# Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 8, 2018)

```
The announcement date guesses for Canon’s first full frame mirrorless camera have ranged between Photokina in September 2018 and some time in Q1 of 2019.</p>
<p>We’re now told that one of the full frame mirrorless cameras coming from Canon will be announced and on sale before the end of 2018. While the exact announcement date is unknown at this time. Logically, something should be happening for Photokina. Although, we’re a mere 10 weeks away from Photokina and specifications are still hard to come by, if more information doesn’t become clearer soon, we might only get a development announcement at the trade show.</p>
<p>We have noticed a spike in folks seeing cameras being tested in the wild that don’t match up to current Canon camera bodies, unfortunately we have yet to receive any pictures of suspected test cameras.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/industry-news-the-first-rumored-specifications-of-nikons-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras/">Nikon appears to be getting closer</a> to announcing their new system and I don’t expect Canon to be too far behind.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 8, 2018)

Perhaps an accelerated schedule from Canon to prevent Nikon from skimming all the cream off the mirrorless market.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 8, 2018)

Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.


----------



## grainier (Jul 8, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Perhaps an accelerated schedule from Canon to prevent Nikon from skimming all the cream off the mirrorless market.



I don't think so - Canon clearly intends to tap into existing cache of EF lenses, and buyers who have those will have little interest in Nikon. In any case, my interest is purely platonic at this point, $3000 body is not in my plans, and neither is its $2000 challenged brother.


----------



## traveller (Jul 8, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.



Interesting their options: if not EF Mount, then what? It seems that EF-M wasn’t really designed to be optimised for full frame sensor coverage (Sigma even mentioned that Sony FE-mount was tight) and a third mount would obfuscate matters further. Unless Canon has found some way to produce a variable-flange distance version of the EF mount.


----------



## zim (Jul 8, 2018)

Ooh... CR Guys even changed the default image....

It's coming home, it's coming home FF coming home!  ;D


----------



## sdz (Jul 8, 2018)

traveller said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...



Canon, we may recall, has produced a a FF mirrorless camera that uses the EF mount -- the C 700 FF.


----------



## brad-man (Jul 8, 2018)

zim said:


> Ooh... CR Guys even changed the default image....
> 
> It's coming home, it's coming home FF coming home!  ;D



Indeed. The _Leica_ design team is out, the _Powershot_ design team is in 8)


----------



## zim (Jul 8, 2018)

brad-man said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Ooh... CR Guys even changed the default image....
> ...



;D

Actually one of the bigger stories about these two releases might end up being the software, eos, powershot or an amalgamation ?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 8, 2018)

zim said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



EOS as it stands now would be a train wreck, they would have to go to some amalgamation between EOS and powershot.


----------



## Bambel (Jul 8, 2018)

traveller said:


> Interesting their options: if not EF Mount, then what? It seems that EF-M wasn’t really designed to be optimised for full frame sensor coverage (*Sigma even mentioned that Sony FE-mount was tight)* and a third mount would obfuscate matters further. Unless Canon has found some way to produce a variable-flange distance version of the EF mount.



Hi there, long time lurker, now my first post..

Look at this: (camerasize.com)
http://j.mp/2KVOAcP

i don't know if Sony designed the E-mount as small as possible and still be able to handle FF intentionally, but obiously thats the case. According to wikipedia the FFDs and diameters of both mounts are 18mm, 46.5mm (EF-M) and 18mm, 46.1mm (E). And both mounts look more or less identical so i wonder if Canon would also be able to squeeze a FF sensor in there. A new "EF-X" (or whatever) mount would accept EF-M in crop mode and "EF-X" in FF. Plus of course EF\EF-S via adapter. 

B.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 8, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.



Are there better than UHS-II cards / readers out there?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...


I hope its a professional model and stays away from SD cards. They all are really slow once they have been used and formatted, speeds go to a crawl. They are too small to use with gloves on in cold weather. I have one in the 2nd slot of my 5D MK IV, but because of their slow speed, it only gets used for small jpeg files.


----------



## Utonagan (Jul 8, 2018)

Canon seems to have some interesting potential with what is rumored, so no assumptions for myself as yet. There is also the option of CF express memory cards since they are not proprietary to Sony and Nikon. However yes dual uhs-2 would be useful but on the other hand it's the cameras system buss has to fully support it. CF express is in the same format as XQD and it's backward compatible to XQD if the software supports it.

Not certain what to make of either Canon of Nikon mirrorless and the lenses and lens compatability will probably be the deciding factor. I am looking at full frame but mid range 24mpx (D750 like) without all the silly filters and later on see what the higher end mpx models offer since these are all first gen models.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jul 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...


UHS-3 format and PCI-e based standards were just announced and currently UHS-II has been available to manufacturers since 2011. There are a lot good UHS-II SD card reader on market that can really deliver the advertised read speeds of SD cards while transferring to PC. 


traveller said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...


One of the primary reasons why Canon Adopted EF mount ditching their FD mount was for the all electronic interface. Sony and Nikon(maybe Pentax as well in future) have dumped their SLR mounts due to mechanical reasons. Also current Sony FE lenses have a hollow tube towards the mount which is a bit odd since Sony fanboys like to sing to the tunes of smaller and lighter than DSLRs(which is not the case). Only real benefits for removing mirror box is for live exposure simulation and no more blackouts(still there are few due to mechanical shutter).


----------



## Utonagan (Jul 8, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...



Prograde (formerly Lexar) has developed a CF express card. Capacity currently of about 1tb (max). Faster than XQD and in the same format and size as an XQD card (same connector pins) and firmware permitting will take xqd cards. In some practical theory around 800MB/s in camera for the CF express. It's rated to 1400MB/s but even with Nikon XQD doesn't run at it's top speed in camera and only in a decent card reader do you see quicker rates. USB 3.1 will probably be the minimal requirement with this next gen if one expects the quickest results.

I don't feel comfortable with large capacity cards even with 3rd or 4th gen crystal. 256GB isn't so bad for most uses but the larger capacity higher speed i suspect is directed towards 4k videographers.

I suppose with the CF express (micro SSD) structure there will be more error correction available so less re-writes and wear on the flash ram. Since a few of us did adapt 2.5" SSD drives to our cameras bit flip to read as removable media it is viable all be it a bit cluttered and clumbsy.


----------



## dolina (Jul 8, 2018)

SD Express! It should have that!


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2018)

I'm hoping for a camera the size of a 6D2, with EF mount and will allow you to use EF-S lenses as well (with vignetting when open wide), the almost obligatory LP-6 battery, an a UHS-2 SD slot....

I can see a higher end one coming out later sized like a 5D series, with dual card slots and a bit higher performance.....


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 8, 2018)

grainier said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an accelerated schedule from Canon to prevent Nikon from skimming all the cream off the mirrorless market.
> ...



Canon seems to have always tried to match Nikon’s offerings. It has been said before on this forum that Canon seems to base their release dates on Nikon’s. As for whether this is still true or not in recent years, I’ll let others jump in. 

One thing is for sure- if they pull out the stops and offer decent video specs (DPAF with 4K 24p and a useable codec, 120fps Full HD are bare minimum) and match 5DIV stills specs, they will sell a lot of cameras. Even more if they include latest video tech, like 4K 60p, HLG, log, etc.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 8, 2018)

I hope that the new mount requires an EF adapter- a "sexy" adapter that incorporates a filter holder. That would be the answer to all the super wide lens filter issues. A larger diameter mount, larger than an EF mount, would make this possible.


----------



## Stuart (Jul 8, 2018)

zim said:


> It's coming home, it's coming home FF coming home!  ;D



LOL - CR3 and in a few months - this is actually getting exciting, I can't wait to hear how the mount is going to move on from EF lenses so i can plan to have a quiet shutter with good low light glass.
I know Sony is making all the headlines at the moment but i just want Canon to come up with something special that really does the business.

The only other bit of news i want now is Canon medium format...?


----------



## traveller (Jul 8, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...


A bit of a sweeping statement there: there are a few FE lenses that are noticeably smaller than their DSLR equivalents, but the advantage does seem to be confined to wide angle optics, such as the FE 12-24 f/4 or the FE 16-35 f/4. Shortening the flange focus distance can also free up some lens designs that aren't possible for DSLRs, such as the Zeiss Sonnar design of the FE 55mm f/1.8. I also wonder whether the "hollow tube" is a side effect of full frame FE-mount being something of an after thought after the APS-C E-mount was designed. FE-mount is a bit tight in diameter terms, as well as having a short flange focal distance. Without specially designed micro-lenses, I could see how such design decisions lead to lenses that are bit long (for their focal length), in order to keep the light ray angle less steep. This is the reason why a lot of Leica wide angle glass adapts poorly to Sony FE-mount cameras (hue shifts at the edges of the frame etc.).


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 8, 2018)

Chaitanya said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Which is why I would be surprised if a camera coming out this year would have better than UHS-II slots.


----------



## MartinF. (Jul 8, 2018)

Actually I am not interested in mirrorless at all for the time being. (execpt for small camera in "leica style and size). What I am interested in, is the furture of the EF-mount. I quess and hope, that the latest releases of 70-200 lenses is a signal to the EF-lens users, that the EF mount is here to stay.
I that is the case I should also mean, that at least the to-of-line FF mirrorless will accept EF lenses without and adaptor.
I do hope so.
(Canon users since the the FD mount - and I do not want to see a abandoned lens series once more....)


----------



## BillB (Jul 8, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Actually one of the bigger stories about these two releases might end up being the software, eos, powershot or an amalgamation ?
> ...



So what software was used for the 5D IV Liveview?


----------



## docsmith (Jul 8, 2018)

Wow...lots of questions should be answered....EF (44 mm flange distance) vs EF-X (I assume something less than 44 mm). Type of EVF. Powershot vs EOS. Still FPS. 4k. Video fps. LCD (flippy or no flippy). Size. Weight.

Then, and I am probably most interested in this, other advances? How does the sensor do? 


We'll see. T-minus and counting.....


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 8, 2018)

BillB said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



5d IV liveview doesn't have EVF , focus peaking, touch and drag AF, eye AF, 120hz refresh rates,etc,etc.


----------



## exkeks (Jul 8, 2018)

MartinF. said:


> I quess and hope, that the latest releases of 70-200 lenses is a signal to the EF-lens users, that the EF mount is here to stay.


I think, it’s quite the opposite. The fact that Canon didn’t bother to produce a newly designed 70-200/2.8 aside from some cosmetical changes, is a sign that they do not aim at current owners of the 70-200/2.8II IS wanting to upgrade. Because -perhaps- there will be a new EF-# 70-200/2.8 coming soon?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2018)

exkeks said:


> MartinF. said:
> 
> 
> > I quess and hope, that the latest releases of 70-200 lenses is a signal to the EF-lens users, that the EF mount is here to stay.
> ...



I think with the III they aim at new adopters and series I updaters. Regardless, it is an indication that EF will continue to be supported.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 8, 2018)

My prediction is that when these are released the big complaint will be battery drain. The 5D IV is advertised at 300 shots in live view. The new mirrorless will most likely be similar. If they add a digital view finder like is on the M5 you would have much less.

The M5 battery life is a nuisance that you have to monitor. More than once I have found myself with a dead camera.

No doubt the new bodies will be lighter, hopefully they make them with a battery grip so you can double the capacity. This might even solve the problem people with giant hands might have with a tiny body.


----------



## zim (Jul 8, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> My prediction is that when these are released the big complaint will be battery drain. The 5D IV is advertised at 300 shots in live view. The new mirrorless will most likely be similar. If they add a digital view finder like is on the M5 you would have much less.
> 
> The M5 battery life is a nuisance that you have to monitor. More than once I have found myself with a dead camera.
> 
> No doubt the new bodies will be lighter, hopefully they make them with a battery grip so you can double the capacity. This might even solve the problem people with giant hands might have with a tiny body.



Absolutely on both accounts. The m5 should have had a battery grip from the get go, these new ffs will definitely have grip accessories (you HEARD it here FIRST)  ;D


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 8, 2018)

I think there is sufficient length in the EF to EF-M adapter to make a drop in filter drawer.
This example is a polarizer filter from my 300 f2.8. It would be a killer idea for Canon to do this.
It would eliminate all the fat glass filter problems. 



Canon drop in filter for EF to EF-M adapter © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jul 8, 2018)

Is there any chance that the updates to some of the current EF lenses (that don't seem to be updating the optics much...70-200 ???) are actually updates to the focus motors and software to be able to work better/faster with on sensor dpaf?

That might be a sign that canon is ensuring speedy focus on new mirrorless with EF lenses (doesn't necessarily tell us the new camera will be EF mount but at least it might mean that any EF adapter needed would work consistently with these lenses.

Either way, I'm happy to wait, my canon gear still works well with my long lenses and I'm extremely happy with both the A7RII and the A7III with 100-400 and 1.4 teleconverter for birds in flight. I can wait to see if/when canon comes up with something as good. I actually like having both systems since there are times when one system is better for a certain type of shot than the other...although if I go on a shoot with only one I do tend to pick up the sony more often lately.


----------



## greger (Jul 8, 2018)

A Mirrorless camera from Canon will accept EF and EFS lenses as there is no mirror to be damaged by hitting the back of the EFS lens. CFast memory cards will be the main recording media. This will be a great improvement to the professional Shooters using top of the line full frame cameras and might incurage people to upgrade from Apsc to full frame as long as this new camera isn’t in the $6,000.00 price range.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 8, 2018)

Is there sufficient length to create an adapter that's tilt and shift?





KeithBreazeal said:


> I think there is sufficient length in the EF to EF-M adapter to make a drop in filter drawer.
> This example is a polarizer filter from my 300 f2.8. It would be a killer idea for Canon to do this.
> It would eliminate all the fat glass filter problems.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bambel (Jul 8, 2018)

I have another idea regarding "EF-X": maybe it's only a new lense mount, but not a new camera mount. Think of an EF mount that can also accept "EF-X" lenses that are similar to EF-M lenses. Small, light, cheap and - slow. Without the legacy EF 5.6 max aperture these lenses could be much slower than that. How large would something like a 24-70 3.5-6.3 end up? Or a 28 1.8 pancake? 

B.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jul 8, 2018)

Not really into mirrorless. 

What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.



The advantages are reduced mechanical complexity (lack of the mirror mechanism, which *could* present the manufacturer with cost savings and the user with less maintenance) and, potentially, reduced size in some situations. Everything else could be done with an SLR in lockup mode (whereas a mirrorless camera has no way to compose optically through the lens, or make use of off-image sensor modules).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.



(in no particular order)

1) Shoot with a smaller setup. Yes, this is lost on big/fast FF glass -- we've covered this to death -- but if you limit your FL, speed, etc. you can simply build a smaller mousetrap. 

2) You get all the upsides of LiveView with all the conveniences of handheld shooting. You can simply do more in realtime with the camera comfortably held up your eye -- not held 6-12" away from your eye as you would with handheld LiveView shooting.

3) Canon doesn't put manual focus screens in the 5-series and 6-series cameras anymore. Switching to an EVF would unlock the possibility to combine [handheld shooting] + [manual focus glass] + [large apertures], which is something I'm keen to try.

Again, I prefer an SLR myself, but mirrorless is not without its merits.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Everything else could be done with an SLR in lockup mode



Debatable. Just because LiveView and mirrorless cameras work on the same principle doesn't mean that they are the same shooting experience.

Holding a mirrorless camera to your eye an carefully framing a shot is familiar to me as an SLR user today. However, switching to LiveView, holding your camera awkwardly 6-12" in front your eye to take a picture is tantamount to (pricey) iPad photography to me. It's a fundamentally different experience.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Everything else could be done with an SLR in lockup mode
> ...



Plus, you are sucking back the battery power to hold the mirror open.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Everything else could be done with an SLR in lockup mode
> ...



Hence my suggestion elsewhere to put an EVF into an SLR


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 8, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



True, although once one elects to use live view, the amount drawn is dwarfed by the load of the sensor being read, the image processor, the associated electronics, and screen.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 8, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.



The big advantage of mirrorless is that there is no mirror to move out of the way..... This allows you a much faster burst rate....

Also, if you are into time lapse photography you can burn through your shutter life in a hurry! Let’s say you are going for a nighttime time lapse.... you have the camera at a 15 second interval and “let er rip” for 12 hours..... you just burned through 3000 of your 150,000 cycles of time lapse..... do this a few times and that’s a very significant part of your camera life.....


----------



## Maiaibing (Jul 8, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Not really into mirrorless.
> ...


Forgot about time lapse. I use a go-pro for that. But its of course not like shooting with a DSLR.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jul 8, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Not really into mirrorless.
> ...


Can always hope Canon will go with some crazy burst rate - but not holding my breath.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 8, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.



Reading the answers, I'm pretty convinced that I won't be switching to mirrorless anytime soon.

I do see one advantage for me though: silent shutter. I do a lot of event photography and I hate the booming sound of the 1DxII's "silent" shutter. The 5DIV is much better and for this and many other reasons, it has become my preferred body for almost anything except sports.

But honestly, I don't want to invest in a third full frame body and until mirrorless can overcome all the advantages of DSLRs (and I'm not convinced that will happen anytime in the next 5 years or so) I'll stick to my big old DSLRs and used the fantastically tiny SL2 when I want something small to carry around.


----------



## Cryve (Jul 9, 2018)

If they release the mirrorless full frame at photokina, does this mean we wont see another camera there like the 90d or 7d III?

How has this been at past photokinas?


----------



## Durf (Jul 9, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Not really into mirrorless.
> ...



I'm wondering if a mirrorless camera constantly using electrical parts a lot more than than a DSLR such as a EVF and constantly having currents and light probing its sensor if these parts will actually out live the average life cycle of a mechanical mirror/shutter DSLR.

I may be off about this and I'm surely no expert but it seems to me that a mirrorless sensor not having a mirror to protect it and always being exposed so to speak and an EVF being on all the time the camera is being used that it will not live as long as a OVF and covered sensor. Especially if your always changing lenses in dirty dusty conditions and running the veiwfinder and doing video all the time.
Time will tell.....


----------



## vangelismm (Jul 9, 2018)

I do not care if it is EF-x or EF, as long is not EF-m.
Larger diameter mount would allow for smaller lens compared to sony.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 9, 2018)

grainier said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an accelerated schedule from Canon to prevent Nikon from skimming all the cream off the mirrorless market.
> ...



Can you enlighten me. Where did you get the information that "Canon clearly intends to tap into existing cache of EF lenses"?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Reading the answers, I'm pretty convinced that I won't be switching to mirrorless anytime soon.



I don't see it as switching at all -- my SLR is not going anywhere. I see mirrorless as _another FF option to do the things my SLR cannot_: take up less space in my bag, liveview 10x (or peaking) with MF glass through the VF, adapt old glass, etc.

It also may be the first FF body with on-chip ADC + a tilty-flippy, a combination Canon rather surprisingly does not offer in 2018.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

Cryve said:


> If they release the mirrorless full frame at photokina, does this mean we wont see another camera there like the 90d or 7d III?
> 
> How has this been at past photokinas?



Good question. SLRs will surely march on and both the 90D and 7D3 are expected at some point next year (based on how often those lines have historically been updated).

But Canon generally doesn't cluster body releases, especially not FF bodies. They like each (major) release to have all the attention, marketing spotlight, pre-ordering period, etc. before other higher-end bodies are announced. That implies that they won't drop FF mirrorless on/around the same time as a 90D, 7D3, 5DS2, etc.

See here for a very very very rough swag at how this might all juggle.

Keep in mind that this is wildly inexact swag at juggling best guess of new stuff (a rough guess informed by CR rumor timings) vs. rough timing of next versions of existing lines (which is not a terrible method, so much as it counts on Canon not to change its habits). It's windage and best-guessery, nothing more.

- A


----------



## HarryFilm (Jul 9, 2018)

Stuart said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > It's coming home, it's coming home FF coming home!  ;D
> ...



---

BOTH Canon AND Sony are coming out with Medium Format systems. Let's just say that a certain manufacturer is coming out with a 60 fps DCI 4k 4:2:2 up to 16-bits per channel interframe-encoded video and up to 16-bits RAW 4:4:4 INTRAFRAME sampled form the full sensor and 8192 by 6144 pixel 16 bits per channel RAW and JPEG-2000 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 stills with a nearly 65 mm diagonal size sensor AND its coming out for sale MUCH SOONER THAN YOU THINK !!! Very low-light sensitive with much reduced noise over Canon 1Dx Mk2 or even the Sony A7s2!

OH.....and what a stills and video codec it has !!! ... i.e. Take a guess who designed and coded it? AND what a collection of initial super-high quality PRIME and ZOOM lenses it will have right out of the gate! A much better selection than what happened with the Sony A9, Panasonic G4/5-series and Fuji 50 megapixel MF intros!

AGAIN -- YOU HEARD IT HEAR FIRST!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

Durf said:


> I'm wondering if a mirrorless camera constantly using electrical parts a lot more than than a DSLR such as a EVF and constantly having currents and light probing its sensor if these parts will actually out live the average life cycle of a mechanical mirror/shutter DSLR.
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> Time will tell.....



Manufacturers might settle this one to move more units. Sony claims the A7R III shutter is rated for 500k actuations. Canon and Nikon may follow suit with a hard number.

In fairness, they may carefully craft that statement to only identify _shutter _lifespan. No idea if the added burden on on-board processing has been tested to the same degree as something mechanical like the shutter.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if a mirrorless camera constantly using electrical parts a lot more than than a DSLR such as a EVF and constantly having currents and light probing its sensor if these parts will actually out live the average life cycle of a mechanical mirror/shutter DSLR.
> ...



What does “rated to” mean? Covered by warranty? Some RDT showing an MTBF of 500k?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Can you enlighten me. Where did you get the information that "Canon clearly intends to tap into existing cache of EF lenses"?



There's no data on this, but there is an overwhelming common sense argument that EF will work seamlessly on FF mirrorless on day one (either via a true EF mount or an EF adaptor) so that Canon can try to sell every SLR user to buy an FF mirrorless body.

In short, the easiest sale Canon could possibly make is to their own customers, and they would do it with seamless EF lens compatibility. 

Inverting this, for argument's sake: to *not *have EF lens compatibility would be tantamount to pulling the Canon name off of the product and offering itself to the world as a brand new system starting from scratch. Canon simply will not do this.

- A


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 9, 2018)

traveller said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...



Yeah EF-M is only 0.5mm larger in diameter than FE. EF is 54mm and biggest by far, poor old Nikon has rubbish 44.5mm diameter so they are in urgent need of an update. I think Canon should go for a new mount with short flange distance, or at maybe offer two models with EF and EF-X (for want of a better name) while they develop native glass. Make and adapter that gets native or near native EF speed on the new mount.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...




I have a P/S with a 480FPS burst rate at a reduced resolution..... but no way are we going to see that at full resolution.... but we might see 20 at full resolution and 60 or 120 at reduced resolution.... but even then, I doubt it..... perhaps later on the 1DX of mirrorless, but not on the first one out of the gate.


----------



## infared (Jul 9, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Perhaps an accelerated schedule from Canon to prevent Nikon from skimming all the cream off the mirrorless market.


LOL! It's been skimmed off years ago!


----------



## dak723 (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.



The reason that I own mirrorless, is that I have WYSIWYG for the exposure in the EVF.


----------



## infared (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Not really into mirrorless.
> 
> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models? Is it for improved video? If its an EF-mount size/weight will only be marginally better.


I use Olympus mirrorless cameras along with a 5DIV.
Things that "I" love about my mirrorless cameras:
1.Review fine detail of photos just shot thru the VF. 
2. Incredible image stabilization in camera body and some stabilized lenses couple with body and make the IS even greater. 6-7 stops
3. Smaller sensor in my Olympus bodies...which gives an incredibly smaller kit. (I do not think that the Canon FF Mirrorless will buy us much in that department...especially if the new body supports EF Lenses.
4. Silent operation if so desired.
5. Incredible burst rates.
6. Lighter Weight
7. See actual exposure in VF


----------



## unfocused (Jul 9, 2018)

*Re: Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3*



HarryFilm said:


> ...Take a guess who designed and coded it? AND what a collection of initial super-high quality PRIME and ZOOM lenses it will have right out of the gate! A much better selection than what happened with the Sony A9, Panasonic G4/5-series and Fuji 50 megapixel MF intros!
> 
> AGAIN -- YOU HEARD IT HEAR FIRST!



Harry give it up. No one believes your lies and you aren’t even entertaining any more. You are now just a boring nuisance that has nothing to contribute.


----------



## -1 (Jul 9, 2018)

traveller said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Hoping for EF mount, Dual sd slots with atleast one Uhs-2.
> ...



The FE and EF-M measures are for all practical purposes identical. If the Sony FE mount can be used for FF then the Canon EF-M can too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mounts


----------



## Quackator (Jul 9, 2018)

exkeks said:


> I think, it’s quite the opposite. The fact that Canon didn’t bother to produce a newly designed 70-200/2.8 aside from some cosmetical changes, is a sign that they do not aim at current owners of the 70-200/2.8II IS wanting to upgrade. Because -perhaps- there will be a new EF-# 70-200/2.8 coming soon?



The new lenses employ several new features. Canon communicated 
only the coating and improved sealing on the f2.8 lens.
What they didn't tell openly is that these lenses are now assembled
on their new robotics assembly line. This cuts down production cost
per piece and vastly reduces tolerances and variations per piece.
All the lenses designed over the last two years now carry their 
correction data onboard, eliminating the need to build firmware 
updates for cameras only to support those lenses.
The biggest easter egg though is very likely that those lenses also
sport the new communication protocol, speeding up data transfer 
anywhere from estimated factor 10~100.
This has enormous effect on AF speed, smoothness (video!) and 
precision, and it also aids lens stabilization combined with digital
stabilization in camera.

I am convinced that the new cameras will have EF+ mount,
the plus referring to correction data and faster protocol.
support those lenses.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> What do people think would be the three top advantages compared to the current EOS-models?


I would add what I consider the most important advantage: *no more micro-adjustments for autofocus*! Arbitrary choice of focus point. All AF lenses "guaranteed" to focus accurately. No more 3rd party AF problems. (Ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but should at least help a lot)

This of course assumes a good AF implementation, which may make Canon's DPAF the one critical feature for the Canon FF mirrorless to be a hit.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jul 9, 2018)

Mirrorless is so cool. To have a smaller camera with a3 bigger lenses (sorry i never see small lenses on FF Cameras) it a huge advantage. All the people who can not take great photos will hope that all they need is a cooler camera to become great artists. 

And yes, it will cost 1000 extra for it's extra coolness
And yes, it will be cheaper to manufactor
And yes, our gas will be happy that we can buy new, bigger lenses. and additionally one small pancake, which we never use.

3x canon earning, 3 times we loosing, wow.

P.S. a FF camera with a moderately small F6.3 lens makes no sense. A APS camera with a F4 or a MFT with F2.8 lens will do the same at the same size, just with less coolness.

i am impressed what marketing can do, i should have known. Even smoking is cool, in fact the most expensive way to die earlier, and to enjoy nice coughing every morning, haha


----------



## photonius (Jul 9, 2018)

ooh.. Finally I will be able to use my old Canon FD lenses on a digital Canon FF :


----------



## infared (Jul 9, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> Mirrorless is so cool. To have a smaller camera with a3 bigger lenses (sorry i never see small lenses on FF Cameras) it a huge advantage. All the people who can not take great photos will hope that all they need is a cooler camera to become great artists.
> 
> And yes, it will cost 1000 extra for it's extra coolness
> And yes, it will be cheaper to manufactor
> ...



You bring up good points....But there are some distinct advantages to a mirrorless body, no matter the size, depending on one's shooting style and needs. If you do not see that, you are blind.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 9, 2018)

yes, of course a traditional dslr will get the job done too. But the instant feedback on what you're shooting through the EVF can be very valuable for instance for wedding photographers who shoot in rapidly changing lighting conditions with challenges. 

The A9 has proven that a mirrorless can offer focus (tracking) capabilities that already are a match or exceed what dslr's can do (think of focus points that can reach the outer edges of a frame). Sport and wildlife photogs will love it (I've shot an A9 during an event on an indoor speed cycling track for an evening and getting good shots of the cyclists was super super easy; the guy that was the pro sports photographer working for that venue instantly decided to switch to an A9, coming from a 1dx).

Plus a truly silent shooting option, which could be great for instance for concert or set photographers. 

So yes, there could be advantages for your style of shooting.


----------



## Lobot (Jul 9, 2018)

I was reading and wondering what kind of mount new FF mirrorless would use, if it is as rumored, a "sexy" one. I had an idea I think was worth registering in here.

So Canon wants to have native compatibility with EF lenses, but also want's to shorter flange distance to make it usefull to buy new lenses for mirrorless system. Sony cameras has this thrid party adapter that changes flange distance to make manual focus lenses to auto focus. What if Canon makes variable flange distance mount with normal EF mount profile.

At max distance fully compatible to EF/EF-S lenses.
At lowest distance minimum working distance for new mirrorless lenses.
New mirrorless lenses does not need internal focusing system as changing flange distance takes care of it. 
Cheaper new lenses, no need for extra elements or motors for focusing. 
Better image quality in new lenses as lens requires less elements.
Smaller lenses.

Real game changer


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> nchoh said:
> 
> 
> > Can you enlighten me. Where did you get the information that "Canon clearly intends to tap into existing cache of EF lenses"?
> ...



Important to remember, Canon wants new customers, too- as executives have noted, there is money to be made in mirrorless. They see some of the success Sony is having in FF mirrorless and see that there are luxury dollars people will spend on high-end FF MILC. It's not all just about their existing user base. They want new customers, too.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 9, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > nchoh said:
> ...



Canon's first aim I am sure is to reduce the number of people who switch from Canon to Sony and that will hav two effects: firstly these people will effectively be 'new' customers in that they will be people who would have moved to Sony but instead buy the newest Canon offering. Second, if Canon (and Nikon) reduce the number of people switching that will be a real problem for Sony because Sony's user base so far has been in stealing users from CaNikon - they seem to have a very small native customer base . And if that client line is reduced their income stream and their kudos plummets.


----------



## nchoh (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> nchoh said:
> 
> 
> > Can you enlighten me. Where did you get the information that "Canon clearly intends to tap into existing cache of EF lenses"?
> ...



I totally agree with you that it is overwhelming common sense that Canon should tap into it's huge base of EF lense owners. However, common sense might turn out wrong. And it certainly does not equal to "Canon clearly intends".


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Important to remember, Canon wants new customers, too- as executives have noted, there is money to be made in mirrorless. They see some of the success Sony is having in FF mirrorless and see that there are luxury dollars people will spend on high-end FF MILC. It's not all just about their existing user base. They want new customers, too.



100%. Which is precisely why I think Canon will lead with a thin mount system + adaptor. I would contend Canon would really struggle to make headway against Sony with new users, the up and comers from IG stepping up from cell phones and smaller-sensored gear, etc. if it was a larger, full EF mount setup.

As much as Canon wants to a FF mirrorless rig in the hands of every Canon SLR shooter -- and yes, a full EF mount would likely achieve that particular goal most efficiently -- you can still sell a FF mirrorless rig to Canon users with a thin mount + adaptor. If the controls/ergonomics/shooting experience are highly similar/familiar to their SLR and the EF lenses work perfectly on it, it's still a Canon and it still works well with EF. SLR folks will pick one up in some percentage. It may not be the same percentage as if it was full EF, but I'm assuming Canon will scoop up new business that offsets that.

- A


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Important to remember, Canon wants new customers, too- as executives have noted, there is money to be made in mirrorless. They see some of the success Sony is having in FF mirrorless and see that there are luxury dollars people will spend on high-end FF MILC. It's not all just about their existing user base. They want new customers, too.
> ...



Totally- agree 100%. They want the money before Sony and Nikon get it.


----------



## springle (Jul 9, 2018)

Mostly I photograph birds. A FF mirrorless is not especially interesting to me. The Lens Factor of an APS-C body helps obtain closer photos.

I am now using a Sony RX10-IV for many photos. I appreciate the noiseless "shutter", although shooting at 24 fps eats up memory cards. I have often seen birds jump at the sound of a shutter. This model of Sony focuses quickly through the EVF. I have little or no use for the rear LCD. However when I shut it off, I could no longer review images on the LCD. So far I have not been very successful focusing on birds in flight.

Also I am planning on purchasing a Canon 600mm F4.0 (hopefully better than the Zeiss 600mm F4.0 on the Sony) and I am holding off on the purchase until I have a clear understanding of the future of coupling with mirrorless bodies - as I anticipate mirrorless is where the future lies.

Givien the frame rates and the silent shutter, I am dismayed that Canon would release a FF mirrorless body. Zero interest for me unless there is some whiz-bang feature that I am not anticipating. If Canon can obtain speedy focusing on a mirrorless body, then I would definitely purchase a APS-C mirrorless body, but not much interest in a FF mirrorless which seems more like a corporate prestige product than something of serious use.

(However, a full frame mirrorless body of over 50 MP would allow cropping to roughly the same pixel count as a current-model 20 MP APS-C body. Such a large pixel-count would likely slow down the frame rate and a teeny subject in the viewfinder would make focusing difficult.)


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 9, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



And to get new customers who may try a Nikon FF MILC. They want the Sony FF market and to get potential switchers for sure, but it is no coincidence that Canon's release timeframe seems to be the same as Nikon's for their first FF MILC. Canon has historically always tried to match Nikon. Some rivalries die hard, I guess.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Canon has historically always tried to match Nikon. Some rivalries die hard, I guess.



I agree. I love my EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS, EF 14-24mm f/2.8L and EF 200-500 f/5.6L IS that only got made because Canon had to match what Nik--

Oh. Wait. That never happened. 

Though the overall offerings fall into similar buckets between the two companies, I think there are a lot of differences in release timing and tiering of the FF portfolio of bodies. There's a pretty clear stutter step in timing and difference in lengths of product lifecycles if you check Keith's charts at Northlight. 

However, all that said, for *this* 'super big deal' sort of offering, I really do think the two companies may drop news within days of each other. So I am, in no uncertain terms, expecting some _premium_ grade 'marketing brinkmanship' and fanfare as Canon announces, Nikon announces and Sony responds with a counter-announcement -- quite possibly at Photokina.

- A


----------



## hkenneth (Jul 9, 2018)

springle said:


> Mostly I photograph birds. A FF mirrorless is not especially interesting to me. The Lens Factor of an APS-C body helps obtain closer photos.



I actually prefer FF body for taking photos of birds. Birds are most active before sunrise and right before sunset and a FF body allows me to take pictures at ISO1000-2000 with very good noise control.

This picture was taken at 7:41 pm at ISO1600. Right before sunset, birds often allow me to get very close. This picture was not cropped.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/42343263575/in/datetaken/


----------



## BillB (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has historically always tried to match Nikon. Some rivalries die hard, I guess.
> ...



There may have been a preemptive quality to the A7 III rollout. The recent back and forth between Canon and Nikon leaks/rumors seems likely to continue and intensify.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

BillB said:


> There may have been a preemptive quality to the A7 III rollout. The recent back and forth between Canon and Nikon leaks/rumors seems likely to continue and intensify.



The wicked backorder of A7 III we hear about (anecdotally, but there's enough anecdotes all over to plausibly back this up) lead to a few possible conclusions:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Folks are truly ordering this thing in excess of all of Sony's expectations / Sony dramatically underpegged the demand


[*]Sony rushed it to market before the appropriate production throughput and inventory levels could be attained (for the reasons you imply above)


[*]Sony deliberately engineered this backorder situation to bring social media interest to it as some kind of 'sales phenomenon', that A7 had truly become a proper market hit and not just an enthusiast's darling
[/list]

Much more likely 1 or 2 than 3, IMHO.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The wicked backorder of A7 III we hear about (anecdotally, but there's enough anecdotes all over to plausibly back this up) lead to a few possible conclusions:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Folks are truly ordering this thing in excess of all of Sony's expectations / Sony dramatically underpegged the demand
> ...


4. Sony actually loses money per unit sold, but wants to keep the presence of its brand on the market.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jul 9, 2018)

Kit. said:


> 4. Sony actually loses money per unit sold, but wants to keep the presence of its brand on the market.


Reference: ?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > 4. Sony actually loses money per unit sold, but wants to keep the presence of its brand on the market.
> ...


Reference to any of the other 3?


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 9, 2018)

On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jul 9, 2018)

I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one. 

No 4K at all?
Poor codec?
Horrific crop?
No DPAF?

All are possible, at least one or two are likely. The wait for this camera is the only thing keeping me from jumping ship. This camera has to be competitive.


----------



## Durf (Jul 9, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.



...and they used a Canon camera for the product photography to market the rice cooker....


----------



## nchoh (Jul 9, 2018)

Durf said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.
> ...



Actually... they got out of the rice cooker business.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

Maiaibing said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > 4. Sony actually loses money per unit sold, but wants to keep the presence of its brand on the market.
> ...



...that's kind of how they sold PS3 and PS4, correct? Sell it at cost (or in the PS's case, a loss initially I believe) to get folks to adopt the system and bring revenue in through other channels, correct?

It's conjecture that any of the above (1-3 that I offered) are happening, of course. Just a guess.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > There may have been a preemptive quality to the A7 III rollout. The recent back and forth between Canon and Nikon leaks/rumors seems likely to continue and intensify.
> ...



Maybe there was a relatively late decision to drop the price, which kicked demand higher than anticipated. 

Or maybe it started out as 2, and some paid and volunteer spinmasters are working to turn it into 3.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has historically always tried to match Nikon. Some rivalries die hard, I guess.
> ...



Yep, all this competition will be good for us- the consumer.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 9, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.
> 
> No 4K at all?
> Poor codec?
> ...



Most likely a 5DIV-like crop- but that would be a mistake. FF video was what put their stills cameras on the map for video and lead to the increased large sensor video camera market.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ...that's kind of how they sold PS3 and PS4, correct? Sell it at cost (or in the PS's case, a loss initially I believe) to get folks to adopt the system and bring revenue in through other channels, correct?


If I remember correctly, PS3 were sold $250-$300 below the BoM costs, and the profits were made on game subscriptions.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...that's kind of how they sold PS3 and PS4, correct? Sell it at cost (or in the PS's case, a loss initially I believe) to get folks to adopt the system and bring revenue in through other channels, correct?
> ...



Souds right, but it wasn't subscriptions back in the PS3 days -- they were simply looking to move games at $60 per. Effectively, they were giving the hammer away in an effort to sell a lot of nails.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Sure, but the ink jet printer model doesn’t really apply to cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, but the ink jet printer model doesn’t really apply to cameras.


One can try to sell lenses.

If it's not just a part of the brand image campaign.


----------



## BillB (Jul 9, 2018)

Kit. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but the ink jet printer model doesn’t really apply to cameras.
> ...



Sure, right now they are the only game in town. They will have more trouble getting attention when the Canon and Nikon models hit the streets.

Desperation might be another possibility. With head on competition looming, move product however you have to.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 9, 2018)

springle said:


> I am dismayed that Canon would release a FF mirrorless body. Zero interest for me



Canon already makes several APS-C mirrorless bodies. What does their releasing a FF one have to do with you, if you're not interested? What is the point of this post?


----------



## scyrene (Jul 9, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.
> 
> No 4K at all?
> Poor codec?
> ...



Yaaaawn. "Jump ship" or don't. More likely, you'll just keep injecting your negativity into these forums.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.


One could be said for sure: it won't be EOS C700 FF at EOS M price point.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

scyrene said:


> springle said:
> 
> 
> > I am dismayed that Canon would release a FF mirrorless body instead of working on ______. Zero interest for me
> ...



+1. See edit above. Would be helpful context -- without it, you're just shaking your fist in the air.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.
> 
> No 4K at all?
> Poor codec?
> ...



I'm not a video ace, but I doubt a new camera north of $2k from Canon in 2018 will not have 4K and DPAF driving it. But fear not: I'm guessing Canon will let video folks down somehow, so they'll have plenty of the high-grade complaint fodder they crave.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > springle said:
> ...


50/1.4


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > springle said:
> ...



Getting Morris Day and the Time on contract to promote the next camera line!


----------



## dak723 (Jul 9, 2018)

scyrene said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.
> ...



Yes, Just another Sony plant or a troll.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Agreed.

Give me (about in order of importance):
-EF Mount
-superior IQ w/ 30-50Mpix
-<$3000
-CF+SD or CFast+SD, or maybe CFast+CF (but that'd take lot of space)
-close to 5D size, maybe take the pentaprism away. With optional grip to make it 1D size

And I'll buy one.


----------



## vangelismm (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



PS1, PS2 too.
And a lot of money lost per unit, back in the days the news reported more than 600 dolares cost to sell for 399,00.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 10, 2018)

The inkjet printer market has for a long time used the Gillette model of giving away the razor in order to make money off the blades, at least some segments of that market.

I don't see how that works with cameras, given that you are not selling film, and the bulk of camera buyers don't get more than a lens or two, I think.

Then there was the car dealer on TV who advertised that they lost money on every deal, but they made up for it with volume.

(I sometimes use that to explain my singing.)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Then there was the car dealer on TV who advertised that they lost money on every deal, but they made up for it with volume.



Haha, he probably has a bridge to sell too.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 10, 2018)

tpatana said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



Umm...just buy a DSLR maybe? They make plenty of those.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 10, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.


Sony's first commercial product is a small transistor radio, Model TR55. Sony has never been in rice cooker business.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Then there was the car dealer on TV who advertised that they lost money on every deal, but they made up for it with volume.
> ...


UK DID sold the London Bridge to US


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 10, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> The wait for this camera is the only thing keeping me from jumping ship. This camera has to be competitive.



yawn.

jump ship already. You threatened, or promised you were getting an A7III a while ago. Please just do.

Dpreview and here would be so much better without you infesting both forums with your drivel and continual bitching and moaning.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



All together now: Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! Please jump! etc.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Reading the answers, I'm pretty convinced that I won't be switching to mirrorless anytime soon.
> ...



Oh now, you have shown that FF mirrorless doesn't necessarily mean smaller. At least length wise.  We'll just have to wait for what Canon does. Maybe it will be smaller, but I doubt it will be enough to make any real difference.

You can readily adapt old glass to your DSLR right now with wonderful results $10 adapter, $20 if you want a focus confirmation beep (without any electrical contacts necessary on the lens). A sort of AFMA is available too. I have 36 old lenses I adapt to my 5D Mark III with no problem, though focus peaking would be wonderful for MF. 10X in the viewfinder would also be nice, but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place. I guess one might be able to just jump to 2x or 3x? I don't know.

So other than the focus peaking (if accurate, and from what I understand the version on Canon's M models isn't good at all), I really cannot think of anything else I could use that a DSLR doesn't already do, but everyone has their own list. Very high burst rates? Not for me. Larger spread on focus points? Yes, that would be nice.

Like I said, everyone has their own list. I just don't see a compelling reason for me to go that route.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



And a lot of the negativity in this forum comes from those call others trolls when they request a certain feature. Just because *you* don’t need it does not mean it’s not a valid request for a Canon product.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.



With IS enabled it’s fine.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 10, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Request a certain feature???

Here's how a mature adult requests a feature or discusses features rationally on an internet forum:

"I sure hope the new camera has 4K. I'd also like to see such-and-such codec because (actual reason given). While it might be cropped, I hope the crop factor is less than XX, and of course, I would hope to see DPAF.

Here's how a troll does it:

"I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one."

If you don't see the difference between a mature adult who actually want to discuss things or give their personal wish list and someone who intentionally over-exaggerates and used inflammatory language (the definition of a troll), then I guess I can't make it any more clear.


----------



## transpo1 (Jul 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Is it possible this person’s a troll? Maybe. Is it possible he/she is just holding a ton of Canon glass, loves their products but wants more competitive features and is fed up? Also possible. The sad thing is it doesn’t matter because even when requests for 4K and other video features are made intelligently on this forum, there is a certain group who are adamantly dismissive. You know who you are.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.
> ...



 But we are talking manual focus.  I have a Mamiya-Sekor 400mm f/6.3 lens and it is a real %itch for me to focus handheld through the viewfinder. Thank Canon for IS on long focal lengths. The Canon 400mm f/5.6L IS I had was great. Hand held in live view and at 5X or 10X? Ain't happening. Same thing, I think, through the viewfinder. So for me, I don't see how in the world 10X through the viewfinder would be of any benefit even on a 50mm lens. 24mm? Maybe. 50mm? Nope. Mounted on a steady tripod? Sure. Hand held? No way. Now, if I smoked a doobie and everything was in slow motion... no problem


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

Rocky said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.
> ...



Before the name was changed to Sony... the company made a rice cooker. Same company, different name. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/09/sonys-first-failure-the-1945-electric-rice-cooker/

"...a prototype now sits ensconced in glass at the Sony Archives in Shinagawa."

But it was such a failure it was never released commercially.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



yes, it's still fine. I had no problem using focus magnification with a 400mm lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



But it was mirrorless.......


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > but now that I think about it I'm not sure exactly how helpful that would be. 50mm x10? Hand holding would be awful for trying to focus at 10X, I think. I'm imagining that it would feel like trying to hold a 500mm lens still to focus... jumping all over the place.
> ...



Point taken from CFB -- 10x may be a bit ambitious for handheld work. But the right multiplier (or peaking implementation) by Canon's bright folks can sort that out, I think.

As for saving space, either you find this attractive or you don't. I happen to see it both ways -- it only really matters if you dramatically lower your expectations on length/speed, but I still see that being valuable. If I could turn my 5D3 into something resembling an RX1R* for times when I want to keep things small, I would absolutely take that opportunity.

*I know it can't be _that_ small, and I keep saying I still want a grip. So perhaps the best analogy would be to make my 5D3 feel more like a Rebel. There are times I would like that.

- A


----------



## canonographer (Jul 10, 2018)

I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this $2,000 camera. It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.

Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?

People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR? Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.

I can't imagine going back to an OVF with no information, no focus peaking, no histogram, no view finder review of images. I can't imagine having to go back to having to listen to the clapping of my camera when I want to take a picture without drawing attention to myself, and a million other things.

I know people will call my a Sony fan boi or a troll, but I was really pulling for Canon for a long time. I just don't think they have the ability to pull off what Sony has been able to do. I don't think there is an ROI for 
them to go head to head that way.

We'll soon find out, but that's what I think.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?



What in the EF mount is old technology? How is inferior to the technology in the Sony E mount?

Is there something in the EF mount itself that prevents EVF with info, focus peaking, histogram, etc, even in the absence of mirror?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?
> 
> People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR? Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.



To your first question: you can stuff a great mirrorless design into an EF mount footprint. It will be a mirrorless camera and not an SLR. Why would Canon do this? Getting access to the latest mirrorless tech without having to buy new glass would delight their current customers, which might entice them to buy one of these shiny new bodies -- likely at a healthy profit margin.

As for the typewriter analogy: Can you tell me why exactly a fully functional mirrorless camera that's an inch longer in the mount than your A7 is antiquated? If it has a slick EVF and does everything through the viewfinder like that A7 of yours, has IBIS, 4K, etc. does that still make it ancient? 

No. It doesn't. So... Oh, unless that _sweet skinny A7 form factor is where the magic happens_. Silly me.

That skinny form factor makes your lenses lighter and less expensive, right? Oh... No?

That skinny form factor means we get well built lenses with mechanical focus-- Oh.. _they're all focus by wire?!_

Do yourself a favor and consider decoupling the notion of an EF sized body from an SLR. You can make a mirrorless camera from the shape of an SLR with all the functionality of a modern mirrorless system. It's less crazy than it sounds.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



But really, it’s fine. I used it with lenses as long as 400mm. The combination of ILIS and IBIS is quite compelling. I wouldn’t zoom in the EVF before finding the subject, but if you find it, then engage IS, you can MF quite effectively with the magnifier. Short focal lengths are no problem at all.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 10, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?
> ...



I'm not saying the EF lenses are inferior by any means (although I do think I recall reading that they are not optimized for mirrorless focusing, but that's another topic).

I'm saying that I don't think Canon has anything to gain by sticking with the EF lens mount for mirrorless. Judging by the comments on this site, most people with EF lenses don't have much interest in switching to mirrorless anyway.

Canon needs to appeal to new users who want to buy new lenses. EF users can always use an adapter.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?
> ...



I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.

For the record, I wouldn't call the OVF a benefit by any stretch. I think it is one of the biggest downsides of using a DSLR.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I'm not saying the EF lenses are inferior by any means (although I do think I recall reading that they are not optimized for mirrorless focusing, but that's another topic).
> 
> I'm saying that I don't think Canon has anything to gain by sticking with the EF lens mount for mirrorless. Judging by the comments on this site, most people with EF lenses don't have much interest in switching to mirrorless anyway.
> 
> Canon needs to appeal to new users who want to buy new lenses. EF users can always use an adapter.


EF lenses work fine with Live view and DPAF on Canon cameras, they are excellent and serviced by Canon for many years after being discontinued.
Sony has a long way to go to catch up. Service takes forever, and costs so much that places like Lens Rentals say they just buy a new one because service is so expensive. 

Canon may or may not benefit from a new mount. Stores and warehouses full of EF lenses may suddenly see sales plummet because buyers will be waiting for the lens they want to come in a new mount. The hit to value of inventory could be significant. Sony had nothing to lose, so for them, it was a good decision.


Certainly, users with $10,000 worth of lenses will not be wanting to dump them and replace them with basically the same thing. If there is a new mount, and that is likely, Canon will have a feature to use EF lenses. That's already leaked.
I don't see new users being a significant market for a mirrorless camera or lenses. You might fool a few, but most people that are going to lay out $5K for a camera plus lenses will do a little research and find that the new lenses will not work on their existing Canon DSLR's.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.
> 
> For the record, I wouldn't call the OVF a benefit by any stretch. I think it is one of the biggest downsides of using a DSLR.



Ok, you don't value what an OVF brings, cool. Some birders/wildlifers look through their OVF with the power off as a spotting scope, others value the much higher battery life and responsiveness an OVF allows. But you prefer the EVF, histo, readout, etc. Totally fair. Everyone has their own take on this.

But you _also _asserted that:



canonographer said:


> Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?



...and I answered your question. Canon has two paths forward with FF mirrorless:


The A7 route, if you will: thin mount + new lenses and the option for folks to use EF with an adaptor. Canon will sell some new tiny lenses and adaptors, but one would presume their body sales would be lower with their existing customers as they may not be fond of adaptors or prefer a beefier/chunkier body.


The EF route: pull the mirror from a 6D2 or 5D4 and allow EF glass to work natively on it. They won't sell any tiny new lenses or adaptors, but presumably many more of Canon's current customers will be likely to buy one of these because usage will be seamless to their FF SLRs they use today.

*Either path makes Canon a lot of money.* Only Canon knows what will make more. But to suggest Canon wouldn't benefit from an EF mirrorless body has no basis. They 100% would make money off of it.

- A


----------



## canonographer (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> *Either path makes Canon a lot of money.* Only Canon knows what will make more. But to suggest Canon wouldn't benefit from an EF mirrorless body has no basis. They 100% would make money off of it.
> 
> - A



I think you make good points, and I agree with them for the most part. I would say though that Canon could have gone that route with the EOS M, they could have stuffed a mirrorless camera in an SL1 body, but they chose to go with a new more flexible body style and a new lens mount. I think they'll do the same for their full frame offering too.

In any case, we're all just arguing over the margins here because we love thinking about camera gear for some odd reason .

I've seen some pretty stunning pictures made with some really questionable gear. Good skills will out shoot the best gear any day of the week. Here's to hoping the excitement I get from buying new gear will lead me to get out more to continue working on my skills.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

I will never understand how the EF mount is somehow technologically crippled in today's environment when speaking about mirrorless. How so? What could a new mount offer that the EF mount doesn't already offer?

Some call a mirrorless mount a "thin" mount. I don't understand that. Thinner camera? Yes. Thinner mount? How so? How much thinner? How do we know Canon's mount will be thinner? I understand that in reference to Sony FF bodies, but the mount? I don't know. What does the thickness or thinness of the mount have to do with it? Doesn't flange distance mean more?

At any rate, we'll soon know what Canon will do.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



My experience has been very different. Maybe you are running FF. I don't know. On a M43 camera the crop factor is x2 already. You might have very steady hands. Some of us don't. 400mm at 5x or 10x, sorry, I have trouble believing you had sharp results handheld with it zoomed like that through the viewfinder. Maybe you did, but I don't believe it. It wasn't easy and fine, anyway. You keep talking about IS or IBIS. Remember, a Canon mirrorless body probably WON'T have IBIS. So forget about that. Fine with IBIS? Maybe. MF lens with no IS and no IBIS? Not. Tripod required. Then, when zoomed 10X... how do you know your composition is correct? With a short focal length, it seems like composition would be even more critical.

Not trying to argue, but I cannot imagine trying to compose a photo on a 400mm lens or even 50mm lens at a 10X zoom while looking through the viewfinder and hand held. It's bad enough in live view on a tripod. At least then, though, I know my composition is correct before zooming.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this . It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.
> ...


Is the $2,000 camera your total investment in the system? 
You either have to buy lenses for your $2,000 camera or adapt the Canon lenses that perhaps you had.
In the former case, on average Sony lenses equivalent to the L-glass class are 30% more expensive than Canon and adding to it upgrading the camera body every 9-12 months, so in the long run there is no benefit here.

If you adapt Canon lenses, you need a decent adapter that adds to the cost of ownership. Tell me whether your camera with adapted lenses can internally fix the vignetting, distortion, color shift, softness, etc.? or it just urges you do it in post? This will be another hurdle and may need to change the workflow.

And finally, how dependable your $2,000 camera will be in the long run when it need to be serviced and fixed? 

The point, as has been said several times before, is that the cost of of ownership of a camera system is much more than the camera itself. 

Canon is not going to produce anything to match what you have in your $2,000 camera. They will produce something that is usable, dependable, and with the feature set that work in almost every imaginable scenario in the long run. These all contribute to affordability of the system. That is what I expect to get not toys with gimmicks.


----------



## Adelino (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > I think you made my point for me. There is no intrinsic benefit to having a mirror. The benefits of dropping the mirror, on the other hand, are many.
> ...



The two paths are not mutually exclusive. A high end EF mount mirrorless and a smaller EFX (or whatever it will be called) could both be released without much trouble. That was not really a strong option for Sony and non existent for Nikon.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I switched from Canon to a Sony A7 II and have now added an A7 III. I'm interested in what Canon has to offer, but I seriously doubt they will produce anything that can come close to matching what I have in this $2,000 camera. It blows away most every camera in Canon's lineup.


Does it work with my 550EX?



canonographer said:


> Canon would be insane to come out with a camera that is tied to old technology. This whole argument about making a camera for EF lenses, so nobody has to buy new lenses? Is that Canon's goal, to make sure nobody has to buy new lenses? How exactly do they benefit from that again?


As if Canon customers get more money to spend on Canon gear each time Canon adds a new mount?

Or do you really believe every Canon customer has every Canon lens he or she wants?



canonographer said:


> People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR?


Fast startup time, long battery life, more responsive viewfinder with higher dynamic range, dedicated AF sensor... just to name a few.



canonographer said:


> Shoot with a mirrorless camera for a while, and then go pick up your DSLR. It's like going back to using a typewriter.


No, "going back to using a typewriter" is going back to using a film camera.

Which, by the way, was a good learning experience, which some people seem to unfortunately lack.


----------



## Uneternal (Jul 10, 2018)

It would be benefitting Canon if they announce something before Christmas. Or put different: I'd surely have an impact if they have nothing to offer for full frame enthusiats.

Sony A7III has been around for quite a while now and it got a lot of marketing attention as well as VERY good ratings in every review. Plus I'm sure they will drop the price right before Xmas, also for A6300 and A6500. Good luck with that $1599 EOS M5 Mark II, when Sony's gonna offer their A6500 for half of that price.

I'm not a Sony fan and I'm still waiting for Canon to release something to replace my 6D (and that doesn't rip a hole in your pocked like the 5D4). But as it stands now, a lot of people already had enough waiting and switch to Sony. You can see that clearly in price comparison lists here in Europe, shortly after its release A7 III jumped on rank 1. And a lot of Sony lenses also kicked Canon lenses from the first ranks of the selling charts. 

Canon knows they have to pull the ripcord or on Xmas they'll see the second big wave of pro photogs jumping on the Sony bandwagon.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> You can see that clearly in price comparison lists here in Europe, shortly after its release A7 III jumped on rank 1.


What do you mean by "rank", and how do you measure it "in price comparison lists here in Europe"?



Uneternal said:


> Canon knows they have to pull the ripcord or on Xmas they'll see the second big wave of pro photogs jumping on the Sony bandwagon.


Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?


----------



## BillB (Jul 10, 2018)

How does video fit into the rollout of Canon's FF mirrorless? Is video really that important? Can video really make a difference to the success of Canon's FF mirrorless, or in the FF niche, is it more about internet buzz?


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2018)

What many people here fail to realize is that full frame cameras are not what drives cannons sales. Full frame cameras are a niche. The vast bulk of interchangeable lens camera sales are crop cameras. As such, it makes sense that the M series gets a whole new line of lenses with a special mount, but to suggest that FF mirrorless is a big enough market to come up with a whole new lens mount is really pushing it....

The “make it tiny” crowd is a subset of the CR readers, a group which already does not represent the typical Canon user..... we represent the fanatics, the nutbars of the photography world.... we are not a commercially viable segment!

So.... will canon abandon their base and throw away ergonomics in order to make a tiny camera that can never compete in size with an M? At the same time that they are telling us it will be an elegant solution? I think not!


----------



## BillB (Jul 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> What many people here fail to realize is that full frame cameras are not what drives cannons sales. Full frame cameras are a niche. The vast bulk of interchangeable lens camera sales are crop cameras. As such, it makes sense that the M series gets a whole new line of lenses with a special mount, but to suggest that FF mirrorless is a big enough market to come up with a whole new lens mount is really pushing it....
> 
> The “make it tiny” crowd is a subset of the CR readers, a group which already does not represent the typical Canon user..... we represent the fanatics, the nutbars of the photography world.... we are not a commercially viable segment!
> 
> So.... will canon abandon their base and throw away ergonomics in order to make a tiny camera that can never compete in size with an M? At the same time that they are telling us it will be an elegant solution? I think not!



But Canon can try to have it both ways. One FF mirrorless emphasizing small size, another maximizing performance--ergonomics, battery capacity, processing, heat management etc. One question is what mount the small size "Super M" camera should have. EF? EF-M? Something new? Another question is whether a small FF mirrorless be worth doing. That is something for Canon to figure out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I know people will call my a Sony fan boi or a troll, but I was really pulling for Canon for a long time. I just don't think they have the ability to pull off what Sony has been able to do. I don't think there is an ROI for
> them to go head to head that way.



Yes, people will call you a troll — it's a moniker you might deserve. You don't think Canon has the ability to pull off what what Sony was able to do? That certainly makes you sound like your intent is to troll. 

What did Sony do? Well, they started with DSLRs. But there was insufficient ROI for them to go head to head that way, so they abandoned that segment and switched to MILCs...a segment where they didn't have to compete with Canon and Nikon. Then Canon entered the MILC segment with the EOS M. In its first year, domestically the M outsold all the Sony APS-C MILC models except the two-gen prior model that was deeply discounted. What did Sony do? Well, they expanded to FF MILCs...again seeking to avoid past failures by entering a market segment where they wouldn't face competition. 

Well, maybe you're not trolling...but instead are merely ignorant of the facts. But regardless of your intent, you're wrong. Canon certainly does have _the ability_ to pull off what Sony has been able to do — run away from competition they're unable to face. But I bet Canon won't...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Maybe you did, but I don't believe it.



Alright then.


If you’re going after a butterfly with a tiny sensor, sure, you’re screwed. Also if something is moving in or out of plane, it will be challenging.

For subjects like landscapes, the focus mag is great. Compose, select a desired object (the point about which it will zoom), enlarge, focus with IS, zoom back out to verify comp, expose.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 10, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Sure, the term troll is overused/misused but are you honestly saying that someone with such a negative attitude, using words like 'crippled', and saying *if Canon doesn't release THIS product exactly how I want it to be then I'm taking my business elsewhere!* - which is then repeated each time a new product is rumoured - is constructive or in any way adds to the forum? Because if so I think you're just defending the indefensible.

But actually you're using a straw man anyway. People aren't being called trolls for making requests (reasonable or otherwise), or posting wish lists. They're being castigated for the same old, tired rubbish they've been spouting here for years ('Canon is *******', 'make my dream camera or ELSE', 'all Canon's products are terrible' blah blah blah).


----------



## scyrene (Jul 10, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> The sad thing is it doesn’t matter because even when requests for 4K and other video features are made intelligently on this forum, there is a certain group who are adamantly dismissive. You know who you are.



This is actually false. Funny how you give the ones using extreme exaggeration and inflammatory terms the benefit of the doubt (and whether the motivation is genuine frustration or not, the language they use invites criticism), but you make up falsehoods about the regulars here who aren't doing that. It's clear where you stand.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?


An easy example would be wedding photographers. December is their off-season, and also the time they take stock of their approach. Realizing they can break even switching from Canon to Sony because of Black Friday/Xmas sales and still have a few months to adapt to the change is enticing if they are looking 5 years into the future.

More so if Canon hasnt announced their mirrorless option, or if it seems underwhelming

That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

preppyak said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?
> ...



I don’t think many professionals play the “I wonder is the grass is greener” game with the tools of their trade, even with the suspicious assumption that it might not cost them any net capital. That’s an amateur’s game (like me, who found a green lawn with ugly brown patches).

A professional might dip a toe in with a body and a lens to try, but wholesale offloading of their proven gear (“break even”) is a monumental risk.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > KeithBreazeal said:
> ...



Arguable, since the Rice Cooker is 1945 and TTEC was established in 1946.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-01.html


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

preppyak said:


> > Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?
> 
> 
> An easy example would be wedding photographers. December is their off-season, and also the time they take stock of their approach. Realizing they can break even switching from Canon to Sony because of Black Friday/Xmas sales and still have a few months to adapt to the change is enticing if they are looking 5 years into the future.


What will happen with their photography business if they don't buy a FF mirrorless camera before their next season?

How are they supposed to "break even" if they are selling their old and likely outdated gear on a used gear market, but need to buy ~$8000 worth of bodies and lenses from the official dealers in order to qualify for Sony's pro support program?

Has Sony imaging support proven itself worth to be sticking to for the next 5 years for a wedding photographer?



preppyak said:


> That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).


And what is their reason for switching to FF mirrorless?


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).
> ...



No-one does stock car racing on Christmas day - plenty of time to order your new FF mirrorless on 23rd, have it delivered on 24th and read the manual on Christmas day while the kids wreak havoc.


----------



## amorse (Jul 10, 2018)

Honestly, I think I am most interested in the second, lower tier model predicted earlier (maybe with a removable EVF). I am certainly interested in a smaller camera body with a full frame sensor which can act as a backup to my 5D IV without taking up a lot of space. Really a full frame M6, and bonus if it can take an LP-E6N (yes, no doubt that would make it bigger than an M6).

A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I will never understand how the EF mount is somehow technologically crippled in today's environment when speaking about mirrorless. How so? What could a new mount offer that the EF mount doesn't already offer?
> 
> Some call a mirrorless mount a "thin" mount. I don't understand that. Thinner camera? Yes. Thinner mount? How so? How much thinner? How do we know Canon's mount will be thinner? I understand that in reference to Sony FF bodies, but the mount? I don't know. What does the thickness or thinness of the mount have to do with it? Doesn't flange distance mean more?



some here are using "slim mount" as shorthand for "short flange focal distance mount", making "thinner" cameras possible and shorter lenses within a certain, frequently used focal length range, provided other lens mount parameters are well chosen, esp. throat width (clear diameter).

i thought this was generally well understood around here.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

amorse said:


> Honestly, I think I am most interested in the second, lower tier model predicted earlier (maybe with a removable EVF). I am certainly interested in a smaller camera body with a full frame sensor which can act as a backup to my 5D IV without taking up a lot of space. Really a full frame M6, and bonus if it can take an LP-E6N (yes, no doubt that would make it bigger than an M6).
> 
> A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.



+1 

thank you so very much! you are living proof that i am definitely not alone in asking for a compact, capable FF sensored mirrorless "swiss army knife" system!


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> thank you so very much! you are living proof that i am definitely not alone in asking for a compact, capable FF sensored mirrorless "swiss army knife" system!



No-one ever said you were alone. What was queried was your claim that you are representative of millions of people and therefore a viable camera market.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

amorse said:


> A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.



Too often, the folks that inarticulately poo-poo a full EF setup (not here, you folks are generally pretty great) miss the point. Some sling around that all-too-often-heard reflexive take -- *mirrorless is all about being small* -- and that's it. 'That's not thin and small and stuff. That's stupid. Why would they do that?' And all the upsides of mirrorless that are unrelated to size get blown right by.

But I really appreciate the personal value of what a thin-mount setup would do for you. Thanks for the perspective. You are far from alone on this, and I'd wager you are not in a small minority on this I would guess, but again we have no data on market preference of full vs. thin.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system. 

what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?



You are proposing Canon simply apply all it's consumer-level product sensibilities -- plastic, lighter, STM, modest apertures, etc. -- to the FF market for a steal of a price. You're describing a FF EOS M platform.

Yep. Totally reasonable. :

Bold prediction: Canon's not going to do that because Canon will make a lot more money _*not*_ doing that. Canon is printing money right now in the APS-C space, and I doubt they'll set all of that on fire to fulfill your quest for better IQ in a smaller package. 

- A


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I have plenty of those.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one. 

I don't mind plastic. EF-M 22/2.0 and 18-55 kit zoom are more than good enough build quality as far as i am concerned. They have survived years of outdoor use in dusty Urbex, tough mountaineering, freezing cold alpine/backcountry skiing environments with me. Including being dropped into the snow and i had to literally dig out my EOS M with 18-55 on it, wipe off the snow and it kept working.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2018)

After reading this forum all these years, I am certain Canon does not consult the forums for advice on which feature to include next. If they did there would be far less disappointment.

I have a suspicion though, that Sony monitors this forum because there are so many here that know Canon's market strategy, their finances, their customers and their next move.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only?



You can't answer that unless you know the cost of a FF sensor and as far as I understand it, the sensor is a significant part of the cost, and it is not a simply multiple of the sensor area because increasing sensor size your manufacturing failure rate rises disproportionately (any manufacturer will tell you that). 

The Sony A73 is a smidge under 2,000 USD, what makes you think Canon can halve that? You have no idea of Sony profit margins on the A73 - are they making any profit at all? Is it a loss leader to get people into Sony before Canon release their FF MILC? 

You assumptoins seem to be continually based on wish list rather than any understanding of the issues involved.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > People keep asking what's the benefit of a mirrorless camera. That's the wrong question. The right question is, what is the benefit of a DSLR?
> ...



I shoot plenty sports in dim gyms, so I need AF that can handle such scenes. So far haven't seen mirrorless which is even remotely close to my 1DX. That's my biggest reason for keeping 1DX in the bag. For the studio stuff, it's different completely, so mirrorless could fit that realm very nicely.

OVF is still way better in my mind, but I'm sure in some near-ish future the EVF is close enough that the other improvements make it better in general.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.
> 
> I don't mind plastic. EF-M 22/2.0 and 18-55 kit zoom are more than good enough build quality as far as i am concerned. They have survived years of outdoor use in dusty Urbex, tough mountaineering, freezing cold alpine/backcountry skiing environments with me. Including being dropped into the snow and i had to literally dig out my EOS M with 18-55 on it, wipe off the snow and it kept working.



Again: no one is questioning whether you want the camera you are lobbying for. ;D

We are questioning why Canon would set its financials on fire for you. What you propose is a dramatic reduction in body profit margins, Canon dropping a very disruptive shark into the APS-C market it already dominates, etc. For what? A small uptick in units? A photographic awakening where Rebel-level shooters start pricier full-frame lens collections as thanks to Canon for the sweet FF body they just received?

Your strategy is a fever dream. It's what a failing Canon would do if it was locked in a vicious price war. It's quite simply the wrong move for Canon as it stands today.

- A


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.



They could make 2 versions, or even 3.

1: $999 Rebel-M. Basic small-ish, plastic body
2: $2000 5D-M. Like 5D-series, high mpix, great IQ, etc.
3: $3000 1D-M. Rugged pro/sports body. Medium mpix count, crazy-ass fps. Tank-like body.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.



can i see your survey to back that up? some real data outside of made out of thin air crap from the AvTv Universe?

because you could get a brand new sony A7 for 1000 bucks for the last two years and it hasn't taken the world by storm.

as a matter of fact, you can buy it on amazon right now for $800 brand new.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

tpatana said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.
> ...



Someone please find me an animated gif of Heath Ledger presiding over that burning pyre of cash in Dark Knight. Because that's what this is. 

Canon didn't build up their portfolio to a jillion carefully crafted price points, establish long-term market leadership over time, etc. only to flush all of that down the toilet to... do what, exactly? Spike unit sales? Delight customers? Stick it to Sony?

Madness. 

- A


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



You have some reason why similar line-up would work as they use for DSLRs?

Opinions are great until you need to give some reason behind them...


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.


I'd say, there are millions of people that see themselves as such potential customers.

However, when they go to the shop and actually compare the systems, they may as well buy the M50, because it's still cheaper, lighter, smaller, and good enough.


----------



## BillB (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.
> 
> what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?



The cost of a FF sensor and full frame lenses would add some unknown amount to the cost of an M50. Clearly, there are quite a few people out there who would like a small relatively inexpensive camera. The question is how many in that group would be willing to pay the additional cost for a full frame version, and I suspect Canon is also quite interested in the answer to that question. Could they make money bringing out a "Super M" version of the M50? The answer depends partly how much more the fullframe version will cost, and I have no idea whether your numbers are close to the mark or not, or what the demand would be at that price point. The devil would seem to be in the details on this one.

I doubt that Canon will bet the mirrorless ranch on a scaled up fullframe "Super M" version of the M50. I think they will be trying to hit other price points as well.


----------



## justawriter (Jul 10, 2018)

We all have our wants and dreams for the next Canon release. Personally, I would like to shoot 1/1000 in a poorly lit gym without having to shoot wide open and hoping that the NR can do its job. I figure another four or five stops of higher noise free ISO should do it. But I don't come on the forum to cry that Canon isn't dedicating its next camera to me. 

I work around the limitations when I have to (a slower shutter speed than I would like), and look forward to the day when technology catches up to what I need. Someday, I'm sure, your dream camera will come (and I bet it won't be a Sony) but until then, I think I have a very good tool for the job at hand.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



No, the proposal is perfectly sound and fine. Try to take a PAYING CUSTOMER's PERSPECTIVE for once, will ya? instead of trying to just defend Canon's mega profitability [13% EBIT on imaging revenues is more than healthy. It is "oligopoly level". I and anybody in their right mind believes in "MY WALLET FIRST", rather than in "make poor Canon great again". 

It really is one of the most extreme forms of "Can-apologism" [sorry, but it is the only appropriate word for it] to always think like you were Canon Chief Financial officer or their main shareholder. Heck, no! We are all Canon customers. We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some



And all along, that’s been backwards. An SLR can do everything a MILC can do, and then some (i.e. the stuff facilitated by the mirror) including if so designed: an EVF, removable or otherwise. 

The only thing it can’t do is: have no mirror assembly, which affects form factor.


----------



## amorse (Jul 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.
> ...



Only Canon knows the plan right now, I think, but if the rumours are true, we'll know more soon. Part of me wonders if they may be creating a full frame equivalent of an M6 rather than an M50. The earlier rumour suggested that one of the two offerings may have a removable viewfinder. In my limited imagination, I'm having a hard time finding a reason to have a removable EVF unless this was for the size conscious crowd. If they did this, I can only assume it wouldn't be cheap though. I really struggle to imagine Canon releasing any full frame camera below the price of a 6D II.

While the previous rumour noted that this could be the cheaper of the two cameras with the other camera having the better video features, I wonder if that could actually be backwards. I see so many youtube vloggers switching back and forth between cameras in order to get something that is light (read: single hand holdable), takes great cinematic video (with slow motion), has a swivel screen, and shoots 4K. There really aren't a lot of full frame cameras on the market that do all of that well, so there either there is no real market for it or the market is under-serviced. 

I obviously have no idea what the actual market for such a product would be, but if Canon wants to release a product which doesn't compete with their other offerings, a small/very lightweight full frame, video centric camera could fit that bill. People who are size restricted may not select one of Canon's cinema cameras anyway, and the ergonomics would be terrible, so it may not compete with the cinema line. I guess we may know more soon!


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only?
> ...



They have a positive operating income of about 11.3% of sales.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/FY2017_20F_PDF.pdf

*, Sony continued to strengthen its high value-added products, such as interchangeable lens
cameras and lenses, and focus on high-end models within its product portfolio of compact digital cameras and
consumer video cameras.*

Sounds to me like they are not cutting or slashing prices.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

tpatana said:


> You have some reason why similar line-up would work as they use for DSLRs?
> 
> Opinions are great until you need to give some reason behind them...



Forgive me, I thought that was implied. TL/DR reason: because profits.

Canon has demonstrated that they can ask for $500-$1699 for crop cameras and $1999-$5999 for FF cameras at time of launch. Canon leads the market in units (and has for a very long time), and they have crafted a portfolio that allows them to carve every dollar out of the market. Nowhere is this carefully tuned portfolio more painstakingly set up than in the crop market, which has far higher units than FF. 

In short, Canon has figured out how to deliver a ton of products to market that justify their distinct price points. So now, to change that so dramatically with what you and AvTvM are suggesting, would...

[list type=decimal]
[*]Reduce Canon's profitability. Whatever mad rush on units we expect a cut-rate FF platform to drive, there are only so many people with $1500 in their pocket for a camera + lens. An FF camera would cost a great deal more to build than a crop camera, so less of that $1500 would go into Canon's pocket.


[*]Signal that Canon is moving _toward_ consumers/enthusiasts and _away_ from professionals with their FF offerings. This is more symbolic than anything else, but if Canon is limiting how nice they make their higher end offering (not just specs, but build quality, sealing, etc.) to keep costs down, pros may get wanderlust.


[*]Show that Canon wants to radically change how it is doing its business _despite leading the market_. That makes no sense. There is far more to lose than to gain with this approach.
[/list]

Again, I just don't see this happening. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

Kit. said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.
> ...



Sorry, I firmly see two markets here (keep it small vs. keep it seamless). The notion that everyone who steps up to FF is a ruthless pragmatist who accepts the realities of the size of things is a hive-mind perspective even we on this forum don't share. I doubt the market is any different.

There is a market for FF shooters who want a smaller rig -- lens size/speed limitations and all. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No, the proposal is perfectly sound and fine. Try to take a PAYING CUSTOMER's PERSPECTIVE for once, will ya? instead of trying to just defend Canon's mega profitability [13% EBIT on imaging revenues is more than healthy. It is "oligopoly level". I and anybody in their right mind believes in "MY WALLET FIRST", rather than in "make poor Canon great again".
> 
> It really is one of the most extreme forms of "Can-apologism" [sorry, but it is the only appropriate word for it] to always think like you were Canon Chief Financial officer or their main shareholder. Heck, no! We are all Canon customers. We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.



I'm not defending their profitability as _just_, I'm just pointing out the obvious: _profitability is their goal._ I never said it was honorable or fair. We'd all love to pay less. 

But accept the fact that the market will pay Canon's prices for what they offer. That reality seems constantly lost on you. Until the market bucks on Canon's asking prices, Canon will continue to stick to their MO. It's not apologism, it's capitalism! Your caps lock rants shouldn't aimed at Canon or a forum: they really should be aimed at the market that (apparently) values things differently than you do.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> It really is one of the most extreme forms of "Can-apologism" [sorry, but it is the only appropriate word for it] to always think like you were Canon Chief Financial officer or their main shareholder. Heck, no! We are all Canon customers. We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.


But not everyone wants it NOW.

I am still using Canon gear I bought 20 years ago (including 50/1.4). I would like to still be able to use my current gear for 20 more years to come. If Canon having slightly higher profit margins lets me pay less for my gear in the long run, that's fine for me.

(and yes, my experience with Sony was different)


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

amorse said:


> Part of me wonders if they may be creating a full frame equivalent of an M6 rather than an M50.



Entirely plausible. Not sure we'll see a pop-up flash or _that_ tiny of a form factor, but a mid-spec'd crop setup on FF (24 MP + 7 fps + DPAF + tilty-flippy touch + we presume the addition of 4K) seems a reasonable FF mirrorless offering to be sold alongside the 6D2. I still think those specs are a shade light for a 5-series level offering, though.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.



no we don't.

if we don't like what Canon is delivering, then buy a Sony, Fuji,etc.

you as a customer has zero rights really to demand what a company produces, canon isn't a monopoly. you vote with your feet, not with your keyboard.

but if you want to complain and whine, then this isn't the place for it. you're better off sending emails to canon, complaining in canon's own feedback forums,etc. Continually bitching and moaning in here, does nothing outside of get real tiring to hear all the time.

That's what you and a couple of others don't get. We all get you're not happy. So what? Why do i have to hear about it every time you open your mouth?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > tpatana said:
> ...



You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it. 

No one is defending Canon or its profitability (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest).

This is madness because the pricing suggested is never going to happen and anyone with an ounce of sense would know that. I'd like to buy a new mirrorless 1D for $3,000 but given that is less than the market price of a used original 1Dx, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > However, when they go to the shop and actually compare the systems, they may as well buy the M50, because it's still cheaper, lighter, smaller, and good enough.
> ...


I see more than two _potential_ markets here. I personally belong to the 3rd one: make it even lighter and smaller and better integrated with the lens I want on it - by getting rid of the mount.

The question is whether those markets are big enough to justify the investments into them.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2018)

Perhaps this puts some perspective on things.....

I get a phone call from the boss.... "I need you take some pictures at …… right now". I had the bag with the Oly and lenses on my desk, so I grabbed it and went over to see what was happening.... My boss sees the Oly, and tells me that "this is important, go get your good camera"... so it's off to storage, grab the Canon and L glass, and back to take the shots.....

The moral of the story is that the Oly, despite being a nice little camera and would have done the job well, failed the visual test. It was not the size of camera that the client expected. As a pro, you must meet client expectations.... and sometimes that means a DSLR form factor.

Canon will have done considerable market survey by now. They will have a far better idea of what works and what does not than any of us on the form have. My case above might be a typical reaction, or it may be an aberration. The works of us here on this forum are dealing with a sample size of 1... it has no significance. We can get bent out of shape and argue until the cows come home, but in the end we just do not know.

The only clue we have to go by is a statement that it will be an elegant solution. As to what that elegant solution is, we shall have to wait.... in the meantime, we speculate.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 10, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> ...
> but if you want to complain and whine, then this isn't the place for it. you're better off sending emails to canon, complaining in canon's own feedback forums,etc. Continually bitching and moaning in here, does nothing outside of get real tiring to hear all the time.
> 
> That's what you and a couple of others don't get. We all get you're not happy. So what? Why do i have to hear about it every time you open your mouth?



Because those folks are trolls. As you say, if they really wanted to give their opinion to Canon, there are other methods and forums that would better serve their purpose. They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.


They can just be off their meds.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it.



+1

I am picturing a little kid stamping his foot and yelling I WANT I WANT I WANT and I’m gonna hold my breath until I GET.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Because those folks are trolls. As you say, if they really wanted to give their opinion to Canon, there are other methods and forums that would better serve their purpose. They whine and complain here simply to stir the pot and enrage Canon users. There is no other reason.



That's too broad a read of what a troll is. If they constantly refer to nerfing, YAPODFC, anecdotes of an A7 III based economy where if you have one you are king, etc. then yes. 

But AvTvM is no troll. There's just a very particular take on how Canon could succeed -- it's an alternate vision for Canon's future, that's all. I've always respected the passion and unique take AvTvM has on things, but the head in the sand on the state of the market, the perception that his/her sensibilities _are obviously the worlds' sensibilities_ can get a little grating.

A troll acts out of malice. AvTvM acts out of passion for what they want. Huge difference, IMHO.

- A


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jul 10, 2018)

> Unfocused: "..... No one is defending Canon or its profitability (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest)...".



Spot on- great point Unfocused. 

History is littered with examples of companies whose profits became too slim, and ultimately ended up collapsing into insolvency. I suspect a large portion of Canon purchasers make their choice either due to the reputation/brand of Canon, and/or (for professionals and keener amateurs) their reputation for reliable products and excellent support. These things come from companies that make sustainable profits. Only those with short-term interest should want their suppliers to make thin margins.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > You have some reason why similar line-up would work as they use for DSLRs?
> ...



Did someone say they must stop selling DSLRs if they release good mirrorless bodies? Why not take piece of both cakes? You seem to view the world in quite high contrast black and white. There's 50 shades of grey in between, there's white, there's black, and then there's slightly darker black.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks. 

If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> iIt is really beyond me why so many folks here [not] demanding max. value for their bucks.



Because many of us are generally realists. I’d love a medium format digital camera with a 100FPS global shutter, modulo-based photon counting for essentially limitless DR, and 1200mm f/4 lenses for the price of a cup of coffee, but I know I can’t get it.

Therefore, I evaluate the value proposition offered by the various companies, and either buy or do not buy if it meets my needs/wants/budget. The companies’ net profits are trivia which don’t play into my decisions at all. YMMV.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.
> 
> If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.



Fair enough - we are all entitled to our own opinion (and I won't go to why customers would buy "mediocre" products in sufficient quantity to create a market leader..). Nearly all major products nowadays are made by an oligopoly (technical definition -in the UK, at least - = 5 producers holding over 50% market share between them), but not sure I would agree that their profits are so unreasonably high. For Financial year 2017, Canon made a net profit margin of 5.9%, and I'm not convinced the photographic division is their most profitable. Anyway, may be guilty of going off topic on this thread.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> You can demand anything you want. But, that doesn't mean you will get it.
> 
> *No one is defending Canon or its profitability* (although I certainly want any company that I have invested thousands of dollars in their products to stay sufficiently profitable so that they can remain in business and continue to improve those products -- enlightened self-interest).




What the hey, I will. 2017 Canon reported 175,913 million Yen in Operating Profits a margin of 15.9%.
Compare this to 74,924 million Yen in Operating Profit a margin of 11.4%. This is for the imaging sectors.

Sony's Operating Profit is only 42.5% of Canon's
https://global.canon/en/ir/annual/2017/canon-annual-report-2017.pdf

It is obvious Canon is *******.


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.
> 
> If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher. But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.



So why are you not whining on a Sony forum about how they do not make a Sony MILC with Canon ergonomics compatible with Canon EF lenses, with Canon levels of reliability all for the price of a Rebel?
You constantly, and wilfully ignore the fact that we are not defending Canon merely pointing out the realities of the market - and one of those realities until you join the supposed hordes of other defectors and actually, physically go out and buy a Sony, Canon will think that overall they are doing the right thing for you.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 10, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.
> ...



Office Buisness Unit had an Operating Profit of $180,648 million Yen vs $175,913 for Imaging. You are correct.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > iIt is really beyond me why so many folks here [not] demanding max. value for their bucks.
> ...



no need to try and obfuscate matters with ridicule. The suggested 3 tiers of Canon FF mirrorless cameras at 3 price points, the lowest being 1000 [= double EOS M50] is not "ludicrously unrealistic". 

We may not get it from Canon, not now and not ever never, if a significant proportion of their customers is primarily concerned with Canon's profitability rather than getting MAX BANG for their OWN BUCK. 

Recently I got an M50 for my daughter, because it is a reasonably decent (* capable and compact APS-C ILC at a (very) reasonable price point, fully competitive [eg with Fuji X-T100] and totally competitive in combo with very decent IQ, compact and affordable EF-M lenses. I see no reason why we should not demand the same from Canon for an ENTRY level FF MILC. Entry level not meaning "nerfed and crippled", but "decent, capable and affordable". It does NOT have to be the only Canon FF MILC of course, they can make any number of more expensive ones for other market segments (birders, sports folks, pros of any sort, filthy rich / posers, whatever] if they see fit. 

But 1 decent, compact and affordable AMATEUR model should be part of the lineup. Plus some matching lenses to go with it. 


(* only "reasonably decent" by 2018 standards instead of "excellent" due to nerfed LP-E12 battery


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

tpatana said:


> Did someone say they must stop selling DSLRs if they release good mirrorless bodies? Why not take piece of both cakes? You seem to view the world in quite high contrast black and white. There's 50 shades of grey in between, there's white, there's black, and then there's slightly darker black.



Because the price one cake is being sold for will affect the market's interest in another cake.

As much as the offerings can be bucketed into segments APS-C vs. FF, Mirrorless vs. SLR, etc. in the end we're all photographers and the bucket we're in at the moment isn't so rigid for a good number of us. As an example, my beloved 6D1 may be coming to an end and I need a new camera, and if I had a choice of a $1599 6D2 or a $999 FF ILC with a newer sensor at the same resolution that I can still use my lenses with, _I might give that new camera a go._

In other words, a $999/1999/2999 spread you offered will get a lot of people buying those mirrorless rigs instead of more profitable-for-Canon SLR options. So offering those cameras at those prices is tantamount to throwing $600/$1000/$2500 away for each body sale. The logical move would be to offer that camera at something more/less the same as the 6D2 / 5D4 / 1DX2 these mirrorless rigs are spec'd like.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So why are you not whining on a Sony forum about how they do not make a Sony MILC with Canon ergonomics compatible with Canon EF lenses, with Canon levels of reliability all for the price of a Rebel?



because i can express my opinion wherever I want. Even more so as a paying Canon customer. And are you sure, this is the only forum I am actively contributing? 

And don't worry, i do walk the talk. I buy Canon gear ONLY when it meets my functional requirements and my budget. Otherwise I pass. Have not purchased any EOS M between M 1st gen and M50, because none was worth upgrading for me. 5D3 was the last mirrorslapper I bought. Until Canon brings a winning FF MILC, I will not buy an FF camera from them. Same goes for all other brands.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i have no problem with Canon turning a profit. But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products. It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.



Because, as usual, max value is_ max value for you_, i.e. body specs. There's simply more to it than that, and that's why some of us are far happier customers than you are.

Some of us value reliability, service, lens selection, ergonomics and we're clearly prepared to pay more for that. That doesn't make us crazy, apologists, etc. -- it means we have different priorities than you and Canon is largely fulfilling them.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



3 tiers is fine, and it may happen eventually. But when you use a term like “maximum bang” or “maximum value,” you’ve established a moving target as basis. “I won’t buy a car unless it provides maximum fuel economy,” is a nonsensical statement. It should be “I won’t buy a car unless it provides the fuel economy I desire/require for an amount I’m willing and able to pay.”


I couldn’t care less what canon’s profits are. That’s trivial except in the context of trying to understand why they make the decisions they do. Nor do I care if they make 1% or 100% on my purchase, or even if they lose money. I’m not a shareholder, and it had no bearing on whether the product and price they offer meets my desirements and pocketbook.

FWIW, that was not ridicule, it was exaggeration to illustrate a point.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no need to try and obfuscate matters with ridicule. The suggested 3 tiers of Canon FF mirrorless cameras at 3 price points, the lowest being 1000 [= double EOS M50] is not "ludicrously unrealistic".



It's not a question of 'if Canon can pull this off', it's a question of _'would Canon benefit from this'_. And I think the answer to is a resounding no for all the reasons we've enumerated: they can charge more money for less product than a FF mirrorless system for $999, and offering such a product would jeopardize that fact.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no need to try and obfuscate matters with ridicule. The suggested 3 tiers of Canon FF mirrorless cameras at 3 price points, the lowest being 1000 [= double EOS M50] is not "ludicrously unrealistic".



Define 'realistic'.
If one company has been making FF mirrorless long enough to get it down to a fine art, it would be Sony and yet Sony's lowest price FF MILC is 2,000 USD - and that is advertised price with no tax applied.

Now please explain why Canon should even try and sell one for half that. Please...explain why. What is in it for them as a market strategy (BTW I am sure that their market strategy does not include 'keep fullstop happy')
If any one has an interest in releasing FF MILC at that price point it is Sony if only to stymie the early days of the CaNikon FF-MILC. With your marvellous knowledge of the camera market you have castigated Canon for not releasing a FF MILC 10 years ago to stop Sony in their tracks: why have not Sony done that to stop CaNikon in their tracks? 

What is the cost of a FF sensor in relation to the whole cost of the camera and compared to APS-C sensor? 

You clearly have an understanding of the camera market that eludes me so it will be interesting to hear your thoughts instead of simply reading you say 'they can do it'. 





fullstop said:


> It does NOT have to be the only Canon FF MILC of course, they can make any number of more expensive ones for other market segments (birders, sports folks, pros of any sort, filthy rich / posers, whatever] if they see fit.



So why should the squash their very successful APS-C market? Probably for the same reason that Sony do....oh, hang on....they don't. 

Why should Canon follow some weird market rules that you probably do not expect of a manufacturer of any other goods.


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone say they must stop selling DSLRs if they release good mirrorless bodies? Why not take piece of both cakes? You seem to view the world in quite high contrast black and white. There's 50 shades of grey in between, there's white, there's black, and then there's slightly darker black.
> ...



Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> With your marvellous knowledge of the camera market you have castigated Canon for not releasing a FF MILC 10 years ago to stop Sony in their tracks: why have not Sony done that to stop CaNikon in their tracks?




I KNOW THE ANSWER!!!!!!!


Canon did not release a mirrorless FF camera 10 years ago because at that time the technology SUCKED! and they probably figured that nobody was going to pay more money for an inferior product. 


Sony did not release a mirrorless FF camera 10 years ago because at that time the technology SUCKED! and they probably figured that nobody was going to pay more money for an inferior product.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

tpatana said:


> Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.



100% right. ...if Canon weren't much much bigger than Sony today. But Canon makes far more money from its own customers than from stealing business from others, so it makes a lot of sense to protect how they are making that money from their customers rather than to undermine margins they get from them today.

Again, if the market position is reversed, if Canon is #2 or #3 following a giant Sony that cannot be stopped, a dirt cheap FF body actually has some merit. You'd steal share, develop a customer base that likes your mousetrap more than the other guys and be able to get more money from them on your next offering. (Spoiler alert: this is exactly what Sony appears to be doing with the A7 III.) But Canon simply isn't in that position, and going for it with a massive departure from their current market practices makes no business sense at all.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jul 10, 2018)

not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7 



> The A7 will be sold in a body-only kit for $1699 or with a new 28-70 F3.5-5.6 OSS lens for $1999.



Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?


----------



## tpatana (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Or, those might draw people away from buying Sony MILC bodies. Actual impact on Canon DSLR sales is impossible to guess. It's possible the Canon MILC sales would increase more than the DSLR would reduce, if it pulls enough people from other MILC brands.
> ...



Your guess is as good as mine. I think still DSLR and MILC are mostly not competing from same money, so selling FF MILC would mostly take money from competition, not their DSLR line-up.

Furthermore, if it's EF mount it would increase lens sales too on top of all that.

So I cannot guess if it'd reduce or increase the actual revenue/profit for the whole camera section. And neither can you, or even Canon. All we can do is guess, although Canon probably has done some market study and will make the decisions based on those.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?



"Should have been able to do" something vs. 'It would have been Canon's best possible business venture' are two very different things.

Canon chose to keep printing money elsewhere while Sony (bravely and aggressively, full marks) developed the FF mirrorless market. Now Canon will swoop in, offer something underwhelming for a higher price than you want... and still probably be sitting at 20% market share in that segment in a couple years. Because -- as always -- body specs are only a portion of the true value proposition of a product, and the market year over year continues to prove that true.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But I don't see any reason for oligopoly level profits based on mostly mediocre products.


What do you mean by that?

That you don't understand why Canon makes healthy money where you think it shouldn't?



fullstop said:


> It is really beyond me why so many folks here [all customers, since nobody is a Canon employee or shill] are taking a position I would expect from Canon's CEO/CFO or Canon shareholders rather than demanding max. value for their bucks.


Canon profits are not "a position of Canon's CEO/CFO", but the actual fact. While your opinion about "mostly mediocre products" is just an opinion.



fullstop said:


> If only I ask for it, likelihood is indeed low. If everyone here would ask Canon to really deliver the goods, chances would be higher.


That's simple. Everyone is voting with their money. And _my_ money now is not on "tiny FF MILC".


----------



## BillB (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Coulda shoulda woulda. We can never know how much it would have cost Canon to implement a preemptive strategy for mirrorless cameras, or how well it would have succeeded. The grandiose term for that kind of speculation is counterfactual history, but it is not really history but fantasy. Canon made a choice to go with dual pixel technology and a deliberate and flexible development strategy for mirrorless cameras. It has worked out pretty well with EOS M, and the next round is starting in fullframe mirrorless.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?
> ...



Also, companies are not infallible. Maybe with hindsight canon should have made FF MILCs in 2010, and if they had there would be no Nikon or Sony. But they didn’t, because their market analysis and risk profiles didn’t support it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> Coulda shoulda woulda. We can never know how much it would have cost Canon to implement a preemptive strategy for mirrorless cameras, or how well it would have succeeded. The grandiose term for that kind of speculation is counterfactual history, but it is not really history but fantasy. Canon made a choice to go with dual pixel technology and a deliberate and flexible development strategy for mirrorless cameras. It has worked out pretty well with EOS M, and the next round is starting in fullframe mirrorless.



This. All day. We are not entitled to what is possible -- instead we are offered what is profitable. If we don't like it, manufacturers lower the price or try again with a new product.

Canon chose to let Sony run riot and develop their own market. As much as that decision was a risk that could burn them, it was also an opportunity. Now Sony has developed something of value -- not just a product line, but buzz, interest in what mirrorless tech can do, etc. Sony's investment has now matured to the point that Canon will gladly show up and between (very modestly) stealing Sony business and (aggressively) selling mirrorless to their own customers, they will make a lot of money. 

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> not 10 years. i said 5 years ago. 2013 https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am sure they _could _have done it if they had wanted to. But my guess is they thought about it and decided to carry on doing what they were doing.
These numbers show that in the time they did not do what you propose, their market share went from 33% to 42%, a near 30% growth of market share 

https://www.bcnretail.com/market/detail/20180408_57359.html

So it looks to me like Canon assessed the market was not quite ready so they did other things instead. Whereas your predictions (even with hindsight) are ....misplaced.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But oh no, we have to show maximum UNDERSTANDING for Canon's profit levels. Again, really beyond me.



Not understanding _for_ Canon's profits, understanding _*of*_ Canon's profits...and other basic facts. 

In spite of all the opinions you voice on the Internet, and all of your promises to not buy products that don't even exist yet, Canon has heard only one thing from you:



fullstop said:


> Recently I got an M50



Message received! ;D


----------



## fullstop (Jul 11, 2018)

no no, I see lots of understanding FOR Canon's profits. And even some CONCERN about those profits not being high enough. That's what really puzzles me. Why some (many?) Canon CUSTOMERS here in this forum don't fervently request better products and/or lower prices from Canon, but defend Canon's decisions all the time. At least implicitly, by saying "Canon could/should/will not sell their stuff for less money". Well, heck no, if even their customers in internet fora don't ask for it. 

To me this behaviour displayed by some fellow forum members seems as strange as if an assembly of union representatives would say "we should not request any wage increases, company profits are very low at only 15% EBIT ratio, they might go out of business otherwise." And guess what their constituency would say ... 


Re. EOS M50: as I said, product and price are competitive right now. And as also previously stated I would have paid even MORE had Canon put the better and readily available LP-E17 power pack into it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> . And even some CONCERN about those profits not being high enough. That's what really puzzles me.



That would puzzle me too. Can you link to one of those posts? The only rationale I can imagine are:
*the poster is a shareholder, or
*the poster is afraid canon will go belly up

I don’t share either of those, but with the various recurring predictions of doom for canon I guess I see why people might feel the latter ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2018)

Person A expresses an opinion about a company's products or performance that is contradicted by established, verifiable facts. Person B states those facts. Person A believes that Person B is 'defending' the company. 

Yeah, that makes sense. :


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no no, I see lots of understanding FOR Canon's profits. And even some CONCERN about those profits not being high enough. That's what really puzzles me. Why some (many?) Canon CUSTOMERS here in this forum don't fervently request better products and/or lower prices from Canon, but defend Canon's decisions all the time. At least implicitly, by saying "Canon could/should/will not sell their stuff for less money". Well, heck no, if even their customers in internet fora don't ask for it.
> 
> To me this behaviour displayed by some fellow forum members seems as strange as if an assembly of union representatives would say "we should not request any wage increases, company profits are very low at only 15% EBIT ratio, they might go out of business otherwise." And guess what their constituency would say ...



You got me. I'm a bot for Canon. 

OR

You've mistaken a statement I made of how Canon operates as defense of the motherland or something. But think about that: I have no skin in the game here. No Canon stock, no hatred of Sony, no sick desire to pay more, etc. _It's just a statement of how Canon operates. _

And _from_ that statement, I have logically surmised that Canon would be unlikely to roll out a gravy train of bargain basement FF cameras just because it would be awesome, 'it would stick it to Sony', 'people demand more', 'canon would win', etc. Because being awesome, sticking it to Sony, 'Winning on AvTvM's terms' or giving us more bang for our buck is *not a goal of the company*. They simply want to be profitable and they believe they've found a better way to do that.

Yet somehow, bringing this to your attention gets you calling out "some fellow forum members" like we're enemies of the state. Please stick to your product ideas. We'll stick to talking about them. But questioning our intentions when we've so plainly laid out our rationale for why the idea isn't happening just gets silly. 

I don't think your idea is going to happen, and that doesn't make me a corporate shill or hate dreams. It's just not a sound business idea, IMHO. 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yet somehow, bringing this to your attention gets you calling out "some fellow forum members" like we're enemies of the state.
> 
> I don't think your idea is going to happen, and that doesn't make me a corporate shill or hate dreams. It's just not a sound business idea, IMHO.
> 
> - A



+1

I imagine I’m included amongst the maligned “canapologists” despite discussing canon’s products, technology, and speculating about canon’s strategies dispassionately.



ahsanford said:


> Please stick to your product ideas. We'll stick to talking about them. But questioning our intentions when we've so plainly laid out our rationale for why the idea isn't happening just gets silly.



The shark was jumped when cameras whose AF location indicators don’t match the actual size of the sensors (read: all cameras with AF location indicators) were labeled as sh*t, and a suggestion that what might be better is AF indicators in proportion to the frame size labeled as canopology. That genie doesn’t go back in the bottle.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2018)

Personally, I want to see Canon making a decent profit. When a company isn’t, one of the first things to suffer is the R+D division which gets cut to save money in the short term..... and without it, the company really is *******!

Healthy profit is necessary for innovation, and is necessary for stability. And before you start calling me a shill for Canon, I hope that Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and the others can also make a healthy profit because Canon also needs competition to help drive the need for that R+D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I want to see Canon making a decent profit. When a company isn’t, one of the first things to suffer is the R+D division which gets cut to save money in the short term..... and without it, the company really is *******!
> 
> Healthy profits is necessary for innovation, and is necessary for stability. And before you start calling me a shill for Canon, I hope that Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and the others can also make a healthy profit because Canon also needs competition to help drive the need for that R+D



Sometimes it has the opposite effect. In the 1980s when Kodak was making 80% net margin on color film, they chose to not enter the digital camera market, which they could have owned, [notkodakpology]for fear it would have hurt their recurring sales[/notkodakpology]. 

Oops.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> And before you start calling me a shill for Canon, I hope that Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and the others can also make a healthy profit because Canon also needs competition to help drive the need for that R+D



100%. We need healthy competition or those Canon profit margins will only get bigger, product lifecycles will get longer and my 50 f/nooneknows IS USM is _never_ gonna happen. :'(

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon should have pre-empted the Sony A7 with an FF MILC similarly priced and at least as well specced. Innovative Canon should have been able to do that, no?



A pretty good case can be made that Canon pre-empted the Sony A7 with a FF ILC called the 6D. While exact sales figures are not available, it's pretty easy to extrapolate from what is available that the 6D far outsold the A7. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., don't really care about mirrored or mirrorless. They care about selling cameras and Canon did that better than anyone else.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I want to see Canon making a decent profit. When a company isn’t, one of the first things to suffer is the R+D division which gets cut to save money in the short term..... and without it, the company really is *******!
> 
> Healthy profit is necessary for innovation, and is necessary for stability. And before you start calling me a shill for Canon, I hope that Nikon, Sony, Olympus, and the others can also make a healthy profit because Canon also needs competition to help drive the need for that R+D



Well good news.Canon, Nikon and Sony all are making a profit on their imaging business. One just has to look over their year end reports to see it.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m gonna hold my breath until I GET.



I wish he would. If you'e holding your breath, you can't also moan. Although I guess you could continue typing... for a minute or two.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I want to see Canon making a decent profit. When a company isn’t, one of the first things to suffer is the R+D division which gets cut to save money in the short term..... and without it, the company really is *******!
> ...



That was a case of not recognizing that a disruptive technology was on the way.... Kodak did have a huge research department, but it was mainly based on chemicals. Obviously, they failed to listen to their electronics people....

I remember when the Kodak DC20 came out. I had one. I thought that it was revolutionary and would change photography. Yes it was a poor substitute for a decent SLR, but it pointed to the future.... and that future is an internet full of cat pictures 


(Image from 1996 with a DC-20 from Kodak)


----------



## bwud (Jul 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I agree with 3kram5d. With image stabilization, focus magnification is a wonderful feature. Here is a quick example. I am hanging the camera from a strap, balancing it on my stomach (since I lack sufficient hands to record myself shooting normally), not holding my breath, defocusing, and then and focusing with 1 finger magnified from a 400mm lens at close to minimum focus distance. 

video link

When it stopped the video, I used my left hand to press the shutter release. Attached is what I got.

Using the viewfinder and two hands, it's even better. This isn't a scientific test, and ordinarily I'd try to shoot 400mm at faster than 1/100, but for the purposes of discussion this is good enough. I have no doubt Canon can accomplish a similarly useful focus zoom.

Forgive the state of my lawn :'(


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The absolutely recognized the disruptive potential.

It was a case of intentionally protecting said chemical business because of its high net profit. If they’d been making pennies on the dollar rather than 80%, they likely would have pushed into digital in the early 90s (they had the design in 1989) and the market could be very different.



http://www.businessinsider.com/this-man-invented-the-digital-camera-in-1975-and-his-bosses-at-kodak-never-let-it-see-the-light-of-day-2015-8 said:


> In 1989 Sasson and Robert Hills made the first DSLR camera, which wasn't a jury-rigged prototype, but one similar to the ones on the market today. It used memory cards and compressed the image.
> 
> *Kodak's marketing department, however, resisted it, according to the Times. Sasson was told they "could" sell the camera, but that they wouldn't, for fear it would cannibalize film sales. At the time, Kodak made money off of every step of the photography business. Why give that up*?





http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-kodaks-30-year-slide-into-bankruptcy/ said:


> Ringing up profit margins of around 80%, film drove the company’s expansion. Leo J. Thomas, senior vice president and Kodak’s director of research, told the Wall Street Journal in 1985: “It is very hard to find anything [with profit margins] like color photography that is legal.”
> 
> Many say film’s profitability contributed to Kodak’s demise. “I believe the single biggest mistake that Kodak made for two decades or more was the *fear of introducing technologies that would disrupt the film business*,” Glocker says. “There were excellent scientists and engineers at the bench level and through several layers of management who generated some of the world’s leading innovations. *The company, however, was almost never willing to risk the high film margins by introducing them*.



This is obviously not the same thing as mirrorless versus mirror, just a note on profit as a paralyzing effect rather than a driver of R&D innovation to market.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



LOL. Not arguable if Sony says so. Go argue with Sony.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



LOL click the link and read. Sony says so.

Tokyo Telecommunications Research Institute invited the cooker.

When Masaru Ibuka invented it he had not yet founded the company that would one day be Sony.

Tokyo Telecommunications Engineering Corporation founded in 1946 eventually turned in to Sony.

The article you read was internet fake / twisted news.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > No, the proposal is perfectly sound and fine. Try to take a PAYING CUSTOMER's PERSPECTIVE for once, will ya? instead of trying to just defend Canon's mega profitability [13% EBIT on imaging revenues is more than healthy. It is "oligopoly level". I and anybody in their right mind believes in "MY WALLET FIRST", rather than in "make poor Canon great again".
> ...



But Canon's profits *are* just.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



None of this matters....

The important thing is that it was mirrorless! And even more important, Canon introduced their first mirrorless camera in 1937!


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2018)

bwud said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



:'( My gosh guys, I thought Mr. Sanford and myself were talking about _*adapting legacy glass that is manual focus without IS (and no IBIS on Canon) to a FF Canon mirrorless camera and using through the viewfinder magnification (5x or 10x?) to get focus right.*_ :'( What the heck? It's nice that you got the lamp post right. Do it with a MF 200-400mm lens on a perched bird (where you've got to be quick), through a magnified viewfinder, with no IS or IBIS... That was kinda the point.  Please go back and read the beginning of the conversational sidebar.  You guys keep throwing IS and IBIS in there.

BTW: What was your magnification factor on the lamp post? 10X looking through the viewfinder? Looks like you were in "Live View" at 6.2X to me. Not the same. Not what we were talking about. Through the viewfinder, sir. Handheld. No tripod, No sandbag (tummy). lol

I'll see what I can do tomorrow with a 200mm lens (to simulate 400mm FOV) on my Olympus. At 10x through the viewfinder would it be like sighting through a 4000mm lens? All I can imagine is lots of movement magnified. I could be very wrong and would be happy to admit it if true. Wide open (Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 200mm f/4 in this case) on a bird or squirrel or 1 year old. Through the viewfinder and IBIS off since Canon probably won't have IBIS.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



How many MP is it.
How about DR?

In the 90's I bought a Victor Victrola at a garage sale. With it I bought a whole box of 78's.
My kids who were 6 and 8 would bug me to death to play this new CD player.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



It was not clear to me that you were meaning exclusively non IS glass on a non IS platform; I may have read that quoted line out of context. That being said, I’m not convinced canon will never make in body IS.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 11, 2018)

tpatana said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



I would have to guess that neither of you has tried the latest generation of Sony cameras, because your examples of DSLR benefits are outdated.

Don't get me wrong there are still reasons not to buy into Sony's ecosystem, but the reasons you list above aren't among them.

AF performance, battery life, dynamic range, EVF superiority to name a few, all fall within the Sony column. I would put the focus tracking of my A7 III up against the 1DX any time. That's with a $2K camera, let alone the $4,500 A9 w/ 20 fps, no blackout shooting 693 focus points that cover most of the sensor. I'm telling you, this stuff just works, and it works like a charm.

For Canon's sake, I hope they come out with something competitive. I'm just not convinced they're up to it anymore. They seem to be more focused on diversifying than on dominating a diminishing market.


----------



## takesome1 (Jul 11, 2018)

canonographer said:


> *For Canon's sake, I hope they come out with something competitive.* I'm just not convinced they're up to it anymore. They seem to be more focused on diversifying than on dominating a diminishing market.



Wow, you seem genuinely concerned about Canon's financial well being and future.
I am sure they appreciate that.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It was not clear to me that you were meaning exclusively non IS glass on a non IS platform; I may have read that quoted line out of context. That being said, I’m not convinced canon will never make in body IS.



In body IS is best for shorter focal lengths....

In lens IS is best for longer focal lengths.....

In lens IS degrades with faster lenses, as the elements are heavier, and therefore harder to move...

Panasonic has a camera that uses both.... and apparently using both together beats using one or the other....


I can easily see in body IS appearing in the future on both Nikon and Canon cameras.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > It was not clear to me that you were meaning exclusively non IS glass on a non IS platform; I may have read that quoted line out of context. That being said, I’m not convinced canon will never make in body IS.
> ...



As does sewknee.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 11, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > *For Canon's sake, I hope they come out with something competitive.* I'm just not convinced they're up to it anymore. They seem to be more focused on diversifying than on dominating a diminishing market.
> ...



Frankly, I AM concerned. Like most people on this site, I love camera gear. I want to see more competition not less, and I would love to see Canon give me a reason to dream about coming back.

We'll see soon enough I guess, but I'm rooting for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2018)

canonographer said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



Don't worry. When Canon does come out with a FF MILC, it will fall short of the current Sony models when you compare the spec sheets. Armchair internet experts will predict doom. Meanwhile, in the real world —you know, the one where people buy cameras and take pictures— the camera will be a commercial success. But as a FF camera, it will remain a niche product in the EOS lineup. 

If you want to worry for a company, worry for Sony. They led the APS-C MILC segment until Canon launched the EOS M line, at which point Sony ran to the FF MILC segment (just like they ran away from DSLRs because they couldn't compete in that CaNikon-dominated segment). Once Canon and Nikon enter the FF MILC segment, where can Sony run next to find profit? Well, at least their sensors will live on...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 11, 2018)

".... and I would love to see Canon give me a reason to dream about coming back."

A dreamer. This is ridiculous for someone stating the wonders of what they have just bought into. 

Jack


----------



## edoorn (Jul 11, 2018)

Canon (and Nikon) just need to make sure whatever they release is on par of course (or close), but they can make their offerings more interesting by making sure the ergonomics and ease of use of the menu's is better. 

"The new Nikon mirrorless camera will have a nice finish and a very comfortable grip. The overall handling/feeling is supposed to be excellent - this is coming from somebody who is/has tested the camera." (from Nikon Rumors)

If Canon can do the same (and I'm quite sure they will) that would be a big plus.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 11, 2018)

Imagine there's no mirror
It's easy if you try
No big lenses or bellows
Above us only sky
Imagine all the photons lining up today ...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one.

-----

i am dreaming of a shirt-pocket-sized computational camera without detachable lenses but IQ and photographic possibilities far beyond any of today's cameras and glass bricks. Looking at Canon I seriously doubt it will come from them, even if they had a working prototype today. "It could be bad for their highly profitable camera brick and polished glass lens business". 

But ... I am not concerned. Not at all. Someone else will sell me one soon enough.


----------



## Talys (Jul 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Imagine there's no mirror
> It's easy if you try
> No big lenses or bellows
> Above us only sky
> ...



I'm dreaming of a tricorder and orbital sensors that can capture every spectrum of light from 80000 m away and reproduce holographic models that also convey texture and smell. 

In the meantime I'm having fun with my 6D2


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 11, 2018)

If Canon made a mirrorless equivalent to the 5DIV with 10 FPS I’d be happy to pick it up.
Having a 5DSR I’m not convinced more MPs are useful.
More intelligent focusing systems would be useful. One that’s really good with bird in flight would be great.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Sometimes it has the opposite effect. In the 1980s when Kodak was making 80% net margin on color film, they chose to not enter the digital camera market, which they could have owned, [notkodakpology]for fear it would have hurt their recurring sales[/notkodakpology].


I remember it differently. They actually tried to create the market when the technology wasn't yet ready, with products much worse than film competition, and got burned.



canonographer said:


> I would have to guess that neither of you has tried the latest generation of Sony cameras, because your examples of DSLR benefits are outdated.


So, how are the startup times of "the latest generation of Sony cameras"?

Still slower than even of my SD870 IS about 10 years ago?


----------



## Sanjay (Jul 11, 2018)

it's great news that canon will announcing the first full frame Mirrorless camera in 2018.
but i want to know what about the lenses???
recently i bought Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 L USM II
it will be compatible with new mirrorless full frame???


----------



## fullstop (Jul 11, 2018)

Sanjay said:


> it's great news that canon will announcing the first full frame Mirrorless camera in 2018.
> but i want to know what about the lenses???
> recently i bought Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 L USM II
> it will be compatible with new mirrorless full frame???



in all likelihood: yes. 
To mount EF lenses a simple little Canon "extension tube" will likely be required. 
IQ should be identical [unless different sensors].
AF performance will most likely be as good on a mirrorless camera as it is in liveview mode on a DSLR [with same technology sensor, e.g. DP-AF or not].

Just out of curiosity: may I ask for the reasons you are interested in a mirrorless [Canon] camera with FF sensor? Thx!


----------



## PerKr (Jul 11, 2018)

canonographer said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



Battery life for mirrorless still isn't good. Number of pictures is a poor measure there. The battery in my old 350D lasted for days, adding a second battery in my battery grip was never something I needed to consider. With mirrorless, not having a second battery feels somewhat risky. All this due to the viewfinder and rear screen.

And OVF is still better in some ways. Possibly the most expensive mirrorless cameras now have EVFs that have improved immensely but in my experience the WYSIWYG thing is far overrated in most cases. Not to mention what a PITA it is when you head into the studio and the camera manufacturer didn't think to make it easy to deactivate the WYSIWYG feature.

Still, we are headed for a mirrorless future and I hope Canon makes something good out of it. Something that both works well and looks good (no, I don't like the styling of the M-series). And that they keep at least one OVF option alive.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

PerKr said:


> And OVF is still better in some ways. Possibly the most expensive mirrorless cameras now have EVFs that have improved immensely but in my experience the WYSIWYG thing is far overrated in most cases. Not to mention what a PITA it is when you head into the studio and the camera manufacturer didn't think to make it easy to deactivate the WYSIWYG feature.


I'd say that for an experienced photographer, WISIWYG is actually better suited for a studio. In the field, where the photographer has little direct control over the lighting, a knowledge of what exactly is in those blown out highlights and whether it's worth salvaging won't hurt.

That _could_ also be made work with EVF (by underexposing the sensor for EVF display), but it wouldn't be WYSIWYG anymore.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 11, 2018)

Well, what PerKr I think refers to is the fact that when you use flash, you don't want the real time view of the EVF since you'll see nothing but black . However I believe most mirrorless camera's will switch this off when a flash or trigger is attached?

In field situations where you have no control I see the value of an EVF because you can directly assess if your lighting is correct and highlights not blown out. Of course you can nail that too with an OVF but with an EVF, no more looking on the back of the LCD is needed. For people that need to work fast (think weddings for example) this could be very useful. 

Furthermore, the current Sony batteries seem to be doing quite well and give the same amount of shots as a dslr, as far as the reviews say at least.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> PerKr said:
> 
> 
> > Not to mention what a PITA it is when you head into the studio and the camera manufacturer didn't think to make it easy to deactivate the WYSIWYG feature.
> ...



Ummmmm...no. Often in a studio, you want complete control over the lighting, which means all of the light picked up by the camera comes from your strobes. That means a narrow aperture (I use f/11 - f/14), shutter at Xsync (1/200 s - 1/250 s), and low ISO (100-400). Those camera settings are intended to eliminate the contribution of ambient light, so in typical studio lighting when the strobes aren't firing, WYS will be essentially black.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > PerKr said:
> ...


Oh, I was thinking about static subjects and modeling light, where you could just crank up the ISO for the setup.


----------



## bwud (Jul 11, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Do it with a MF 200-400mm lens on a perched bird (where you've got to be quick), through a magnified viewfinder, with no IS or IBIS... That was kinda the point.  Please go back and read the beginning of the conversational sidebar.



Here you’re moving the goal posts. Nowhere in the original chain did a moving subject arise, nor did the lack of IBIS. That was a caveat you later added.




CanonFanBoy said:


> BTW: What was your magnification factor on the lamp post? 10X looking through the viewfinder? Looks like you were in "Live View" at 6.2X to me. Not the same. Not what we were talking about.



I have no idea, whatever the camera does. Maybe it was only 6, fine, makes little difference. If you’re concerned with 10X the FOV of 50mm (as in the original post), you should not be brushing off 6.2X the FOV of 400.




CanonFanBoy said:


> Through the viewfinder, sir. Handheld. No tripod, No sandbag (tummy). lol



Yes, I know we were talking about using the viewfinder. Unfortunately I can not hold a camera with a big lens to my face and also hold a second camera on it to show what I’m doing and also manually focus; I’m at least one arm shy of that capability . I did it that way rather than just posting a picture to head off the “I don’t believe that was from a focus magnified manual focus setup” reply.

It’s *easier* and faster to control it when using two hands and the VF rather than one finger while aiming with a breathing “sandbag.” I’ve taken numerous photos, even of birds, with just that configuration.



CanonFanBoy said:


> I'll see what I can do tomorrow with a 200mm lens (to simulate 400mm FOV) on my Olympus. Through the viewfinder and IBIS off since Canon probably won't have IBIS.



Alright, if you want to hamstring your camera to demonstrate that not having new technology makes shooting more difficult, go for it. That’s an obvious conclusion.

Can I do it at 400mm at 10X with all the stabilization turned off aiming quickly at a small subject? Probably not. Will canon have in body stabilization with the first generation? Probably not. Will they eventually? Probably. It’s a powerful tool and while canon can sometimes be slow to adopt, when they do, they typically do it well. Canon’s execution is second to none in this market.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Kit. said:
> ...



I do both.....


----------



## bwud (Jul 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I use both monolights with modeling lamps, and speedlights.With monos, I tend to shoot mirrorless. With speed lights, I use SLR.

Although my mirrorless camera has a mode to turn off exposure preview (which it perplexingly calls “settings effect”), it is only grossly emulating an optical viewfinder. It’s still displaying a digital signal, presumably with an equivalent “shutter speed” associated with the readrate of the sensor. It would be interesting to see if the EVF is darker in that mode with the Sony A9 since it reads the sensor much more rapidly than the A7 series.

Granted I only have a sample size of two, both from the same manufacturer (Sony a7r ii and a7r iii), but unless other manufacturers have significantly better technology, low light viewfinding is still the domain of SLR.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 11, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> ".... and I would love to see Canon give me a reason to dream about coming back."
> 
> A dreamer. This is ridiculous for someone stating the wonders of what they have just bought into.
> 
> Jack



Thanks for letting me know that my gear obsession is ridiculous, but my wife's way ahead of you on that count.


----------



## canonographer (Jul 11, 2018)

"Battery life for mirrorless still isn't good. Number of pictures is a poor measure there. The battery in my old 350D lasted for days, adding a second battery in my battery grip was never something I needed to consider. With mirrorless, not having a second battery feels somewhat risky. All this due to the viewfinder and rear screen."

FWIW, I just spent 4 days at the beach with my A7 III and shot about 500 shots, many of which were longer exposure shots of fireworks.

I never charged my battery and came home with more than 60% battery life left. I don't think my 6D could have done that.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 11, 2018)

canonographer said:


> FWIW, I just spent 4 days at the beach with my A7 III and shot about 500 shots, many of which were longer exposure shots of fireworks.
> 
> I never charged my battery and came home with more than 60% battery life left. I don't think my 6D could have done that.



Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but there really are two flavors of how I think of battery life comments.

1) If you principally shoot in LiveView, yes, I would disregard the constant battery life naysaying from the SLR crowd. So landscapers, video folks, possibly product folks, etc. should probably just shrug and pack an extra battery regardless of the platform they are using.

2) If you don't principally shoot in LiveView, I think one has a fair beef on how much longer your battery lasts on an SLR. That's just the nature of the beast.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> PerKr said:
> 
> 
> > And OVF is still better in some ways. Possibly the most expensive mirrorless cameras now have EVFs that have improved immensely but in my experience the WYSIWYG thing is far overrated in most cases. Not to mention what a PITA it is when you head into the studio and the camera manufacturer didn't think to make it easy to deactivate the WYSIWYG feature.
> ...



really?

when I was working out of a studio, I would know what it the look would be like before I even looked behind the viewfinder. You should know what your lights will do, because you are setting them up with full control over the light and the ratios. an experienced studio photographer would look like a hack if they were looking through the camera, putting it down, adjusting the lights, looking through the camera again and so on.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but there really are two flavors of how I think of battery life comments.
> 
> 1) If you principally shoot in LiveView, yes, I would disregard the constant battery life naysaying from the SLR crowd. So landscapers, video folks, possibly product folks, etc. should probably just shrug and pack an extra battery regardless of the platform they are using.
> 
> 2) If you don't principally shoot in LiveView, I think one has a fair beef on how much longer your battery lasts on an SLR. That's just the nature of the beast.


Actually, if you shoot in bursts, LiveView could give you much more shots per battery. Think of video as the extreme case.



rrcphoto said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > I'd say that for an experienced photographer, WISIWYG is actually better suited for a studio
> ...


That was my point. You don't really wonder if you need to pull the highlights because you know that you won't (no need for OVF). But if you shoot something glossy, you would still like to see that there are no highlights where you don't want them to be.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jul 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, I just spent 4 days at the beach with my A7 III and shot about 500 shots, many of which were longer exposure shots of fireworks.
> ...



It's actually significantly different for us video folks:

Canon's 5DIV can manage about 90min of 1080p footage with movie AF off using the rear lcd. Sony's A7III can manage about 125mins of actual recording based or 210 mins of continuous recording @ 4K w/ AF on.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> That was my point. You don't really wonder if you need to pull the highlights because you know that you won't (no need for OVF). But if you shoot something glossy, you would still like to see that there are no highlights where you don't want them to be.



but but.. I'd know that. even if I didn't an EVF wouldn't help because you'd have to fire the flashes and look at the output anyways, there's no way an EVF is going to help you in this case.

the only way this would help you is with continual lighting.


----------



## fullstop (Jul 13, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I'm hoping for a camera the size of a 6D2, with EF mount and will allow you to use EF-S lenses as well (with vignetting when open wide), the almost obligatory LP-6 battery, an a UHS-2 SD slot....



Fine, no problem. Canon should build it. Plus a much more compact FF mirrorless camera for me (and a few others). Things finally could be a lot less bulky and cludgy. 







Actually even a bit smaller than A7 III would be good. Sony A7 / 1st gen was more to my liking in terms of size. Form factor I would prefer "rangefinder" style without "fake prism hump" but with a pop-up EVF. Something like a "Sony RX-1RX II on steroids" and with a lens mount.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping for a camera the size of a 6D2, with EF mount and will allow you to use EF-S lenses as well (with vignetting when open wide), the almost obligatory LP-6 battery, an a UHS-2 SD slot....
> ...



Remember when the M came out, and it only had 2 or three lenses? Technically, there is no reason why Canon could not do the same with a FF mirrorless. Such a form factor would be great for normal to wide angle shooting, but would have almost no benefit for those who want long or fast lenses..... So, just like the M, why can't Canon put out a FF mirrorless that takes a few slow and compact native lenses (and reap real benefits of small size) and use an adaptor to EF for those F1.4 lenses and the long lenses. There is little size benefit to be gained from fast or long lenses on a shorter flange size, so why bother?

As to user interface, the <edit> original <end edit> M interface sucks compared to the 5DIV or even the 6D2, but throw an articulated touchscreen on the back of the mirrorless and you can do an awful lot with just a few buttons. It will never be as good as a full sized body for controls, but it will certainly be good enough... and most certainly better than Sony...

Personally, I think we are going to see both.... An EF sized mirrorless plus a compact mirrorless with a few slow and very compact lenses, plus an EF adaptor. I think that the EF one will be first, and the compact one to soon follow. I can see me (eventually) getting both....

NOTE: If they went crazy with the sealing, plus a couple of constant length super sealed lenses, I would be fighting my way to the front of the line to get the compact one.....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 13, 2018)

I agree on the need for both larger and smaller. For me it's travel versus serious wildlife scenarios.

Jack


----------



## fullstop (Jul 13, 2018)

Agree! 

Would have no prob be happy with a compact one and a limited "EF-X" lens lineup at start. When needed I'd use my EF lenses [w/"adapter"]. 

User interface - no prob if it were about the same as on EOS M50. I don't need things like dedicated exposure comp dials [EV +/-] or top-LCDs. Ideally rear wheel would be a wheel [at least as on M5/M6] not just a 4-way rocker [as on M50]. 

I also believe they will do bigger and smaller camera versions. All of them with new "slim" mount, not some with EF-mount. 

On lenses my ideal would be "reduced to the max". "AF only" - no manual focus ring. And even no zoom ring, but "Power Zoom" with control rocker on camera body ["P&S style"], provided implementation was *much better* than on P&S cameras - i.e. with very smooth and precise control over zoom. Ideally fixed aperture [f/4.0 zooms, f/1.8 to 2.8 primes], inner focus = fixed outer length, no rotation or z-axis movement of front element. Simple, robust, IP67 sealed, decent to excellent IQ, moderately fast, compact, light, affordable. Hi-grade plastic mount and tubus no problem.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 13, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> As to user interface, the M interface sucks compared to the 5DIV or even the 6D2, but throw an articulated touchscreen on the back of the mirrorless and you can do an awful lot with just a few buttons. It will never be as good as a full sized body for controls, but it will certainly be good enough... and most certainly better than Sony...



actually the M5 is closer to the 5D/6D interface than any other mirrorless. I can adjust WB, ISO, AF mode, drive mode, focus mode, metering mode, aperture, shutter, EC without really moving my hand off the right grip while looking through the viewfinder and without menu or quick menu diving.

while it's not as good as having the haptic direct control buttons such as the 5D Mark IV, the dial func button and control wheel is insanely useful and the combination just leaves other mirrorless in the dust for control without menu diving.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > As to user interface, the M interface sucks compared to the 5DIV or even the 6D2, but throw an articulated touchscreen on the back of the mirrorless and you can do an awful lot with just a few buttons. It will never be as good as a full sized body for controls, but it will certainly be good enough... and most certainly better than Sony...
> ...




I meant to say the ORIGINAL M interface... The 6D2 or 5D4 versions of the touch interface, along with the better screen, are a joy to use.... If they release a compact FF mirrorless, I would expect it to start with at least this quality of touchscreen....


----------



## Pure Photo N.I (Jul 13, 2018)

Touchscreen I can take or leave will be interesting to see how the lens adaptor performs.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 13, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



But "requests" on this forum are DOA. Canon doesn't make decisions based on this forum. Besides, these "requests" are demands. Valid want? Sure. Request? So what? Some of these people act as though they are entitled. They constantly bash Canon to do what the other company's do. For years and years they do this. They threaten to "jump ship". Then, by God, jump ship and quit crying already. They aren't serious people. Serious people mean what they say and say what they mean. They just want to itch and moan. It gets old. Requesting or hoping is one thing. Acting like they are individually important to the market is another. Truth be told, they probably are not as good as the equipment they already have.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 14, 2018)

canonographer said:


> I would have to guess that neither of you has tried the latest generation of Sony cameras, because your examples of DSLR benefits are outdated.
> 
> Don't get me wrong there are still reasons not to buy into Sony's ecosystem, but the reasons you list above aren't among them.
> 
> AF performance, battery life, dynamic range, EVF superiority to name a few, all fall within the Sony column. I would put the focus tracking of my A7 III up against the 1DX any time. That's with a $2K camera, let alone the $4,500 A9 w/ 20 fps, no blackout shooting 693 focus points that cover most of the sensor. I'm telling you, this stuff just works, and it works like a charm.



Wait, are you saying the Sony mirrorless cameras have better battery life than Canon DSLRs? Especially the 1-series??


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jul 14, 2018)

;D So the Sony will AF outperform my 1DX2 @ 800mm (400 DO II X2)? I know it feels good to make great claims but ... you're only fooling yourself.  

As another has stated, the best camera (whatever brand) is in your hands, assuming you're capable of using it. Personally, I'd rather see killer shots showing that Sony is superior than listen to bragging. IOW, post the shots and then we'll know for sure.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2018)

What we do know about the mirrorless release is that no matter what the specs are, that according to internet logic, it will be inferior to Sony..... and whatever the mount is, it will be the wrong one.....

And somehow, despite the complainers on this forum, it will sell well and people will take great pictures with it...... just like every single Canon release in the last ten years.....

And because of this camera, people will leave Canon in droves, yet somehow their market share improves....

Does anyone else see the disconnect between the trolls and reality?


----------



## BillB (Jul 15, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> What we do know about the mirrorless release is that no matter what the specs are, that according to internet logic, it will be inferior to Sony..... and whatever the mount is, it will be the wrong one.....
> 
> And somehow, despite the complainers on this forum, it will sell well and people will take great pictures with it...... just like every single Canon release in the last ten years.....
> 
> ...



Wonder if the Dunning-Kruger effect has anything to do with it. The less you know the more it seems like magic is at work, magic that you can get out of a box.


----------

