....there are so many choices and one can find a camera that suits them rather than they have to suit a camera. We need to celebrate the diversity.


----------



## Hillsilly (Aug 19, 2014)

zlatko said:


> But the XT1 doesn't meet your criteria ... it's not full frame.



But, but.....N-E-G-L-I-G-B-L-E! APS-C = FF  

The mirrorless question doesn't have to be us vs them. As consumers, we all benefit from having a diverse range of cameras available from a wide range of innovative manufacturers. In 50 years, I'm certain people will look back at this time as a golden era of camera design. 

I've got a couple of Fuji mirrorless cameras - X100 and X-E1(and previously owned an Olympus m43 camera). IMHO, they are fantastic. I still take ye olde Canons out of the cupboard when I have specialised needs, but otherwise, mirrorless cameras are more than adequate and in many cases are a much better option.

Re Canon and mirrorless - I don't think they are doing themselves any favours. If they are going to persist, they should be fully committed to the EOS-M system with more lenses being released and a family of camera bodies of differing levels of specs / price levels. Instead, currently the Eos-M is a fun accessory for a DSLR shooter rather than the stand alone system that it could be.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 19, 2014)

Canon has all the ingrediant to make adecent mirrorless: dual pixel sensor ( from 70D or better), EVF (from 1X MK II), ability to make a smaller body ( EOS-M, SL 1), Fast processor( Digit 6) All Canon need to do is to put them together and comes up with the EOS-M3. Along with the 4 existing EOS-M lenses, that will make s decent , versatile system.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 19, 2014)

I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.

People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 19, 2014)

I use DSLRs 99% of the time, but sometimes need something smaller. I've never been too happy with compacts, but the M is nice because it's the best parts of the DSLR minus some responsiveness and features. I recently considered the G1X II, but wanted something wider. It turns out that there are either no compacts wider than 24mm (equivalent), no current compacts, or if there are, they aren't easy to find via Google 

My solution, the little M + 11-22 IS. I had to order it from Canada...but I'm excited to have a little 18-35 lens with IS and better IQ than most compacts out there.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 19, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.
> 
> People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.



There isn't anything inherently inferior about a mirrorless system compared to a SLR. A7 sales may be relatively low, but that is primarily due to the fact that Canon and Nikon have market share in the high end, and brand loyalty is important in this industry.

Neither Canon nor Nikon have made the effort to make a high end mirrorless, so obviously most of the high end sales are going to be DSLRs since those companies are the ones that command brand loyalty in that segment. Cameras like the A7 are going to slowly eat into that however.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.
> 
> People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.



I used to feel that way -- that it was all about size -- but I really have come around that mirrorless will be our inevitable future and obsolete all but the highest end of DSLRs someday. That might be 10+ years from now due to the time needed to develop things as robust and responsive as a modern DSLR, but I think it will happen. Here's why:


They are smaller and lighter. That's a good thing for most shooters, but not all of them.
No mirror = no mirror slap.
EVF have all sorts of powerful options to provide large, bright and magnified viewfinder options.
Mirrorless makes the divide bewtween still and video a blurry and cooperative one. As every photographer will inevitably become a photographer/videographer before too long (I kid), mirrorless is better positioned to support that. Mirrorless can do all sorts of nutty things like capture video all around the time of taking a still, pull the best still from a video in post, etc. Right now, these features (yeah, like on your iPhone) are parlor tricks for photography neophytes, but in time, enthusiasts and pros will find spectacular ways to leverage this functionality to do things DSLRs cannot.
Once the AF, EVF and shutter tech evolves sufficiently, Mirrorless is presumably far cheaper for manufacturers to make.

And all of this is coming from a guy who loves DSLRs and clings to his optical viewfinder at night. Rest assured that if mirrorless obsoletes anything, it will be to our benefit and not our disadvantage -- _or we won't buy them_. A high bar of happiness, control and flexibility has been set with DSLRs. Now mirrorless has to clear that bar. Their work is cut out for them, but I am geeked to see what we can do with our cameras when they finally pull it off.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 19, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.
> 
> People really who want the smallest size won't want/care about interchangeable lenses, and people wanting the top quality won't want all the limitations of a mirrorless system. Thus mirrorless stuck in some jack of all trades but master of none middle ground, perhaps useful for some niche of enthusiasts but not something that would sell to most individuals, be it for hobby or profession. You could argue that the Sony A7 is the pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless, and it is very clear in the USA at least its sales are terrible compared to Canon and Nikon's offerings.



And I still see Sony's A7 as a technology project, a work in progress, etc.

Consider:


Sony lacks many native lenses for that mount.
They lack Canon and Nikon's massive user base.
The tech is still being worked out -- it has a very low burst rate, the AF is not amazing, etc.
The ergonomics and controls are functional, but certainly not loved.

Now compare that list to the 70D, 5D3 or 1DX. Those are high-performing, modern products that have been completely thought through over numerous generations and were injected into a massive user base for evaluation and improvement. So I cannot compare mirrorless to DSLRs, at least not yet. It's like comparing a polished professional with 15 of years experience against an unbelievably hard working kid that just graduated from college. Apples and oranges.

So a beast of a sensor in a tiny package is not the "pinnacle of what everyone has been asking for in mirrorless", _it's just a beast of a sensor in a tiny package._ I have not used the camera, but from reviews I've read, Sony needs to learn the demands of busy working photographers and put the knobs and switches where they ought to go, streamline the menu setup, offer more native mount lenses, and put their heads down on the AF and burst performance.

Now, when Sony has 5-10 years experience of developing these and improving them, I'd look out. They will be much better.

- A


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 19, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly think mirrorless is a fad, or at least not a wise investment for Canon.
> ...



I can add the following to your well-written post: both of my children own 'M's' (stepping up from Canon ELPHs)...and they love them. For years I tried to get them interested in my Rebel or my 40D--no luck. But they love the M+22mm combination; and one, at times, uses the 90 flash in useful ways.

As I've posted on these pages previously, my own 'M' generally has the 11-22mm lens on it. (EDIT: I do not use the supplied Canon strap; I cannibalized the connector and attached it to a Wii-type controller wrist strap...the whole thing fits in the pocket of most of my shorts. The strap also is long enough to fit around my neck.) 

The M+11-22mm combination sits quite nicely on a light-and-flimsy (collapses to 12" long) four foot high tripod, a device that I would never trust any regular (I.e. heavier) DSLR to sit on. With the Canon remote, we get family vacation pix that work well in several ways...and all of the necessary gear (including the 270 flash) fits in a very modestly sized shoulder bag.

A post on this thread, I think, sort of got it right: the current M is a good daylight camera (if you accept the slow autofocus). I don't have nearly the expertise that some on this board do, but I have a bit of experience with the 5D MkIII + 35mm2.0 IS lens combo--talk about a light-gathering system!

Mirrorless isn't there yet, but I do wonder what it would take for Canon to put IS on the 22mm 2.0 M lens...and then the inevitable sensor improvement that will come with a future M (M4?!)...and if the auto-focus technology improves as well...

If Canon doesn't see this sort of thing in their future, then, in my view, their competitors will.

The future, for most photography (I think)...is sans mirror, folks. (And I LOVE my 5DMkIII!.)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 19, 2014)

Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF. No need to chimp, because you've seen the results before you pushed the button  Even with something as old as my Sony NEX 5n, it's trivial to get the shot in difficult lighting  I often have the 5n set-up to shoot B&W jpegs. I use a #21 Orange filter, just like I'd do when shooting film. I set the exposure by eye using the screen, try that with an optical DSLR viewfinder


----------



## josephandrews222 (Aug 19, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF. No need to chimp, because you've seen the results before you pushed the button  Even with something as old as my Sony NEX 5n, it's trivial to get the shot in difficult lighting  I often have the 5n set-up to shoot B&W jpegs. I use a #21 Orange filter, just like I'd do when shooting film. I set the exposure by eye using the screen, try that with an optical DSLR viewfinder



I agree with this post--wholeheartedly.

My very best concert shots were shot with a Canon S95 (admittedly from the front row); my wife's favorite artist (would you believe Todd Rundgren?!)...never looked so good. Making things right via the screen...in real time...nice arrangement for sure.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2014)

Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/

And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much? 

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 20, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/
> 
> And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?
> ...


LOL, that seems to negate the biggest advantages of mirrorless! It's like the HDSLR video cage + accessory contraptions. I realize the price difference is huge in that case, but some of those are just ridiculous!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
> ...



I had somewhat the same reaction. What's the point? Once you put a viewfinder on a mirrorless (and I wouldn't want one without a viewfinder) they start looking a whole lot like a DSLR. 

To answer the question: It might be the future, if...electronic viewfinders can improve to the point where they are actually better than optical viewfinders. But they have to be better, not just equal or comparable. 

I think that when and if mirrorless cameras replace DSLRs, they are likely to look very much like DSLRs because the basic form factor (a box with a viewfinder to look directly through to see the subject) has evolved into the easiest to use format for cameras available. Stepping backwards to the old view camera model where the photographer looks at a screen on the back of the camera may be fine for subjects that don't move much, but just isn't very convenient for accurate and quick composing of photographs. 

My guess is that the transition will be gradual and if I were placing bets, I'd bet we are at least two to three generations away from a 5D Mirrorless.

*Alternative theory:* Mirrorless will evolve into something that looks very different from today's cameras. All cameras today are based on the idea that the photographer holds it close to his face with the viewfinder to his eye. Even cameras without viewfinders are based on that model, which is why they are so clunky to use. They ask you to take a design that was meant to be held close to the face to keep steady and then hold it away from your face, making it hard to compose, hold it steady and operate the controls. 

Ergonomically, a smart phone is actually better to use than a camera without a viewfinder. It's small, light, fits naturally in one hand and is a lot easier to balance. Plus, you can hold it in one hand and use a finger to touch the focus point without shaking it. 

I'm thinking that an innovative camera designer ought to be look at how people hold and use their smart phones and start designing cameras to take advantage of the smart phone model. Of course, I'm guessing that for the near future, that would pretty much preclude the idea of large sensors and large or long lenses.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 20, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/
> 
> And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?
> ...


*
This is the future of FULL FRAME.* Sooner or later Canon will build something very close to this (so will Nikon).

To me, this is a good example of be careful of what you wish for ???


----------



## infared (Aug 20, 2014)

zlatko said:


> dickgrafixstop said:
> 
> 
> > How about a mirrorless full frame camera stuck in an AE1 type body? No autofocus, full manual controls and good
> ...



LMAOFOTF!!!!!! AWESOME!  (XT1 does look like a cool camera though!)


----------



## psolberg (Aug 20, 2014)

canon, like nikon, is an old world power in decline so off course they fear mirrorless because it means having to compete and start over in a world where their lens systems count for nothing or need to rely on adapters nobody wants.

So I don't expect to see anything exciting from canon or nikon until their APS-C sales are so bad that they are forced to evolve. This will be a fantastic chance to break free from mount lock in and I can't wait for it. 

Having borrowed an A7s for some 4K video work, I have to say sony has all the right stuff. They are a huge company with huge technical muscle which moves twice as fast as nikon or canon. I'd love to see them outright buy nikon for the optics division. that would be a monster of a company.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 20, 2014)

unfocused said:


> *Alternative theory:* Mirrorless will evolve into something that looks very different from today's cameras. All cameras today are based on the idea that the photographer holds it close to his face with the viewfinder to his eye. Even cameras without viewfinders are based on that model, which is why they are so clunky to use. They ask you to take a design that was meant to be held close to the face to keep steady and then hold it away from your face, making it hard to compose, hold it steady and operate the controls.
> 
> Ergonomically, a smart phone is actually better to use than a camera without a viewfinder. It's small, light, fits naturally in one hand and is a lot easier to balance. Plus, you can hold it in one hand and use a finger to touch the focus point without shaking it.
> 
> I'm thinking that an innovative camera designer ought to be look at how people hold and use their smart phones and start designing cameras to take advantage of the smart phone model. Of course, I'm guessing that for the near future, that would pretty much preclude the idea of large sensors and large or long lenses.



As I've said in the past, for many Professional Photographers, a smart-phone will become their main camera. iPhone 7 maybe, iPhone 8 almost for sure. 

Right now I can shoot table-top with M4/3. If Nikon would pull their head out of their  and make a Pro Nikon 1. I could be shooting table-top with a 1" sensor within 18-24 months.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2014)

unfocused said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, that seems to negate the biggest advantages of mirrorless!...
> ...



Current mirrorless EVFs have some advantages over an OVF:


If your eyes can process all this input, your eyeball is effectively seeing LiveView, so you are getting a true read of the shot, true DOF, a live histo, etc.
An EVF can amplify low light, right? OVFs can't do that.

But the current tech has limitations -- LiveView all the time is a huge battery drain, there is some lag (i.e. 'we don't shoot many stills of moving things with LiveView'), resolution is still fairly limited compared to the fidelity your native eye can process through an OVF, etc.

A _future_ EVF could be something special, though:


Modularity could lead to EVF standard mounts and interchangeability with other systems -- more options for comfort or control.
Electronic can be made modular (many EVFs are modular) and therefore removable. You could imagine a cord like an off-camera flash being used to have camera in place X and your eyeball and shutter release in place Y.
No reason why you couldn't have a massive or tiny EVF based on the screen size, so you could pick that as well.
A wireless off-camera EVF (without lag!) would also be terrific.
Imagine control of the camera through that EVF. In a multiple camera shoot, you could pipe different cameras' view into one EVF for the best shot and tweak things all from one vantage point.
We could go on and on here...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2014)

unfocused said:


> *Alternative theory:* Mirrorless will evolve into something that looks very different from today's cameras. All cameras today are based on the idea that the photographer holds it close to his face with the viewfinder to his eye. Even cameras without viewfinders are based on that model, which is why they are so clunky to use. They ask you to take a design that was meant to be held close to the face to keep steady and then hold it away from your face, making it hard to compose, hold it steady and operate the controls.
> 
> Ergonomically, a smart phone is actually better to use than a camera without a viewfinder. It's small, light, fits naturally in one hand and is a lot easier to balance. Plus, you can hold it in one hand and use a finger to touch the focus point without shaking it.
> 
> I'm thinking that an innovative camera designer ought to be look at how people hold and use their smart phones and start designing cameras to take advantage of the smart phone model. Of course, I'm guessing that for the near future, that would pretty much preclude the idea of large sensors and large or long lenses.



Now you're thinking. We're wrestling with an awkward porthole to frame shots through when stepping back from the camera to frame up is certainly preferable. Right now on a smartphone or tablet, this is great for framing but not for holding / adjusting / taking the shot. The ergonomics need to evolve there.

- A


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Mirrorless has one huge advantage, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) EVF.



To me, that's one of its biggest disadvantages. What I see in an EVF is virtually never what I get. What I see in the OVF is what I get because I post-process the images to look the way the scene did to my eye, not to some Japanese engineer who wrote the in-camera JPEG engine and never saw the scene.

What I see in the EVF is an over-contrasty version of reality with brights blown, blacks crushed, and colors looking unnatural.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 20, 2014)

psolberg said:


> canon, like nikon, is an old world power in decline so off course they fear mirrorless because it means having to compete and start over in a world where their lens systems count for nothing or need to rely on adapters nobody wants.
> 
> So I don't expect to see anything exciting from canon or nikon until their APS-C sales are so bad that they are forced to evolve. This will be a fantastic chance to break free from mount lock in and I can't wait for it.
> 
> Having borrowed an A7s for some 4K video work, I have to say sony has all the right stuff. They are a huge company with huge technical muscle which moves twice as fast as nikon or canon. I'd love to see them outright buy nikon for the optics division. that would be a monster of a company.



Sony are great at churning out products and they are great at component level horsepower (i.e. sensors). But I am not at all convinced that they understand the needs of photographers as well as Canon and Nikon.

Their pipeline has developed countless _technological_ hits, industry firsts, etc. but I have yet to hear of professionals dropping their current company because Sony has nailed a camera top-to-bottom. I hear folks rave about the form factor and the sensor and that's about it. I have yet to hear someone rave about their controls, ergonomics, feel, etc. When that happens, _then_ Nikon and Canon should worry.

I'd go a step further and state if professionals were offered a choice of any camera they'd want and all lenses were available natively in all mounts (so eliminate the I'm staying with Canon/Nikon b/c I have all this glass), most will still choose Canon and Nikon over Sony at this stage.

- A


----------



## distant.star (Aug 20, 2014)

.
Canon is doing a classic rope-a-dope. The champ lets the challenger wear himself out, then he throws a knockout punch.

The steamroller of miniaturization will prevail, and mirrorless will be the near-term future.

My prediction is the current DSLR dies with the 2020 Olympics. Mirrorless will be the dominant camera technology at that event. After that, game over.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 20, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Saw this picture today in a story at The Phoblographer:
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/
> 
> And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?
> ...



At this point, it's just a camera. As long as it produces a picture the technology inside is virtually irrelevant. Cost versus functionality is still the primary consideration, no different than before.

I'm quite certain SLR and mirrorless will co-exist for a long time.
Which means we probably have a few thousand more of these threads to go through before new technology comes along and disrupts everything.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 20, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> To me, that's one of its biggest disadvantages. What I see in an EVF is virtually never what I get. What I see in the OVF is what I get because I post-process the images to look the way the scene did ...
> 
> What I see in the EVF is an over-contrasty version of reality with brights blown, blacks crushed, and colors looking unnatural.



Do you use *Custom Functions* to adjust jpeg output. In this fast paced world many pros are bypassing Raw and using custom jpegs. The client can't see any IQ difference, but they like seeing the final photos immediately.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 20, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > To me, that's one of its biggest disadvantages. What I see in an EVF is virtually never what I get. What I see in the OVF is what I get because I post-process the images to look the way the scene did ...
> ...



I post-process every image that I plan to use for anything before it leaves my hands, whether it was shot in JPEG or raw.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 20, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Sony are great at churning out products and they are great at component level horsepower (i.e. sensors). But I am not at all convinced that they understand the needs of photographers as well as Canon and Nikon.
> - A



Sony seems to be run by the people you ran the former Walkman division  I was impressed with my new NEX 5n, but I've been waiting since 2011 for the lenses I want/need. The lack of lenses has cost them a NEX 7 sale and an a6000 sale. No way will I buy into a Sony system.

For those not familiar with the Sony Walkman, it was the dominate portable music player. Then Apple brought the iPod to market, and Sony had no reply


----------



## AvTvM (Aug 20, 2014)

I see a very capable and compact camera without flapping mirror but with about 50% more resolution and 2 stops more DR than even the biggest of all big & fat [Canon] mirrorslappers. ;D

The picture also demonstrates nicely how much easier it is to make a small camera larger, rather than a large camera smaller.  



ahsanford said:


> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/08/20/review-sony-vgc1em-digital-camera-battery-grip-sony-a7a7ra7s/
> And I think it's a stimulating photo to windup this discussion. Do you believe this is the future, or do you believe this is mirrorless trying to be / to do too much?


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 21, 2014)

It looks like this has been one upped - this looks like a convenient 'rig' to carry around :






Source: Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> It looks like this has been one upped - this looks like a convenient 'rig' to carry around :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL!!!!!!


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> It looks like this has been one upped - this looks like a convenient 'rig' to carry around :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has a convenient handy to carry it - nice! It looks very pocket-able indeed....


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 21, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> A wireless off-camera EVF (without lag!) would also be terrific.



Google Glasses?

No reason the eye piece has to be on the camera these days.


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 21, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > A wireless off-camera EVF (without lag!) would also be terrific.
> ...



If you're trying to track anything, moving the camera differently than your head and/or eye is so horribly confusing that it makes that tracking nearly impossible on all but the slowest moving subjects.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 25, 2014)

this is the EF-S and EF-M samyang / rokinon 8mm comparison
without even adding in the adapter there is a massive size difference already


----------



## Taemobig (Aug 25, 2014)

If Canon releases an EOS M update similar to the Sony A5100 with nearly the same specs and price, I would totally be all over it. But for now, I'll rock on with the first EOS M.


----------



## Zv (Aug 25, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> this is the EF-S and EF-M samyang / rokinon 8mm comparison
> without even adding in the adapter there is a massive size difference already



Would you be so kind as to upload a wee pic of the EOS M with the EF-M version of the 8mm fisheye attached to it please? 

Just want to see it for reference.


----------



## infared (Aug 25, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Canon is doing a classic rope-a-dope. The champ lets the challenger wear himself out, then he throws a knockout punch.
> 
> The steamroller of miniaturization will prevail, and mirrorless will be the near-term future.
> ...



You could be right.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2014)

Zv said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > this is the EF-S and EF-M samyang / rokinon 8mm comparison
> ...



sure i'll do it now


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


here it is with the 18-55 for comparison


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 26, 2014)

^^ Wow - nice and compact! I have the 11-22 for the M but I am sure the 8mm fisheye can capture the back of your head with the FOV


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2014)

Jamesy said:


> ^^ Wow - nice and compact! I have the 11-22 for the M but I am sure the 8mm fisheye can capture the back of your head with the FOV



yeah its great here is a snapshot in hong kong airport


----------



## Zv (Aug 26, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



Woah thanks! It's very compact, much smaller than I thought it would be! Right then where is that credit card ....


----------

