# The State of the Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Development



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 3, 2018)

```
We’ve all seen over the last few weeks that there has been a lot of chatter about Canon’s inevitable first full frame mirrorless camera. I just wanted to clarify some points on the development of the camera(s).</p>
<p>Anyone claiming that they know the final specification of the production product are simply not telling the truth. We have confirmed at least two prototypes are in existence and we wouldn’t be surprised if there is more of them out there. We’ve reported what a couple of people have told us about the prototype cameras and at no point do we claim or think these prototype cameras will be what we see once something is announced.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>We also think there’s a good chance that two cameras could be under development, even if they aren’t announced at the same time. more on that later.</p>
<p>There is no announcement date within Canon as of yet for a full frame mirrorless camera. That will obviously change at some point, but as of today, no one knows when it’s coming. Retailers may have been told that it’s coming, but when and what the specifications will be, has not been told to them.</p>
<p>We’ve probably posted less than 5% of the “information” sent to us about the camera(s).</p>
<p>We’ve also been told by multiple people that development of this product has been unlike any other camera Canon has developed over the last decade, including the Cinema EOS line. Photographers are actually more involved in the development than any time in the past.</p>
<p>I don’t want to report on the lens mount yet, as everything I’ve been told is confusing and I’d like to understand what’s happening before reporting on this area of  the camera.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2018)

So it's a known unknown.


----------



## amorse (Apr 3, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve also been told by multiple people that development of this product has been unlike any other camera Canon has developed over the last decade, including the Cinema EOS line. Photographers are actually more involved in the development than any time in the past.


Developed by the people for the people!







I kid, I kid


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Apr 3, 2018)

The message could have been slightly shorter. "Canon works with photographes on a new mirrorless full frame camera".

Or even shorter. "Canon FF mirrorless is still in progress".


----------



## canonnews (Apr 3, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’ve all seen over the last few weeks that there has been a lot of chatter about Canon’s inevitable first full frame mirrorless camera. I just wanted to clarify some points on the development of the camera(s).



Good to see you back on your feet at the computer!

My job is done


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’ve all seen over the last few weeks that there has been a lot of chatter about Canon’s inevitable first full frame mirrorless camera. I just wanted to clarify some points on the development of the camera(s).
> ...



Thanks for subbing in. Speedy recovery to our fearless leader indeed!

- A


----------



## bereninga (Apr 3, 2018)

I think there are a few models out there.

A pro APS-C with EF-M to EF adapter.
A pro APS-C with EF mount.
A pro full-frame with EF-M to EF adapter.
A pro full-frame with EF mount.


----------



## LDS (Apr 3, 2018)

I forgot to post last Sunday the first image of the new Canon mirrorless....

https://bit.ly/2q2fUh7


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 3, 2018)

bereninga said:


> I think there are a few models out there.
> 
> A pro APS-C with EF-M to EF adapter.
> A pro APS-C with EF mount.
> ...


I am hoping for Canon to give us Rebel sized FF similar to SL series. Cheap and small FF offering for less than $1000 with EF mount.


----------



## miketcool (Apr 3, 2018)

I was involved in the development of Aperture by Apple before it was released as a Beta to the public. There was a time when Apple worked closer with the professional community for input. This never meant that we told them what we wanted and they gave us the requests, it meant that they developed a strategy and then asked us on a professional level if it would improve our workflow.

I hope Canon has taken this approach, because from a professional point of view, Sony is dead. They make some incredible ENG capable professional video cameras, and they're slowly moving their mirrorless line into the professional realm. I've had so many positive experiences with Canon when it comes to replacing or repairing equipment. Their center in Burbank has taken huge strides in catering towards us, and it's really helping people make the decision to use Canon on their projects. Honestly, if anyone wants to create a long term relationship with professionals, they must use Canon as their model. It has become easy for us to switch platforms, especially as expensive equipment is being used on a rental basis.

There are several major features that I would love to see in the next EOS series. Things like synchronizing multiple cameras through an app (time-lapse or multicam shooting), an improved file system on the camera (similar to smart folders that organize by location or date), bringing back Eye Control AF (like on the EOS 3), a basic ability to copy camera settings to a card, and applying them to a B or C camera, even if they are a lower model, and the ability to override the EXIF data for lenses that are attached but have no readout. Most of these aren't big changes, but they're a handful of things that would save me a tremendous amount of time with the style of travel shooting that I do for work.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 3, 2018)

All I want is:

As lightweight as possible. I can live with some ergonomic trade-offis if it's going to save weight and most importantly size.

Because of that, EF-M or similar new mount. But ideally, EF-M compatibility to allow use of EF-M lenses in crop mode. 

High resolution sensor >= 40mpx. 60mpx would be great as it'd give us a very respectable 24mpx in crop mode.

No AA filter. And ideally with some new improvement on the bayer filter such as non-regular R/G/B sensor positions (penrose tiling etc) or some other method of avoiding moire. Or stacked R/G/B sensors, or whatever. Yes, I'm aware these specific ideas hit on patents from other companies, but there are no doubt other techniques.

Global shutter. On-chip ADC so we can get a much faster crop mode.

USB3 Type C connector for data and, most importantly, for internal charging & power. So a camera on tether could be powered entirely from a suitable USB connector whilst also returning data.

Full support for tethered USB protocols as per existing EOS DSLRS, even the 1200D does this fine, yet the M5/M6 are broken and don't support USB tethering properly.

A new set of lightweight high quality prime lenses, all with IS. eg 24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4

An inexpensive but high quality 24-70 f/3.5-f/5.6 zoom as a kit lens option.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

ritholtz said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > I think there are a few models out there.
> ...



With high confidence verging on certainty, Canon won't start their FF mirrorless experience with such a product (unless it's an unexpected fixed lens setup a la RX1R II or Leica Q, but I don't think that's what you were asking for). 

We could totally see that kind of product someday -- an FF mirrorless + SL1/2-ish form factor -- but the importance of this first Canon FF mirrorless (ILC) offering cannot be overstated. IMHO, it needs to be/have:


Appealing to a broad swath of FF shooters
A clear ergonomic lineage to Canon bodies currently sold today (to draw in existing Canon users)
Work really well with Canon EF lenses, speedlites, etc.
Be a plausibly familiar/consistent user experience for folks with a Canon SLR on one shoulder and this new rig on the other
Specs at least on par with a 6D2 -- it doesn't need to match Sony or line up favorably to an A7 III, but it can't be behind the lowest price point FF SLR or folks will indict Canon for not taking FF mirrorless seriously

And I just don't see a rig built around simplicity and a really small size ticking all those boxes.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Apr 3, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> All I want is:...



April 1 was yesterday.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 3, 2018)

If "I want" influenced Canon it would be a disaster as others have pointed out. They must at least have a small version and a larger version just like shoes must fit your feet. I would hate having a tiny camera with a big lens.

Jack


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm going to go out on a limb and forecast two body types- one with a form factor of the M5, the second one will be a whole different and new body style with a rotating grip and viewfinder. A viewfinder that could be adjusted for those awkward low shots would be a godsend. A new body design would solve the problem of trying to pack more features into the current body designs and increase cooling. This would benefit the video side.


----------



## Punio (Apr 3, 2018)

I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 3, 2018)

Well, I do know one final specification for a fact: It will cost a few months rent.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb and forecast two body types- one with a form factor of the M5, the second one will be a whole different and new body style with a rotating grip and viewfinder. A viewfinder that could be adjusted for those awkward low shots would be a godsend. A new body design would solve the problem of trying to pack more features into the current body designs and increase cooling. This would benefit the video side.



So an XC10 with an FF ILC mount... that will take really heavy lenses. Will that work?

I'm all for some ergonomic bravery where needs aren't being well met, but that seems a wild leap best left for a dedicated video rig -- which this first offering most certainly will not be.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?



I can imagine resale prices dropping, but not intrinsic value. If canon unveils a new mount, all my lenses still work for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?



So you're saying that announcing a new mount for a FF MILC camera is synonymous with announcing the end of EF lens production? There are some effective antipsychotic pharmaceutical agents available, perhaps you should consult a physician.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?




Oh goody! Than I can score some of the good stuff cheap and use them on my cinema cameras. 


But seriously, I use L lenses on my M5 with the canon EF - EFM adaptor all the time, and the results are phenomenal, so if other people want to sell their glass cheap when the 'Canopocolypse" comes I welcome the chaos.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Apr 3, 2018)

If you going to go in- go in with a big splash. Think outside the box. Make it one of those OMG moments.
In all honesty, I would be happy with a mirrorless version of the 5D Mark IV. 
Whatever it is, I'm 100% sure it will use existing EF lenses.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?



A new mount doesn't mean EF is dead so long as they continue to release EF DSLRs. Also, until and unless the new mount provides all the lens types that EF currently does (and I can't see it happening) then the more specialist lenses will still be as relevant as ever.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 3, 2018)

CanonGrunt said:


> Well, I do know one final specification for a fact: It will cost a few months rent.



Depends where you live!


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?



Your choice on answering your own question:

A) Not as fast as the plummeting price of A7 bodies that are constantly being obsoleted.

B) No, because EF is still moving ahead full steam after FF mirrorless comes out (even if FF mirrorless has a new mount). 

C) No, because Canon lenses hold resale values brilliantly.

D) All of the above.

- A

P.S. The fact that folks can't wrap their head around (B) above is crazypants territory.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> B) No, because EF is still moving ahead full steam after FF mirrorless comes out (even if FF mirrorless has a new mount).
> 
> P.S. The fact that folks can't wrap their head around (B) above is crazypants territory.



B is clearly wrong because AvTvM and the millions of people he claims his personal opinion represents will never buy another EF lens after the new mount comes out.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 3, 2018)

Punio said:


> I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?



So, what lenses do you think people will be using on the 1Dx III and 5D V?


----------



## Talys (Apr 3, 2018)

There are 3 groups of potential customers for a FF MILC from Canon:

1. DSLR users who are happy with the DSLR form factor, but are interested in some features offered by EVF.

2. DSLR users who are unhappy with the DSLR form factor, but have decided to wait for Canon to produce something, or simply don't like Sony as a company to deal with.

3. Sony users who aren't happy with their Sony FF mirrorless, for whatever reason.


The problem is, these groups don't necessarily want the same camera. I think it's impossible to make them all happy with 1 camera, or, perhaps, even 1 mount.

I think that #1 is a large and important group, and is the one that is size-insensitive.

I believe that #2 is a relatively smaller, and shrinking, group. A lot of them have simply gone to Sony already, and more will by the time that Canon releases some FF MILC. But these folks are likely very portability-sensitive.

With respect to unhappy Sony users, it may be hard to believe reading the internet, but they certainly exist. The Sony camera is far from perfect, and for a variety of reasons, there will be some people who stick with it because despite the shortcomings, they still prefer it to a Canon DSLR; but they'd switch back, if some of the pain points are addressed.


----------



## nchoh (Apr 3, 2018)

Just for the fun of it, this is what I think will happen.

Canon will release the FF mirrorless with a new mount. Why? Because Canon works on segmentation. This makes sense on many levels; 

They will deprecate the EF-S mount- they will stop developing EF-S lenses and they will only continue the 7D, Rebel, SL lines if it makes sense. Reason? EF-M is the new APS-C representative.

The new mount - let's call it EF-X here - will co-exist with the EF. Canon will initially focus on enthusiasts, fashion and wedding photographers, where the photographer benefits the most from being able to see what the picture is going to look like without chimping.
Professionals who use the 1DX will be expected to stay there. Those who want to use the new camera, for greater FPS will have to use the adapter. Likely lenses for the new camera will be 24-70, 50 and 85mm. 70-200 will come later.

I don't think that they intend to develop a new sensor. They will use either the 5D or 5DSR sensor.


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Apr 3, 2018)

I'm not worried about canon torpedoing EOS for a mirrorless mount for FF. Unlike Sony that considers every purchase a consumable that will soon be if not already obsolete, Canon is methodical about creating and maintaining a system for its customers. Take the EOS-M that started as a total failure on most counts. It's developed into a useable system that I'm considering for casual use. Even with a new mount, "EOS-M FF" would require 100 megapixel sensors before anyone would upgrade their EOS L glass for EOS-M FF L glass. 

I'm looking forward to what transpires in this FF mirrorless development story.


----------



## woodman411 (Apr 3, 2018)

ritholtz said:


> bereninga said:
> 
> 
> > I think there are a few models out there.
> ...



Eventually probably, the question is, which order will they come out, and with what specs. Eventually we'll probably see something like this:

6D-M: emphasis on small size and cost
5D-M: larger than 6D-M, all-rounder with dual-card slots
1D-M: largest body, emphasis on performance
5DS-M: emphasis on resolution

I think the consensus is that we'll see a 6D-M-like body first.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> Eventually probably, the question is, which order will they come out, and with what specs. Eventually we'll probably see something like this:
> 
> 6D-M: emphasis on small size and cost
> 5D-M: larger than 6D-M, all-rounder with dual-card slots
> ...



Not impossible. 1-series would be dead last, surely.

Also, don't be surprised if a video-prioritized model surfaces, and I don't just mean another body with a low res / high ISO sensor. It could be a completely different form factor or design.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 3, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> Take the EOS-M that started as a total failure on most counts.



Well, except that the original EOS M was the #2 best-selling MILC model in Japan (the largest geographical market for MILCs) the year after its launch, beating out all models from Olympus and Panasonic, and bested only by an older (and heavily discounted) Sony NEX model. But yeah, except for being a hugely popular domestic product that started Canon on the path to their current position as #2 in global MILC sales, it was a total failure.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AuroraChaserDoug said:
> 
> 
> > Take the EOS-M that started as a total failure on most counts.
> ...



+1 to Neuro. 

Some folks see this as Canon's last chance, but I see it as a super profitable land-grab. People's exhibit A is the first EOS M. Lest we forget, EOS M lacked:


Any meaningful ergonomics, grip, etc.
High quality + fast lenses (beyond the 22mm f/2)
A viewfinder
A jillion AF points
Autofocusing speed that could confirm lock before next Tuesday
Tilty-flippy screen
Dual slots
IBIS 
DPAF
4K
Eye AF
Fast burst rate

_*...and it sold just fine, thankyouverymuch.*_

It had lovely Canon color, Canon quality, Canon IQ, and a bridge to seamless and native EF lens use. I'm pretty damn bullish on Canon FF mirrorless, because it will have _way_ more going for it than just color, quality, IQ and EF lenses.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 3, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > bereninga said:
> ...


I can see one sized like the SL-1 as the intro model.....


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> B is clearly wrong because AvTvM and the millions of people he claims his personal opinion represents will never buy another EF lens after the new mount comes out.



absolutely correct. I won't be selling my existing EF glass immediately but buy new native FF mirrorless lenses over an extended period of time ... and definitely never again buy another mirrorslapper-optimized EF lens. 

And yes, not all, but millions and millions Canon owners will handle things exactly the same way. 

It will be an excellent business decision for Canon. They'll be selling many more (new native FF mirrorless) lenses for many years to come than they would be selling not-optimal-for mirrorless EF glass. 

EF lens development will dry out pretty soon along with DSLRs if the new Canon mirrorless system turns out to be good. If not, it will be total Canaggedon.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

@ CR guys: please do yourself and us all a favor and don't continue to use that fake Canon MILC image again. It is impossible to attach an EF lens to a MILC in the way implied by that image. And it confuses many folks who seem to take the image "for real" ... especially those hoping for Canon MILCs with "native" EF mount. Please make up a new mock-up image showing the "nozzle/pig's snout" such a camera would need to physically allow use of EF lenses with 44 mm FFD.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> @ CR guys: please do yourself and us all a favor and don't continue to use that fake Canon MILC image again. It is impossible to attach an EF lens to a MILC in the way implied by that image. And it confuses many folks who seem to take the image "for real" ... especially those hoping for Canon MILCs with "native" EF mount. Please make up a new mock-up image showing the "nozzle/pig's snout" such a camera would need to physically allow use of EF lenses with 44 mm FFD.



Done. Good looking out -- you're right, it looks a lot better now.

- A


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 4, 2018)

*Mount logic*

Canon’s observable behavior in lens development suggests that it is less likely to introduce a new mount system with the full frame mirrorless. 

The two key pieces of evidence:
1) Canon’s capacity to develop and release new or redesigned lenses has been wanting, despite the CEO having publicly stated that he wished to increase the velocity of development two years ago. Canon actually did better in the last 12 months versus years past, but it is still not as prolific as a couple of the third party lens manufacturers. This indicates a likely maximum capacity of development of roughly 5-6 major lens releases per year. To produce a set of new lenses of the main three zooms, the main 8 primes, at least a couple of the superteles, that would take 5 years at a minimum while continuing to support the EF mount at half the pace it is now. 

2) The M mount has been wielded by Canon in an interesting - perhaps even intelligent - way. Instead of trying to replicate its line-up in with a whole new suit of M lenses, they instead chose to make some lenses that could exploit the APS-C sensor and the new mount to get some very big size reductions. And for everything else, it just relied on the adapter, which - to Canon’s credit - has worked better than any other adapter in adapter history. It’s like it’s not there.

If Canon were to try the same strategy with the new mirrorless, the size advantages for the lenses would be much less due to the full frame sensor, thus there isn’t much of an advantage to a new mount. The obvious evolution would be to have EF be the full frame mount and M be the APS-C version, much like we have EF/EF-S now.


----------



## tmroper (Apr 4, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> A viewfinder that could be adjusted for those awkward low shots would be a godsend.



The problem with that for a stills camera is, it doesn't help much for portrait orientation, which some of us shoot in a lot. A flip-out screen can kind of work in portrait orientation, but it's not ideal. So if we're talking about some kind of completely new form factor, I hope this gets factored in. Maybe like, a Mamiya RZ67 style rotating "back" (or in this case, sensor)?


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



[email protected] said:


> Canon’s observable behavior in lens development suggests that it is less likely to introduce a new mount system with the full frame mirrorless.
> 
> The two key pieces of evidence:
> 1) Canon’s capacity to develop and release new or redesigned lenses has been wanting, despite the CEO having publicly stated that he wished to increase the velocity of development two years ago. Canon actually did better in the last 12 months versus years past, but it is still not as prolific as a couple of the third party lens manufacturers. This indicates a likely maximum capacity of development of roughly 5-6 major lens releases per year. To produce a set of new lenses of the main three zooms, the main 8 primes, at least a couple of the superteles, that would take 5 years at a minimum while continuing to support the EF mount at half the pace it is now.
> ...



My prediction, for the long term, is that the crop rebel camera will disappear....

I predict that EOS FF cameras will remain more or less as is, except gradually becoming mirrorless...
7D going FF mirrorless as sort of a mini 1DX....
XXD series vanishing, replaced by a mirrorless version of the 6D series....
I can see a FF SL-1 sized camera as the bottom of the EOS series....
For lower end cameras, the rebels, keep a midrange and a low cost mirrorless crop version....
And the M series continues, probably adding is a high-end M....

That said, I have a perfect record for predictions.... Absolutely perfect! Wrong every time


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AuroraChaserDoug said:
> ...



Courting the vast market of people who don’t want moving parts obviously.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



Don Haines said:


> My prediction, for the long term, is that the crop rebel camera will disappear....
> 
> I predict that EOS FF cameras will remain more or less as is, except gradually becoming mirrorless...
> 7D going FF mirrorless as sort of a mini 1DX....
> ...



I think you will be keeping your perfect record.

While it is conceivable that APS-C DSLRs could someday disappear, I doubt it will be in my lifetime. 

As Neuro is fond of pointing out, mirrorless sales have plateaued. While DSLR sales have been declining, they have a long way to go before mirrorless will overtake them. But, even if mirrorless should eventually overtake DSLRs, that doesn't mean that it will suddenly become unprofitable to manufacture and sell DSLRs. 

Remember that the bulk of both DSLR and Mirrorless sales are APS-C and that will continue to be the case even after Canon and Nikon enter the full frame mirrorless market. 

Let's suppose for a minute that the relative numbers of mirrorless and DSLR APS-C bodies were reversed. If, based on current sales it makes good business sense for Canon to offer APS-C mirrorless bodies, why would it become unprofitable for Canon to make DSLRs if the numbers were reversed?

I presume that Canon is in the business of making money and as long as there is sufficient demand for DSLRs, there would be no reason for Canon to stop making them.

Of course, the single lens reflex form factor could possibly fall out of favor. But, it's been the most popular form factor for sixty years or so, when it supplanted mirrorless film cameras and I'm not ready to declare that a largely untested and currently imperfect alternative is going to take over the market.

Lets unpack your specific predictions:

*7D going FF mirrorless as sort of a mini 1DX....*

The 7D II already is a mini-1Dx. As long as the 1DX remains an SLR why would Canon drop that form factor for its APS-C alternative? Until a mirrorless camera has the viewfinder, focusing, battery life and other advantages of the 1Dx, there is no reason to change the 7D series. 

*XXD series vanishing, replaced by a mirrorless version of the 6D series....
*
Why? Again, if you pair the 6D and XXD series, why would Canon unpair them by giving one a different form factor than the other?

*I can see a FF SL-1 sized camera as the bottom of the EOS series...*

It would be a pretty amazing feat for Canon to produce a full frame mirrorless camera at the same price point as the SL2. I doubt if the economics are there. Or perhaps you are just suggesting that Canon may eventually make a bargain full frame mirrorless camera. That is possible, but it's more like to correspond to the 6D in cost and features. It could be an added option or it could, I suppose, replace the 6D, but I don't see it having any impact at all on the SL series. 

*For lower end cameras, the rebels, keep a midrange and a low cost mirrorless crop version....*

Don't we already have that with the M series. If Canon sees profitability in both the M and Rebel series today, what is going to change in the future. Sure, as I've said, the relative market position of the two may reverse, but I suspect there will still be plenty of people who view a DSLR as a "real" camera and prefer that form factor to mirrorless. 

Maybe it won't be the majority of customers in the future, but I would be very surprised if the demand disappears. Especially since one of the main selling schemes of Canon Rebels is to kit them with telephotos so vacationers and soccer parents can have the option of a 50-250 mm or a 70-300 mm lens. Might Canon kit mirrorless in the same way. Sure, but unless the ergonomics of mirrorless are as convenient as DSLRs (which means a quality viewfinder) I expect that many people will continue to prefer DSLRs.

*And the M series continues, probably adding in a high-end M....*

This one I agree with. But, isn't a $900 M6 already high end for most people? I could see a niche version to compete with the Fuji X-Pro series, if Canon determine the demand is there.

I'm not trying to pick on you Don. You are a reasonable and rational fellow. I'm just trying to point out that there seems to be as assumption among many that there is a evolutionary continuum that requires that mirrorless supplant DSLRs. I think there is more evidence that they will coexist for many years to come. I'm not ruling out the possibility that mirrorless may eventually replace DSLRs, but I think it is many years in the future and will only happen when mirrorless can deliver everything DSLRs deliver and do it at a better price point. When that does happen, I expect that the form factor will look much like today's DSLRs.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



[email protected] said:


> Canon’s observable behavior in lens development suggests that it is less likely to introduce a new mount system with the full frame mirrorless.
> 
> The two key pieces of evidence:
> 1) Canon’s capacity to develop and release new or redesigned lenses has been wanting, despite the CEO having publicly stated that he wished to increase the velocity of development two years ago. Canon actually did better in the last 12 months versus years past, but it is still not as prolific as a couple of the third party lens manufacturers. This indicates a likely maximum capacity of development of roughly 5-6 major lens releases per year. To produce a set of new lenses of the main three zooms, the main 8 primes, at least a couple of the superteles, that would take 5 years at a minimum while continuing to support the EF mount at half the pace it is now.
> ...



This is way too intelligent a post to be allowed here!

People keep saying that Canon is way behind Sony. If they go with a new mount, they will be way behind as it will take years to introduce enough lenses to make the new system popular.

If they go with the EF mount, they will automatically be WAY ahead of Sony. Which would you choose?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



dak723 said:


> If they go with the EF mount, they will automatically be WAY ahead of Sony. Which would you choose?



Depends on many factors, including whether I expect to make more sales with a new mount (will I get people to refresh?)


----------



## Talys (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > If they go with the EF mount, they will automatically be WAY ahead of Sony. Which would you choose?
> ...



They don't really need that to get people to refresh. Just look at 85/1.4 





[email protected] said:


> 1) Canon’s capacity to develop and release new or redesigned lenses has been wanting, despite the CEO having publicly stated that he wished to increase the velocity of development two years ago. Canon actually did better in the last 12 months versus years past, but it is still not as prolific as a couple of the third party lens manufacturers. This indicates a likely maximum capacity of development of roughly 5-6 major lens releases per year. To produce a set of new lenses of the main three zooms, the main 8 primes, at least a couple of the superteles, that would take 5 years at a minimum while continuing to support the EF mount at half the pace it is now.



I think it's actually capacity to meet customer demand. I thought they didn't want to launch 24-70/2.8IS until 85L 1.4 had met demand, or some such.

If Canon came out of the gate with 4 new mount high end lenses (say 3 zooms and a prime), they couldn't make them fast enough to keep up with sales.


----------



## Antono Refa (Apr 4, 2018)

Why is it people think a mirrorless FF camera would have a new mount?

I've read reasonable explanation about why it might have a shorter flange distance, which would allow using EF lenses with an extension tube, but not an explanation of EF shortcomings that would call for a new mount for mirrorless.


----------



## ritholtz (Apr 4, 2018)

woodman411 said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > bereninga said:
> ...


6D is going for $899 on refurb store. They can just shrink it and give us for same price. How big are 6d bodies compared to xxd ones.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 4, 2018)

I'm looking forward to the predicted models in which the mirror gradually disappears. Reminds me of the Cheshire cat, other than the smile.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Why is it people think a mirrorless FF camera would have a new mount?
> 
> I've read reasonable explanation about why it might have a shorter flange distance, which would allow using EF lenses with an extension tube, but not an explanation of EF shortcomings that would call for a new mount for mirrorless.



The new mount vs. staying with EF decision is not about EF shortcomings at all, IMHO. It's about doing the same job in a smaller overall body + lens footprint (with new lenses for that new mount), the opportunity to adapt other/competitive lenses, etc.

I'd prefer a full EF mount myself, and I fully recognize the opportunity to be smaller overall is highly limited to a handful of slow/wide lenses. But that does not mean a thin mount is completely without merit -- it's just wildly impractical for Canonites given how vast the existing EF portfolio is.

- A


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > bereninga said:
> ...



This is my opinion. I would only (at least at this point) think about purchasing one if it handled my L glass. It's been a couple of years since I purchased a camera and I'm very happy so it would have to be something really compelling to make me want to take on a new camera with its learning curve. Also, I don't want to carry two types of lenses.

scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go out on a limb and forecast two body types- one with a form factor of the M5, the second one will be a whole different and new body style with a rotating grip and viewfinder. A viewfinder that could be adjusted for those awkward low shots would be a godsend. A new body design would solve the problem of trying to pack more features into the current body designs and increase cooling. This would benefit the video side.
> ...



That may be, but as conservative as Canon is, I can't see them taking a risk with a likely a brand new sensor new camera technology, and a new-fangled and edgy body design. I may be wrong, but it seems like too many risks all at once.

Scott


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Punio said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?
> ...



But they make people so stiff and shake. Not to mention the telltale "Thorazine Shuffle".


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 4, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Punio said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?
> ...



Easy- the ones they already own and paid for. Plus, whatever they think they need/want.

Scott


----------



## arthurbikemad (Apr 4, 2018)

I hope Canon do read forums, I'm sure they do, not that it matters to them what a few forum goers think of development and Canon in general, however I am starting to believe, believe in a wave sweeping the net, that wave seems to be Sony! Even me, I never thought I'd say it but... The Canon mirrorless wants to be good, very good, it wants to have this funky eye AF and fast pro frame rates, not that the a9 quite matches up with the 1DX2 in some specs, such as startup and delay times, the minor things that truly can get you the shot when time matters, however as I am going to say, if the Canon mirrorless does not stack up to Sony then I think I am going to buy one and check it out, that would be the first new brand of Camera for me in over twenty five years. So come on Canon, show your cards, cut the crap, open up the possibilities of current pro bodies via firmware and let's see this mirrorless.


----------



## Talys (Apr 4, 2018)

arthurbikemad said:


> I hope Canon do read forums, I'm sure they do, not that it matters to them what a few forum goers think of development and Canon in general, however I am starting to believe, believe in a wave sweeping the net, that wave seems to be Sony! Even me, I never thought I'd say it but... The Canon mirrorless wants to be good, very good, it wants to have this funky eye AF and fast pro frame rates, not that the a9 quite matches up with the 1DX2 in some specs, such as startup and delay times, the minor things that truly can get you the shot when time matters, however as I am going to say, if the Canon mirrorless does not stack up to Sony then I think I am going to buy one and check it out, that would be the first new brand of Camera for me in over twenty five years. So come on Canon, show your cards, cut the crap, open up the possibilities of current pro bodies via firmware and let's see this mirrorless.



Well, the M50 will have Eye AF, so we'll see how that works out. I'm pretty confident frame rate won't be an issue, since M50 is already 10fps. The first reviews of CR3 is very promising -- better than Sony's Compressed RAW in terms of what's lost as compared to uncompressed; we need to see it in the field with FF cameras to know how that works out.

There will be some "devil in the details". I hope Canon really perfects focus magnification, with an implementation better than Sony; and I hope they copy crop mode from Sony, which is perfect, IMO. There are many other potential Sony "desirable features" for some shooters, like the subject/face recognition/tracking. Not really my thing, but maybe for others. We'll need to see what the uncompressed buffer is, too; Sony's is really quite impressive. And will Canon finally support UHS-II? Not a huge deal for me, but for some it seems to be.

Should you decide to go the Sony route, I would highly encourage you to buy or rent a Sony A9/A7 before buying one. There is no doubt that they have many desirable features, but there are caveats to a lot of them, and I find that the lenses are still pretty lackluster, not to mention horrendously expensive. They generally have amazing resolving power (sharpness), but fall short on things that matter to me in expensive lenses, like chromatic aberration and quality of bokeh away from the center. There are also some really annoying bugs or strange design choices, too.

I was fortunate to have been able to borrow one, and after quite a lot of time with it, my conclusion is that I like it a whole lot better than A7R2 (which I also borrowed for about a week), and I probably wouldn't mind owning one, but I don't like it nearly as much as a Canon DSLR for most tasks. 

However, I think it all depends on what you shoot and how you like to shoot, and of course, what the Canon FF MILC looks like when it comes out!


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> and I fully recognize the opportunity to be smaller overall is highly limited to a handful of slow/wide lenses.



Not true.

The Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 is neither slow nor wide and it's a compact, lightweight, and an absolutely optically superb quality lens, sharp and beautiful bokeh. 

Now, of course, I'm sure Canon could produce a stellar quality 50mm-ish lens if they wanted to 

Jolyon


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

Anyone who is concerned about the future of EF lenses once a new mount is announced should look at what Sony have done with their A mount lenses, which of course they are still selling.

Oh, that's right. They haven't launched any new A mount lenses since 2015.



SELL SELL SELL!!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Not true.
> 
> The Sony Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 is neither slow nor wide and it's a compact, lightweight, and an absolutely optically superb quality lens, sharp and beautiful bokeh.



Sure, but just for one exception at one focal length. 50 primes famously can be fast _and_ small, I agree.

In the broad strokes, you'll only have a smaller overall footprint with a limited number of lenses. Ladies I gentlemen, I present to you the possibly smaller platform of the future:

Mirrorless body 
24 f/2.8
35 f/2.8 (maybe f/2)
50 f/1.8

[crickets]

I'd argue that list above _is not enough to warrant a new mount that Canon will build their business around for the next 30 years._ Once you go faster than f/2 and longer 50mm, stuff gets 'EF big' because physics. As Sony has shown, the rest of the lenses will be just about like for like size/lengthwise with their current EF counterparts.

So thin mount may totally happen, but I'm not remotely convinced that thin mount happening spells either the end of EF or that this new mount will get more than (guess) 5 lenses in the first 5 years.

- A


----------



## hendrik-sg (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Punio said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?
> ...



You are right, there is no prove that with the announcement of a new mirrorless mount the EF mount is dead. BUT, if they "move" to mirrorless, or give any hint, that mirrorless should be the future (mirrorless would move up the lineup), the math is not very complicated. In this case, they would concentrate on bulidung a lineup of new mount lenses. If course, some lens designs could be used for both mounts (be elongating the mirroorless lens backwards) others not. But even then i must decide in which mount i buy a lens, and may decide to not buy it at all, because uncertainity doesnt make the shopping experience great). Sure, it's not rational to buy lenses, which i do not need the next day, but well, having 100 pairs of shoes isn't either.

Not to forget, they already obsoleted the FD lenses, but then the new EF system gave a huge benefit. The benefit of mirrorless vs DSLR isn't that big (if at all) so even the risk or feel of getting my lenses obsoletet can prevent me from investing in the system or hobby at all..

generally, with maturing technics, the rational motivation for investment is reduced, so i would assume the hobby market which to some point buys emotionally is more important. 

Telling people, to search a medical solution for there problem doesn't help that much, it will be canon's task to keep their customers fascinated and loyal. It can be both, any change can be great, give new fascination, keep the hobby alive. Some people are buying a new car every 2 years, even if this is a big waste of money. some people do this, others not, and the latter dont want to be forced to.


----------



## Diltiazem (Apr 4, 2018)

I don't know what is the fuss about Canon FF mirrorless. 
Canon and Nikon sells 6 times more APSC than FF. Sony sells significantly more APSC than FF. And Canon and Nikon sells more FF DSLR than Sony sells FF mirrorless. I mean significantly more, no competition, not even close third. FF mirrorless is a niche market. 

With FF cameras and lenses weight and size advantage is virtually lost and this combination is the main draw for mirrorless. One may argue that smaller camera size is actually a disadvantage with bigger lenses. I think overwhelming majority who use FF camera don't worry about size. I know that MILC is not just about size. It's other advantage is EVF, particularly the ability to see the image before it is captured. I doubt that it's really is an advantage when you are able to see the image in less than a second after you have captured it. 

There obviously are other advantages of mirrorless, but they have nothing to do with mirrorless FF. They actually have nothing to do with some APSC users, such as 7DII or D500 users. Imagine a 7DII user handling a 100-400 lens with a miniature body. 

I think Canon should release an APS-H mirrorless and totally ignore FF mirrorless for the time being. This will have smaller cameras and lenses than FF mirrorless. it will be much easier to cover 100% of the frame with DPAF. It will be much easier to do 4K or 8K without producing as much heat as FF. 

Canon can make a mirrorless 6D. But I don't see any reason they should make 5D, 1Dx or 7D mirrorless. Mirrorless is for M mount and smaller cameras. Rest is just hype.


----------



## C-A430 (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Punio said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to know if it's the EF mount or not. Because as soon as they announce EF is dead, it'll be the Canopolypse. Can you imagine the value of everyone's gear dropping overnight?
> ...



Neuro, I am afraid YOU might be the one living in a dream, not him. Since they started *EF-M* lens line-up Canon hasn't made any *EF-S* lenses (actually they released new kit lenses and a f3.5 macro)

Canon will not stop making EF lenses right away, but they will likely release fewer new lens releases starting 2020. They can make a nice profit selling *current lens line-up* and update only bodies and holy-trinity-zooms. They will release few more before 5DV, to impove 5D/1D sales by hiding the fact that they cant maintain 4 lens mounts in declining market as good as they did 1-and-a-half (EF+EF-s) back in the 2000s. And then? Who says EF will keep getting *new* lenses and not just updates for high-sales zooms and telephoto zooms?

Also...

I predicted that Canons next *mount* will either be for curved sensors mirrorless, medium-format mirrorless or *FF/mirrorless/DPAF/global-shutter*. 

If new Canon cameras have sensors that are *curved* or *DPAF + global-shutter* or EF-S mount (to use the extra space for special wide lenses) than I made an incredible *prophecy*.

I was probably just *plain wrong*. If this was mount for lenses for curved sensors, we would know by now. Confusion about how does the mount work supports the EF-S + FF + mirrorless idea, but...


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

*Re: Mount logic*



unfocused said:


> While it is conceivable that APS-C DSLRs could someday disappear, I doubt it will be in my lifetime.



ouch! I sincerely hope you will live and prosper many, many years after the last new APS-C DSLR is made by one of the remaining last 3 manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Ricoh/Pentax). It will happen rather soon. Mirrorslappers are in their terminal stage, especially those with crop sensors. 

After that your only hope for APS-C mirrorslappers will be the likes of Yongnuo and assorted Chinese copycats or the usual kickstarter rip-offs, quite possibly even branded "Polaroid", "Kodak" or "Nokia"  ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> Neuro, I am afraid YOU might be the one living in a dream, not him. Since they started *EF-M* lens line-up Canon hasn't made any *EF-S* lenses other than a few minor updates to basic kit lenses and a macro lens.
> 
> Canon will not stop making EF lenses right away, but they will likely release fewer new lens releases starting 2020. They can make a nice profit selling *current lens line-up* and update only bodies and holy-trinity-zooms. They will release few more before 5DV, to improve 5D/1D sales by hiding the fact that they cant maintain 4 lens mounts in declining market as good as they did 1-and-a-half (EF+EF-s) back in the 2000s. And then? Who says EF will keep getting *new* lenses and not just updates for high-sales zooms and telephoto zooms?



+1 exactly 

Canon will move from one 1 FF mount [EF] and a very limited lineup of crop lenses [EF-S] half mounts [EF + 1/2 EF-S] during the past mirrorslapper era to exactly the same setup in the mirrorless era. Full line-up of FF-capable lenses, optimized for mirrorless cameras ["EF-X"] plus limited line-up of very compact consumer/prosumer crop lenses, optimized for mirrorless camerasd [EF-M] 

EF -> EF-X [coming soon]
EF-S -> EF-M [done] 

everything else makes very little sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Punio said:
> ...



Sorry, no. I live in the *real* world. In that world, following the introduction of the EF-M mount, Canon has launched the:


EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS NanoUSM
EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro IS STM

So, that's 6 EF-S lenses released over a time period with 7 EF-M lenses launched. The introduced EF-S lenses are a near-perfect match to the EF-M lens counterparts, the only exception being the M15-45mm, suggesting that the EF-S lenses are just as important to the overall lineup as the EF-M lenses (which of course they are, since dSLRs still _significantly_ outsell MILCs). Also, the EF-S 35mm macro is the most recently released APS-C format lens. Of course, all of that happened in the *real* world. I'm not sure which world you live in… 

I've heard it sucks when facts and reality yank the rug out from underneath the feet of your argument. I hope the fall doesn't hurt too badly. 




AvTvM said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, I am afraid YOU might be the one living in a dream, not him. Since they started *EF-M* lens line-up Canon hasn't made any *EF-S* lenses other than a few minor updates to basic kit lenses and a macro lens.
> ...



Utterly unsurprising that you would agree with the above statement. I _know_ which world you live in, and it clearly has no overlap with reality. You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Once you go faster than f/2 and longer 50mm, stuff gets 'EF big' because physics. As Sony has shown, the rest of the lenses will be just about like for like size/lengthwise with their current EF counterparts.



You are of course forgetting one important thing that Canon's own patents have strongly hinted at. Diffractive Optics.

Still, the vast majority of the world's photos are shot between the equivalent focal lengths of 24-50mm. And you don't always need to shoot faster than f/2.8 - so why carry a huge heavy lens and camera around on those days you don't need to do that?

I don't expect an 85mm f/1.2 lens to be any lighter for the new system - in fact I don't expect to be using anything other than the existing lens with an adaptor. But just because YOU don't see a need for smaller, lighter lenses doesn't mean everyone else feels the same.

I take photos because I enjoy taking photos. And sometimes I enjoy it so much more when I have a simple lightweight camera with a good prime lens on it. If your style of photography means you need the 24-70 f/2.8 is stuck on your camera every day then I feel sorry for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Still, the vast majority of the world's photos are shot between the equivalent focal lengths of 24-50mm.



But, only a very tiny minority of the world's photos are shot using full frame sensors…and that is the issue under consideration here.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> I predicted that Canons next *mount* will either be for curved sensors mirrorless, medium-format mirrorless or *FF/mirrorless/DPAF/global-shutter*.
> 
> If new Canon cameras have sensors that are *curved* or *DPAF + global-shutter* or EF-S mount (to use the extra space for special wide lenses) than I made an incredible *prophecy*.



You predicted something about a mount which isn’t mount-specific, and will then claim victory for prophecy if new canon cameras use an old mount.

Cool cool.


----------



## Canoneer (Apr 4, 2018)

It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. *They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor* and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.



Do you have information about the internal cost of sensors? Not sure why the 6D2 sensor would cost Canon significantly less than the IMX251 (presumably in the RX1R ii) costs Sony, who has been producing it since 2005. BSI might cost more for tooling, but those costs were possibly amortized.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> I predicted that Canons next *mount* will either be for curved sensors mirrorless, medium-format mirrorless or *FF/mirrorless/DPAF/global-shutter*.
> 
> If new Canon cameras have sensors that are *curved* or *DPAF + global-shutter* or EF-S mount (to use the extra space for special wide lenses) than I made an incredible *prophecy*.



I predict that Canon's next mount may be the same, or different to the current mounts. If the mount will be used to attach a lens to the camera body then I made an incredible *prophecy* too.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I predict that Canon's next mount may be the same, or different to the current mounts. If the mount will be used to attach a lens to the camera body then I made an incredible *prophecy* too.



LOL ;D


----------



## sanj (Apr 4, 2018)

miketcool said:


> I was involved in the development of Aperture by Apple before it was released as a Beta to the public. There was a time when Apple worked closer with the professional community for input. This never meant that we told them what we wanted and they gave us the requests, it meant that they developed a strategy and then asked us on a professional level if it would improve our workflow.
> 
> I hope Canon has taken this approach, because from a professional point of view, Sony is dead. They make some incredible ENG capable professional video cameras, and they're slowly moving their mirrorless line into the professional realm. I've had so many positive experiences with Canon when it comes to replacing or repairing equipment. Their center in Burbank has taken huge strides in catering towards us, and it's really helping people make the decision to use Canon on their projects. Honestly, if anyone wants to create a long term relationship with professionals, they must use Canon as their model. It has become easy for us to switch platforms, especially as expensive equipment is being used on a rental basis.
> 
> There are several major features that I would love to see in the next EOS series. Things like synchronizing multiple cameras through an app (time-lapse or multicam shooting), an improved file system on the camera (similar to smart folders that organize by location or date), bringing back Eye Control AF (like on the EOS 3), a basic ability to copy camera settings to a card, and applying them to a B or C camera, even if they are a lower model, and the ability to override the EXIF data for lenses that are attached but have no readout. Most of these aren't big changes, but they're a handful of things that would save me a tremendous amount of time with the style of travel shooting that I do for work.



Super post.


----------



## Canoneer (Apr 4, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. *They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor* and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.
> ...



Nope, no insider information on sensor costs, just observation of MSRP on relevant models. Canon sells the 6D II for $2000 ($1700 at promo), and the 40mm F/2.8 STM for $180; and those are sold at profit. Mirrorless cameras are less complicated and less expensive than DSLRs for manufacture because they have fewer mechanical parts and don't require expensive pentaprisms. 

And if Canon were to increase the yield of the 6D II sensor because they were putting it in other models, the cost would go down even further. If they priced it at $1799, that still undercuts the RX1R II by $1500, and the Leica Q by $2500.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.



If Canon does this (and they may), they will go premium and chase the wealthy crowd like Sony's RX1R II and Leica's Q did. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> And if Canon were to increase the yield of the 6D II sensor because they were putting it in other models, the cost would go down even further. If they priced it at $1799, that still undercuts the RX1R II by $1500, and the Leica Q by $2500.



Sigma would do that. Canon wouldn't. They don't leave that kind of meat on the bone margins-wise. Hell, even Sony -- known to offer a ton of tech/feature/value for the price -- _still_ had the stones to ask north of $3k for theirs.

If Canon offers one of these, expect a $3k offering. Keep in mind that they need to design a one-off FF lens with a leaf shutter that can't possibly have high volumes.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

If Canon were to put a 6D II sensor in their flagship new mirrorless I'll happily join the "Stupid Canon" chorus.

The 6D II was a disappointment with poor dynamic range at low ISO. It's great at low-light, as the original 6D was, but it's far from competitive as a landscape photography camera for example.

Canon has to do better than that for their flagship mirrorless offering. I would think the 5DIV sensor would be the minimum they should put in it.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> If Canon were to put a 6D II sensor in their flagship new mirrorless I'll happily join the "Stupid Canon" chorus.
> 
> The 6D II was a disappointment with poor dynamic range at low ISO. It's great at low-light, as the original 6D was, but it's far from competitive as a landscape photography camera for example.
> 
> Canon has to do better than that for their flagship mirrorless offering. I would think the 5DIV sensor would be the minimum they should put in it.



+1, but I'd say 5D4-like, not necessarily 30 MP. Canon's first FF mirrorless could simply be a market-parity 24 MP on-chip ADC sensor -- the 6D2 sensor we should have gotten, if you will.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.



Give it the 5DIV sensor and an f/2 lens, and I'd be tempted.


----------



## C-A430 (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > I predicted that Canons next *mount* will either be for curved sensors mirrorless, medium-format mirrorless or *FF/mirrorless/DPAF/global-shutter*.
> ...



I was convinced Canon will not do FF mirrorless the way all you mirrorless lovers want it to (take 5DIV and pack it into 6D body with EF-X mount). I thought they will wait to add a next big technology to it. I even specified technologies I find most likely ones.

You take these technologies very lightly. Do you have any curved sensors cameras? Any cameras with global shutter? Do you own a mirrorless camera with film-era mount that can take mirrorless specific lenses?

It is harder to go wide with crop than FF, so just going mirrorless is big on its own for EF-M. Not as much for full frame, since it doesnt assist you as much when going wide. Mirrorless version of 5Dm4 is much more boring than it may appear. Also this time Sony will be ahead in sensor technology, lens line-up and marketing.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.
> ...



Exactly. And a leaf shutter -- both the Q and RX1R lenses have them. 

I don't do much portraiture, but 1/2000 sync would be lovely.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

And fixed lens is where the 'mirrorless is all about being smaller' camp (FTR that I am not a member of) can _truly_ drop the mic.

Lens inset to the body
+ Lens FL/speed is the homerun sweet spot of size (a 24 2.8 or 50 1.8 would work as well)
+ No need for a chunky grip as large glass is never going to be held by this
+ No need for a wide body to create finger space between the chunky grip and the lens barrel

= a SUPER tiny camera. See attached.

- A


----------



## Canoneer (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canoneer said:
> ...



I don't see why they couldn't do both (if the market demand is there). An entry-level fixed lens point and shoot full-frame with a 6D II sensor and a redesigned, somewhat slow, relatively inexpensive 40mm F2.8 STM. Then go after the high-end crowd with a 5D IV sensor and 35mm L-series leaf shutter lens at the $3k segment.

It's a big ask for Canon to deliver _any_ fixed lens full-frame camera, though. I think they'll put their eggs in the ILC basket for full-frame and maybe they'll give us a fixed lens APS-C mirrorless camera that might have a real optical rangefinder on it.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> I don't see why they couldn't do both (if the market demand is there). An entry-level fixed lens point and shoot full-frame with a 6D II sensor and a redesigned, somewhat slow, relatively inexpensive 40mm F2.8 STM. Then go after the high-end crowd with a 5D IV sensor and 35mm L-series leaf shutter lens at the $3k segment.
> 
> It's a big ask for Canon to deliver _any_ fixed lens full-frame camera, though. I think they'll put their eggs in the ILC basket for full-frame and maybe they'll give us a fixed lens APS-C mirrorless camera that might have a real optical rangefinder on it.



I also wonder how much Leica and Sony (and Fuji with the X100 rigs) are charging is actually a deliberate markup to smite us for buying something with no future lens sale pullthrough. :

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see why they couldn't do both (if the market demand is there). An entry-level fixed lens point and shoot full-frame with a 6D II sensor and a redesigned, somewhat slow, relatively inexpensive 40mm F2.8 STM. Then go after the high-end crowd with a 5D IV sensor and 35mm L-series leaf shutter lens at the $3k segment.
> ...



If you look up deliberate markup in the thesaurus, it will point you to Leica.


----------



## glness (Apr 4, 2018)

I am not sure what Canon would gain by going to anything other than an EF mount for a full-frame mirrorless camera. Canon currently offers 28 "L" lenses in the EF line; Sony currently has 6 lenses in G-Master line. Yes, because of the flange-to-sensor distance with the Canon EF line (44mm), a full-frame Canon mirrorless for EF lenses would technically have to be an inch thicker than Sony's E-mount mirrorless cameras, but comparable Sony E-mount lenses are usually designed longer because of Sony's short flange-to-sensor distance (18mm), so the difference in camera and lens length between the two brands is relatively insignificant. Besides, having a little extra thickness would certainly give the Canon EF mirrorless some ergonomic advantages especially with bigger lenses and allow them to add extra room for other features like better grips, increased battery capacity, memory card space, etc. What advantage would it be for Canon to produce a slightly thinner alternative-mount camera and then have to re-engineer all their remarkable glass with more length to allow for a shorter flange-to-sensor distance? I'd rather have a fractionally thicker camera and shorter lenses than a thinner camera and longer lenses. The difference is even more insignificant when you realize that presently a Canon 5D Mark IV is only one-tenth of an inch deeper than a Sony a7R III.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> If you look up deliberate markup in the thesaurus, it will point you to Leica.



Sure, expected of course. But let's test my nutty theory:

X100F = $1,299
X-E3 (with I believe the same sensor) = $899

+$400 for a 22 f/2 leaf-shutter lens _and_ a hybrid VF. That actually seems reasonable!

----------------

RX1R II = $3,298
A7R2 (with I believe the same sensor) = $2,398

+$900 for a 35 f/2 leaf shutter lens. I'm calling that a minor smiting.

So either Fuji is delivering more pure horsepower value than Sony (absolutely not), or there is a dearth of options (besides Leica) in FF fixed lens offerings that allows Sony to gouge folks here. My money is firmly on the latter.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

glness said:


> I am not sure what Canon would gain by going to anything other than an EF mount for a full-frame mirrorless camera. Canon currently offers 28 "L" lenses in the EF line; Sony currently has 6 lenses in G-Master line. Yes, because of the flange-to-sensor distance with the Canon EF line (44mm), a full-frame Canon mirrorless for EF lenses would have to be an inch thicker than Sony's E-mount mirrorless cameras, but comparable Sony E-mount lenses are usually designed longer because of Sony's short flange-to-sensor distance (18mm), so the difference in camera and lens would be relatively insignificant. Besides, having an extra inch of thickness would certainly give the Canon EF mirrorless some ergonomic advantages especially with bigger lenses and allow them to add extra room for other features like increased battery capacity, memory card space, etc. What advantage would it be for Canon to produce a thinner alternative-mount camera and then have to re-engineer all their remarkable glass with more length to allow for a shorter flange-to-sensor distance? I'd rather have a little thicker camera and shorter lenses than a thinner camera and longer lenses.



Agree in broad strokes, but remember you can decouple thin/thick camera from big/little grip, i.e. you could have a thin mount and a huge grip that handles large glass well. Sony were just too obsessed with size to seize that opportunity.

I agree that EF is the way to go -- I'm just saying that mount depth and grip size are independent design decisions.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Apr 4, 2018)

The fixed lens discussion reminds me that many of the best pictures I have made were with a Yashica rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens.

An advantage of that consistent view was that I could have my shots framed in mind before I even looked through the viewfinder, almost as if the lines of the frame edges were etched into my brain. I think it contributed to my appreciation of beauty that I saw before me even when I didn't have the camera along.

To an extent now, the reverse process works in my head, I guess. I see a desired field of view, and then I look through the camera and zoom to fit.


----------



## jolyonralph (Apr 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I agree that EF is the way to go -- I'm just saying that mount depth and grip size are independent design decisions.
> 
> - A



Why not go the whole way and have a grip that wraps round the front and converts the EF-M FF mount to a native EF mount? Of course would have to be done properly so it's rock solid and weather-sealed.

Then everyone can be happy. Smaller body for those times you need it, and for when you dont you attach the grip and use your arsenal of L lenses.

Jolyon


----------



## Talys (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that EF is the way to go -- I'm just saying that mount depth and grip size are independent design decisions.
> ...



I'd rather just have 2 bodies, personally. A larger body has certain potential advantages other than ergonomics like more space for additional processors, larger batteries, and heat dissipation. 

I don't have a problem buying a small B-Camera that has an adapter, that can double as a mini travel camera, as long as the most important controls are in all the same places as my primary.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 4, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that EF is the way to go -- I'm just saying that mount depth and grip size are independent design decisions.
> ...



yes. a much more modular approach would generally be highly welcome in imaging gear. Unfortunately not likely to happen ... 

A "slim mount", square sensor version of such a camera cube .... 






with sensor unit, DIGIC/imaging pipeline and AF module each separately tool-less swappable / upgradable by end-user ... and all sorts of EVF and LCD options plus mount add-ons, grips, battery/power attachments, communications modules ... 

will take a non-japanese, truly "innovative" company. Maybe someone could get "Elon Musk"-types interested to have a go at it ?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 4, 2018)

Talys said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Why not go the whole way and have a grip that wraps round the front and converts the EF-M FF mount to a native EF mount? Of course would have to be done properly so it's rock solid and weather-sealed.
> ...



+1 to Talys. And Canon wants to sell us two bodies anyway, if we're honest about it. 

- A


----------



## Rocky (Apr 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > It wouldn't hurt Canon to debut a fixed lens full-frame mirrorless like the Sony RX1R, or the Leica Q. They could conceivably undercut the competition from a pricing standpoint by a huge margin if they used the 6D II sensor and a mirrorless variant of the 40mm F/2.8 STM. It could essentially become the Canonet QL18.
> ...


I will even settle for 28mm f2.8 with a mini grip for smaller size. Both the RX1 and RX1X are too smooth(no grip). I am afraid that they will slip off my fingers.


----------



## hmatthes (Apr 5, 2018)

Let's not lose sight of the beauty or ugliness of user interfaces.

We are all well versed in the marvelously mature UI of Canon EOS. The others are, well, ugly...

The Leica Q is always with me for several reasons which Canon might consider:
1. User interface is almost perfect. Leave the aperture on "A", leave shutter on "A" ands you get a "program mode" with exposure comp readily available on thumb wheel. Want a different depth, merely shift the aperture ring as desired. It becomes Av mode, no fuss.
2. The 28mm f/1.7 Summilux may be the best single lens in my kit, and it has a leaf shutter as well as the camera's electronic shutter.
3. Image quality is superb because the lens and sensor were developed together.
4. Image creation is ideal since the EVF is perfection and it shows the actual image, after exposure comp or aperture changes, in real time. No OVF can do that.

I am a changed photographer since getting the Q.
I love my Canon 6D and "L" glass. I was about to buy a 5D-IV when a friend gave me the Leica Q -- now I anxiously await the Canon EOS FF Mirrorless. Pray for a perfect EVF, EF mount, 5D-IV sensor, dual SD slots, and our simple EOS interface!


----------



## BillB (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> If Canon does this (and they may), they will go premium and chase the wealthy crowd like Sony's RX1R II and Leica's Q did.
> 
> - A



Maybe so, and maybe not. I have felt for a long time that a fixed lens and a high megapixel sensor is an interesting combination for a small lightweight camera, and that 28-35mm was the sweetspot for focal length. With a high megapixel sensor, you can easily crop to get a 70mm+ equivalent focal length, and you avoid the weight and cost penalties associated with using interchangeable lenses. If Canon decides to go that route, I am not sure that they would decide that the price sweetspot for max profit will be at RX1R II and Q levels, especially since there are already two pretty decent competitors at that level, and there isn't much brand loyalty for a fixed lens camera. Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?


----------



## sanj (Apr 5, 2018)

stevelee said:


> The fixed lens discussion reminds me that many of the best pictures I have made were with a Yashica rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens.
> 
> An advantage of that consistent view was that I could have my shots framed in mind before I even looked through the viewfinder, almost as if the lines of the frame edges were etched into my brain. I think it contributed to my appreciation of beauty that I saw before me even when I didn't have the camera along.
> 
> To an extent now, the reverse process works in my head, I guess. I see a desired field of view, and then I look through the camera and zoom to fit.



Good if that works for you. Versatility in lenses is often my need. Having said that a full frame camera with a fixed 3mmm f1.8 lens with 5 stop stabilisation would be my third camera immediately if the size was _compact_.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 5, 2018)

BillB said:


> Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?



Because Canon doesn't leave money on the table. When is the last time Canon undercut _Sony?_

Also, the price on the RX1R II (to my knowledge) is still sitting at the initial asking from a couple years ago. Name me a single Sony product of that age that can say that. I read that as Sony doing decent business on a product without a same-segment competitor, and that reads that this market is underserved. I see Canon potentially jumping in here with an eye-popping price offering, somewhere in the $3k / 5D4 going price sort of neighborhood.

- A


----------



## Talys (Apr 5, 2018)

sanj said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > The fixed lens discussion reminds me that many of the best pictures I have made were with a Yashica rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens.
> ...



I'm assuming that you mean 35mm?  

The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.




ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?
> ...



Right. It makes no sense for Canon to undercut Sony on camera bodies and start a price war on that front. 

First, they don't have to -- At $3k, they'll barely be able to keep up with demand (or perhaps fall behind) on their full frame mirrorless anyways. And second, the people who weren't going to buy a $3k Canon wouldn't buy a $2,500 Canon, either.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.



One lens = it has to be wide/standard. (It's the cell phone problem -- most of those are 28-30mm-ish FF equivalent, right?)

If that's the case, IMHO around 35mm you can capture more _types_ of images than other FLs, but obviously certain types of photography are problematic. I hope you have long arms for selfies, I hope you don't plan to do head/shoulders portraiture, etc.

So, for me, there is no comprehensive win for a fixed lens setup unless (a) size / simplicity is a really high priority for you and (b) you _love_ the chosen FL. I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.

- A


----------



## Talys (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I have with a fixed prime is that it's almost guaranteed to be pretty wide, and that causes perspective problems for me even especially when I get in closer. For example, if two people are sitting near each other, a 35mm full frame makes them seem far apart; or if I take a photo of someone from above or below, it will exaggerate their body shape.
> ...



That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.

The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.



Have you tried asking CPS?


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love to try a Leica Q like camera, but I just can't justify the spend vs. other gear I'd like to own someday. Perhaps I'll rent one on a future trip and try it out.
> ...



It'll have to get in the queue. My first 50 registered requests are for a lens Canon keeps claiming does not yet exist. 8)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.


----------



## BillB (Apr 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> That's exactly the problem -- I totally understand that it has to be wide-ish, otherwise, it won't be salable, since you can work with a field of view that's too wide, but not a field of view that's too narrow.
> 
> The "smartphone" or "selfie" look kicks in when you try to photograph something with a lens that's too wide and you get an unnatural perspective. Like you said, the problem (at least for me) at the end of the day is that it's a lot of money to spend on one piece of gear like that, no matter how awesome it is at 30-ish mm.



With a fixed lens, the way to deal with the perspective issue is by cropping (digital zooming) to turn the 35mm into the equivalent of a longer lens. The perspective issue comes from where you are standing, rather than the focal length of the lens. Conversely, if you want to fill the frame with a fixed lens, you may be able to zoom with your feet (if you can live with the perspective issues and the terrain permits). Just like in the old days. Having said this, all in all you probably have to like a moderate wide angle look to fall in love with a fixed lens camera of the sort we are talking about.


----------



## BillB (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Why not undercut them (even undercut them bigtime) after they proved the design concept and demonstrated that their price point is an issue for a lot of people (including me)?
> ...



You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.


----------



## Talys (Apr 5, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Or just stand where you would for a 50mm shot and crop, it's the same thing.



Yes, I understand that distance to subject controls the perspective. But cropping instead of using the right focal length to accomplish the task is a good way to get a less than optimal photograph.

Let's say you want to take a headshot.

If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, _obviously_ you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor. 

Again, the problem is price. If I'm taking it with a cell phone I already have, oh well; it's what I could do with what I had. But if I'm paying a couple of thousand bucks for a full frame camera, yikes, I want a little more flexibility.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 5, 2018)

BillB said:


> You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.



I see both the Leica Q and RX1R II squarely aimed at one percenters who adore new things, gadgets, tech, etc, but lack the patience or will to learn photography. I could be wrong. It could also be for a gearhead photog who just wants a cleanse from complexity and 'stuff' for a while. 

But every time I see a camera that is utterly bulletproof to conventional price drops, I see a strong style/lifestyle-sell to the gear. The Leica Q, RX1R II, hell -- even the Nikon Df -- still go for absurd prices long after they've been launched. That says they're succesfully tapping into a high disposable income demo there.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Apr 5, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Sometimes, but not often. Unless you have a great eye for composition, issues can "crop" up when you crop. A composition that is balanced may become unbalanced when you crop away certain elements, and more often "eye-catching" elements that are not too close to the frame's edge in your original shot are now too close or leading off the edge in your crop. Items placed at various focal points (such as 1/3rd lines) can also become less optimally placed when cropped. So, if composition/design are a top priority in your photography, this type of camera/lens may not be your best choice. For all the reasons stated above, I prefer zooms and have had no interest in a prime or fixed focal length lens in many years. Of course, that's just me and there may be a big enough market for this type of camera.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, _obviously_ you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor.



Depends upon use. Sometimes you just want something for the web or Facebook, not a 13" x 19" print, so the cropped picture is good enough.

Selfies, of course are limited by the length of your arm, unless you use a tripod and remote or self-timer or some sort of selfie stick.


----------



## BillB (Apr 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > You leave money on the table when you do not maximize profit (volume x unit margin), not when you maximize unit margin. So, the question comes down to how sensitive the volume would be to the price. You are thinking about rich guys who don't care about price. I am thinking more about people buying second cameras to go with a larger rig.
> ...



I have to admit that the steady price of the RX1RII baffles me (the Q not so much, it's a Leica). One possibility that there aren't that many in the inventory and Sony sees some value in keeping it on the list. Canon seems to do that with some of its lenses, like the 17-40, which has pretty much kept its price. I don't think the 17-40 is a rich man's toy by any stretch. Whatever is going on, I have a tough time believing Sony is making much money on the RX1RII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 5, 2018)

dak723 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I'm sorry I am a 'solutions' kind of person. I will happily walk around with just a 35 f2 IS prime and have effectively used it as everything from a 17mm to an 85mm. You guys continue with your 'it would be perfect but for this or that' endless pontification and I'll keep taking pictures. Have fun.


----------



## Talys (Apr 5, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > If you do that at 20mm prime and fill up the frame, _obviously_ you're not going to have the desired result. The only way to get the correct perspective is to increase your distance to the subject, and then crop it out. But that will not produce a result that is anywhere near as good as one photographed with an 85mm prime against the same sensor.
> ...



The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.

There's no way that anyone who does portraiture will tell you that a 20 megapixel portrait from an 85mm prime on a 1DXII is not a vastly superior tool for taking a portrait of an individual than a 28mm prime on a A7R3, even if you crop it out to usable pixels in the right proportion.




privatebydesign said:


> I'm sorry I am a 'solutions' kind of person. I will happily walk around with just a 35 f2 IS prime and have effectively used it as everything from a 17mm to an 85mm. You guys continue with your 'it would be perfect but for this or that' endless pontification and I'll keep taking pictures. Have fun.



I'm happy for you, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks like you. Smartphone manufacturers essentially cater to people with this preference, and camera manufacturers should absolutely make gear that appeals to you, too.

However, please don't diminish the priorities of people who do other types of photography than you. For example, if someone is paying $1,000 - $3,000 for wedding photos, their expectations are some very special portraits as well as some great group shots, and those are not best served by the same lenses. If your portfolio is entirely shot with 35mm, you'll probably never get a wedding gig.

On the other hand, you might have someone taking 40 corporate headshots, one executive after another. It would behoove you to have the proper focal length to do so. The ideal lens for a headshot is not the same lens as the ideal one for a sunset at the lake.

And finally, if 35mm works for you just like 17mm, great. It probably means you don't shoot anything really wide and/or that you can always just back up. But that's not the case for a lot of us. It's often not physically possible to shoot wide enough at 35mm; for example, if you're performing photography for real estate; or you need to capture a diorama from above, with limited ceiling space; or you're trying to photograph architecture; or... the list is endless for the applications of an ultrawide lens.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 6, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Don't quite get your reply. If you are a solutions kind of person, then you should understand that the best solution is often to get the composition right in the viewfinder. Not sure why I am "pontificating" when I point out that when you crop, you don't always get the composition that you thought you were getting. I guess some folks just have to feel superior rather than accept that someone else has made a good point.

Or, sadly, you had no idea what I was talking about when it comes to composition. Alas, on this gear-head forum, it wouldn't surprise me. ;D ;D


----------



## stevelee (Apr 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.
> 
> There's no way that anyone who does portraiture will tell you that a 20 megapixel portrait from an 85mm prime on a 1DXII is not a vastly superior tool for taking a portrait of an individual than a 28mm prime on a A7R3, even if you crop it out to usable pixels in the right proportion.



That well may be true, but you've lost me there somewhere. I don't see the relevance of that to my post.

And that said, when I recently needed a picture of myself, I set up a tripod and used my 6D2 and 100mm f/2.8 macro (my best lens in the 85mm-105mm range) and a wireless remote with a two-second delay for posing. I didn't notice that the camera was still set to shoot a f/7, but that was OK, since I had a neutral blank wall behind me. I wound up with very sharp 26MB photos (maybe too sharp, since I could see blemishes I can't see in a mirror). I think the eventual result will be a 2" high picture on a web page.


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The quality of the photo isn't just about pixels.
> ...



Maybe I was (or you were) replying to something directed at someone else.

I was agreeing with ahsanford that a fixed focal length full frame camera needs to be fairly wide to be saleable; and while this may be attractive to some people like privatebydesign who wants to use a 35mm for _everything_, it's not an ideal focal length for lots of common tasks like portraiture.

Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.


----------



## BillB (Apr 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.



So, compared to the Leica Q, what kind of size and weight increase would it take to give you the flexibility that would make you comfortable, including any extra lenses that you would want to have with you? Getting significantly more flexibility than the Q would seem to involve significant increases in size and weight. I doubt that many people think of a Q type camera as an all purpose workhorse. The idea is to maximize IQ and lens aperture while minimizing size and weight. You might get some flexibility with a fixed zoom, which will need weight to get IQ and anything close to an F2.0 aperture. Otherwise flexibility would have to come with extra lenses, adding to the weight and bulk. I am not sure how much I would be willing to pay for a Q type camera, if anything, but I do find it an interesting idea. I might be more comfortable with an M5, the 22mm and a 50, adapter and all, but it would be hard to give up the high ISO goodness of a fullframe sensor.


----------



## hmatthes (Apr 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...


----------



## Talys (Apr 6, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Or put it this way, the original camera we were talking about, a $4,000 Leica Q with a fixed 28mm lens is super-expensive and far from ideal when you have to shoot a photo that wants to be shot with an 85mm. If Canon built a $1,500 version of the Leica Q, sure, it would be less expensive, but it would still have the same problem, and I'd still have a tough time shelling out for it for the same reasons.
> ...



I am poor person to ask, "how small would you like your MILC?", because my perfect sized cameras start at 80D/6D2 and go up from there. It's more like, "what's the minimum size of MILC that you would buy?"

I really dislike the size of the A7R3 -- I think it's too small vertically and horizontally, and grip too is shallow with too little finger room. However, gripped, it's a great vertical size. I am never concerned about camera body weight, because most of my lenses far outweigh my body anyways, and I prefer a larger body to balance that out. Usually, when I'm out photographing stuff, I use a double harness with a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-400 or 150-600 on separate bodies.

I have purchased many small cameras before, but almost all before smartphone cameras got to be where they are. I might buy a small ILC again, but I think I would go APSC, not full frame, because that would allow me to also have a small lens balanced with the body.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 7, 2018)

BillB said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Canon undercuts Sony in the lens department big time... yet Canon is more profitable. https://www.adorama.com/iso70200g2ma.html


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Canon undercuts Sony in the lens department big time... yet Canon is more profitable. https://www.adorama.com/iso70200g2ma.html



Agreed, on both counts. A big chunk of that profit is because Canon makes and sells a lot more lenses.

The 70-200/2.8 is the most egregious difference of all of them, and frankly, the Canon is a better lens. DXO "score" aside, the Canon has much better CA in the corners and more pleasing bokeh, plus autofocus in one shot mode on the Sony GM is terrible (it hunts). Zoom and MF ring are just plain nicer to handle on the Canon. 

The price differences are stark if you add up all the most popular lenses in 2.8. But one big difference is that the performance gap between Canon f/4's and 2.8's are smaller than the Sony ones, and another huge one is that the Canon used market is vast, whereas the Sony is nonexistent, or asking as much/more than retail.

Though you can get great prices on second-hand A7RII's


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 8, 2018)

I don't understand the "fixed focal length" FF camera idea. 24-70? Yeah, I could understand that. But fixed? No. The sensor is one of the big cost factors in FF isn't it? The camera would still be expensive for most people and not near as versatile.

Anyway, I have an old Canon A-1 and a really old Voigtlander Vito CL. They both came with 50mm lenses. The Voigtlander is a fixed lens camera.

I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.


----------



## ahsanford (Apr 8, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.



Sigma's fixed lens Foveon quattro rigs are much maligned pieces of tech, but they tried to wrestle with this -- they offered different fixed lens compact cameras of various focal lengths (21 / 28/ 45 / 75 FF equiv), which seems hyper-specialized at face value.

But one wonders how small a 24-50 f/3.5-5.6 (or possibly fixed f/4) could be in a similar nested-in-the-body design as the RX1R II.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Apr 8, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.



Before I got my first SLR about 1969, I had a Yeshica rangefinder film camera. It had a 45mm lens. That seemed to be a perfect focal length, mostly because I was used to using it and saw things that way. In theory, a "normal" lens has a focal length equal to the diagonal of the film frame. I don't know whether anybody uses that definition any more, but if so, a since FF digital camera sensor approximates the frame of 35mm film (by definition I would think), then the same number would apply. The diagonal is just slightly smaller than 45mm, so my Yashica had it about right. With the SLR I got a 55mm f/1.2 FD lens. It seemed slightly telephoto to me after using the 45mm for some years. I guess the 40mm pancake is as close to normal as Canon's line gets.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.
> ...



It would be a tough decision for the companies, I guess.

I've been fooling around with old Takumar lenses and they are surprisingly small. Granted, they are not AF lenses and not zooms, but they are FF and very compact. Not that anyone would want these in this day and age (though I do), but just to point out that things don't have to be huge.

Three lenses in the palm of my hand.  Make the lenses small enough and people wouldn't mind carrying around a pouch (fanny pack?) with a couple of primes.

Do they still make fanny packs? I'm getting too old. Do kids even know what a fanny is these days?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2018)

Someone's sweet aunt, right?


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Someone's sweet aunt, right?


I'm told that it has a different meaning in Great Britain.


----------



## sanj (Apr 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't understand the "fixed focal length" FF camera idea. 24-70? Yeah, I could understand that. But fixed? No. The sensor is one of the big cost factors in FF isn't it? The camera would still be expensive for most people and not near as versatile.
> 
> Anyway, I have an old Canon A-1 and a really old Voigtlander Vito CL. They both came with 50mm lenses. The Voigtlander is a fixed lens camera.
> 
> I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.



Fixed to get a wide aperture. f1.4 types.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 9, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Someone's sweet aunt, right?
> ...



Yep


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 9, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Owwww...


----------



## BillB (Apr 9, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I don't understand the "fixed focal length" FF camera idea. 24-70? Yeah, I could understand that. But fixed? No. The sensor is one of the big cost factors in FF isn't it? The camera would still be expensive for most people and not near as versatile.
> 
> Anyway, I have an old Canon A-1 and a really old Voigtlander Vito CL. They both came with 50mm lenses. The Voigtlander is a fixed lens camera.
> 
> I agree with Talys on the perspective part. I have to be careful with a 35mm up close. 50mm would make more sense to me if a FF fix lens camera made any sense at all. I don't think it does. I just think it would be too expensive for what it is.



The concept seems to be to very high IQ with wide aperture and a fast shutter in a very small size and light weight package. I guess you zoom with your feet, stitch to go wider and crop to get the equivalent of a longer focal length. If your start with a 42 meg sensor like the RX1RII, a fair amount of cropping is possible.

I don't know how much I would pay for one of these cameras, if anything, but I do find the idea interesting. On the other hand my closest equivalent is my 5DIV with the 40mm pancake. Bigger, heavier and a couple of stops slower, but not bad. Also, if I feel like carrying some more weight, I bring along my 85mm f 1.8 which gives me a longer focal length and another stop of aperture.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 9, 2018)

BillB said:


> The concept seems to be to very high IQ with wide aperture and a fast shutter in a very small size and light weight package. I guess you zoom with your feet, stitch to go wider and crop to get the equivalent of a longer focal length. If your start with a 42 meg sensor like the RX1RII, a fair amount of cropping is possible.



A leaf shutter, I presume, with its advantages of fast sync?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 10, 2018)

stevelee said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > The concept seems to be to very high IQ with wide aperture and a fast shutter in a very small size and light weight package. I guess you zoom with your feet, stitch to go wider and crop to get the equivalent of a longer focal length. If your start with a 42 meg sensor like the RX1RII, a fair amount of cropping is possible.
> ...



Many of the big sensor companies (canon and sony included) have global shutter technology. I expect that's where things will go in the future rather than leafs.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Many of the big sensor companies (canon and sony included) have global shutter technology. I expect that's where things will go in the future rather than leafs.



Explain, please.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 10, 2018)

stevelee said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Many of the big sensor companies (canon and sony included) have global shutter technology. I expect that's where things will go in the future rather than leafs.
> ...



I believe the biggest hurdle in fast flash sync is the mechanical component, part of which you risk catching in the exposure. Leaf shutters are also mechanical but they only need cover the iris of the lens rather than the full area of the sensor or film.

Global shutters are fully electronic and read each pixel simultaneously. There are no moving parts to synchronize with the light, and no part of the sensor will be read sooner than another, thus illumination will be equal across the frame. Currently they might not read fast enough, but that seems easier to accomplish than redesigning an entire lens lineup to include mechanical shutters. For a fixed one-off lens that may not be a big deal, but there is an holistic ecosystem driving the technology in all components, including sensors.

Global shutters also avoid the jello effect on moving objects created by rolling shutters, which is important particularly for video clients, and I think that’s largely what’s driving their development (think: machine vision feeding AI in a factory environment).

The higher the resolution, the harder this is to accomplish. The highest resolution commercially available global shutter I’m aware of is 47.5MP (built by CMOSIS), but can only read 30FPS. That’s great for video (8k30p), but not flash sync. They have a 2MP sensor with ten times faster readout. I’m not too familiar with the canon and Sony designs other than they are currently also towards the lower end of resolution. I expect it’s merely a matter of bandwidth (which is also being driven by video) to improve that, resulting in high resolution stills imaging with quick flash sync using existing lenses.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Global shutters are fully electronic and read each pixel simultaneously. There are no moving parts to synchronize with the light, and no part of the sensor will be read sooner than another, thus illumination will be equal across the frame. Currently they might not read fast enough, but that seems easier to accomplish than redesigning an entire lens lineup to include mechanical shutters. For a fixed one-off lens that may not be a big deal, but there is an holistic ecosystem driving the technology in all components, including sensors.
> 
> Global shutters also avoid the jello effect on moving objects created by rolling shutters, which is important particularly for video clients, and I think that’s largely what’s driving their development (think: machine vision feeding AI in a factory environment).



Thanks.


----------



## Talys (Apr 12, 2018)

stevelee said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Global shutters are fully electronic and read each pixel simultaneously. There are no moving parts to synchronize with the light, and no part of the sensor will be read sooner than another, thus illumination will be equal across the frame. Currently they might not read fast enough, but that seems easier to accomplish than redesigning an entire lens lineup to include mechanical shutters. For a fixed one-off lens that may not be a big deal, but there is an holistic ecosystem driving the technology in all components, including sensors.
> ...



Global shutters (on CMOS) will be great, once they are good enough that they don't have any downsides for still photography. For me, it will just be that I can use fast shutter speeds without HSS or relying on T.1. 

In the meantime though, usually, 1/8 or 1/16 will yield a low enough T.1 freeze any action, or I can rely on HSS. Really, the biggest difference will be that I can use a speedlight or a 2 pound mini strobe instead of a full 10 pound one when dealing with outdoors/sun.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 12, 2018)

yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.

looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).

really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.
> 
> looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).
> 
> really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.



Oh you mean apart from reduced dynamic range and problems using flash. And the fact that no-one has found a way round these for all situations you can used a DSLR. 

Stupid AvTvM.


----------



## Talys (Apr 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.
> 
> looking forward to getting solid-state cameras. wheathersealing much easier. no lubricants needed. none of them splattering all over image sensors (at least in some nikon mirrorslappers). absolutely no vibrations during exposure. direct impact on IQ / sharpness. and image capture in total silence ... less conspicuous, no disturbing. unless an artificial shutter sound is consciously enabled by user (not as default by camera maker!).
> 
> really hope it gets implemented in mirrorless cameras asap now. but wont hold my breath ... knowubg "innovative" Canon.



Go buy yourself a bullet-style security camera... that ticks off all your boxes. No moving parts. Global shutter! Wide lens! Solid state! It even works in the dark. Or a Ring doorbell  It even has audio!

It's easy to get a global shutter camera. It just needs to be CCD instead of CMOS.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > yep. and even more! global shutter means finally getting rid of the 2 remaing mechanical, moving parts in cameras: slapping mirrors and flicking shutter blades. last 2 remnants of 19th century photo-tech that have way too long been denying us the full potential of digital photography in a number of important ways.
> ...



I’ve seen that there is a trade with global shutters and DR, by nothing to suggest it’s a totally unacceptable one.

What problems are there with GS and flash? Are you referring to common rolling electronic shutters or have you see flash used with global shutter cameras (eg the original Blackmagics, or some Red and Sony cinema cameras)? I have not, and am curious why syncing to a CMOS GS is an insurmountable problem.


----------



## Talys (Apr 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Clearly CMOS global shutters are _possible_ as the Canon C700 GS, with 14 stops of DR, demonstrates -- but it's a $35,000 camera.

As far as I am aware, there are still some significant challenges in making this something we can have on consumer products though, most significantly heat, price, and size. I believe that "all things being equal" (I mean the constraints of a consumer camera primarily for stills), the rolling shutter just provides better noise and DR at an affordable price.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> Go buy yourself a bullet-style security camera... that ticks off all your boxes. No moving parts. Global shutter! Wide lens! Solid state! It even works in the dark. Or a Ring doorbell  It even has audio!
> It's easy to get a global shutter camera. It just needs to be CCD instead of CMOS.



Lol. Sensor too small ... hehe


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and the sensor expensive because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?

You can go buy an 8k 30p global shutter full frame color (Bayer) CMOS sensor today (well it has a 22 week lead time but you get the idea), and it will only cost you $5,861.26 (min order qty 1). I’m sure it would be nearly or the most expensive individual component, but don’t expect 6k would drive a BOM cost yielding a $35,000 camera. 

It only has 68dB of DR, but has available a dual exposure (alternating columns) HDR mode, plus it’s 47MP and space concerns can be mitigated with lower resolution.

I mention it not to say Canon should go package a CMOSIS video sensor, but because I’m talking technology and what can be done now, and questioning the premise that global sensor CMOS is fundamentally flawed for photography (my interpretation of Mike’s post).


----------



## Talys (Apr 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and is it an expensive sensor because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?
> 
> You can go buy an 8k 30p global shutter full frame color (Bayer) CMOS sensor today (well it has a 22 week lead time but you get the idea), and it will only cost you $5,861.26 (min order 1). I’m sure it would be nearly or the most expensive individual component, but don’t expect 6k would drive a BOM cost yielding a $35,000 camera.
> 
> ...



Well, all the cameras (camcorders) in that category are in the same price range, including the Sony F55, I think, which is also Super 35 global shutter. Note that the Canon has 14 steps of DR and good noise (and I'm sure the Sony is great too), but this is based on a resolution of less than 11 megapixels -- it would be very hard to sell that on a DSLR or MILC that had a primary purpose as a stills camera.

I suspect that if a small global shutter digital camera with a marketable resolution and image quality for the enthusiast/low-end professional flagship market were possible, Sony would have released one already, even if it weren't _quite_ ready for prime time. 

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but my suspicion is that heat, power consumption, cost, and ability to have desirable stills IQ at higher resolution remain an insurmountable challenges with today's technology to build something that would sell. My only evidence to this is that the high-end imaging products that are global shutter are big, expensive, video-centric devices with video-centric sensors (Super 35) and resolutions.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > But is it a $35,000 camera because of its sensor, and is it an expensive sensor because it’s made by Canon who doesn’t benefit from economy of scale to burn down NRE in this space, and to whom semiconductor design and fab is merely a choice and not the primary business focus? Or is it a $35,000 camera for other reasons, e.g. whatever drives the price point of competing cinema hardware?
> ...



I expect that they charge 35k-ish at least partially because that’s the price point industry is conditioned for. Hell, maybe it costs canon 20,000 to make the c700 sensor, I don’t know. But the state of the art in CMOS imaging today allows broadcast-, archival-, and scientific-quality global shutters at high resolutions, for far less than $35,000 (sensor alone). You could probably repurpose a camera body (maybe different cooling requirements for 1W devices) and spin the downstream electonics into a $10,000 device (rough guess, but informed by an electronics design background, albeit not for consumer markets). Call it $12,000 where the sensor is half the total price. Or go with a lower resolution sensor for perhaps less heat and higher DR.

Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.


----------



## Talys (Apr 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I expect that they charge 35k-ish at least partially because that’s the price point industry is conditioned for. Hell, maybe it costs canon 20,000 to make the c700 sensor, I don’t know. But the state of the art in CMOS imaging today allows broadcast-, archival-, and scientific-quality global shutters at high resolutions, for far less than $35,000 (sensor alone). You could probably repurpose a camera body (maybe different cooling requirements for 1W devices) and spin the downstream electonics into a $10,000 device (rough guess, but informed by an electronics design background, albeit not for consumer markets). Call it $12,000 where the sensor is half the total price. Or go with a lower resolution sensor for perhaps less heat and higher DR.
> 
> Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.



The answer from me is that I have no idea, but I've never heard of it as being a potential problem, and to the contrary, I've often heard global shutter touted as a panacea for rolling shutter flash sync woes.

Quite frankly, it's the _only_ reason I'd care to get rid of a rolling shutter. 250,000 - 750,000+ images to a mechanical shutter is more than I'll use that camera body for anyways, so wear isn't a real issue for me. I don't care about shutter noise enough to be willing to give up anything else. But being able to do full power flash + high speed shutter would definitely be worth something to me for outdoor flash photography.

Assuming you could have much faster shutter speeds (like 1/25,000), in conjunction with flash compatibility, that would be worth a little bit to me too -- it would be great for shooting hummingbirds instead of relying on low power, short flash durations.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 13, 2018)

I’m in the same boat. I like to buy stuff so I’ve never worn out a shutter. I don’t shoot video so I don’t care about rolling shutter distortion. But if they can get the read speeds up, which stacked architecture may facilitate, perhaps flash sync will move forward without reliance on leafs.

Incidentally if you’re interested, here is the sensor I referred to previously.


----------



## Rocky (Apr 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m in the same boat. I like to buy stuff so I’ve never worn out a shutter. I don’t shoot video so I don’t care about rolling shutter distortion. But if they can get the read speeds up, which stacked architecture may facilitate, perhaps flash sync will move forward without reliance on leafs.


Both my Canon DSLR have the shutter release button fail on me before anything else.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.



Not global shutters as such, but my comment was aimed at AvTvM's suggestion about doing away with the mechanical shutter and electronic shutters are (at present) limited use in flash photography. The fact no-one has solved this just hows how pathetic AvTvM's criticism of Canon's lack of innovation really is.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, the initial question was: is global shutter a contraindication for flash photography, as suggested? I don’t know, but I’ve bever seen anyone try it and can’t immediately think why it wouldn’t work.
> ...



you and Neuro ... nothing but personal attacks ... so typical Canon apologists ... 

While I will happily accept possibility of shorter X-Sync times, personally I don't care too much about flash photography. It was you making unfounded statements re. global shutters and (non existing?) "flash problems". 

To me, the main benefits of global shutters - and cameras without moving mechanical parts - are 
1. no vibration 
2. no noise 
3. smaller, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 13, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Show me where I made comments about global shutters. You said you looked forward to having no mechanical shutter and criticising Canon for their lack of innovation for not bringing forward a camera that no-one else has invented either.

So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) but when someone points out the illogicality of your criticisms, it is not OK to refer to that as 'stupid'. And to you, pointing out the illogicality of your statements is being a Canon apologist? 
Sorry, bud but you reap what you sow.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Show me where I made comments about global shutters.




Maybe somewhere in his long post the nuance was lost, but the quote refers to global specifically, not the current line by line readout implemented in most cameras which have electronic shutters.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) ...



I have never "admitted" a compact, hi-performance, enthusiast-targeted, stills-focused FF MILC would be "a niche product". Quite to the opposite.  

Much to your and Neuro's ongoing chagrin i always have and always assert, that such a camera (system) along with some decent, (ultra-)compact, moderately fast primes adnd some decent IQ, compact f/4 zooms would be interesting not only to me but to millions and millions of other photo enthusiasts and potential clients. 

Exactly because the main benefits 
* smaller, lighter, more robust, less expensive cameras *possible*
* no vibration 
* no noise 

Just do it, stupid Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i always have and always assert



Lots of people assert things that are complete and utter fallacies.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 13, 2018)

typical Neuro, whenever out of arguments ... trying to ridicule and/or attack ad hominem. 

but it dont work with me, buddy. ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 13, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) ...
> ...



And that is the base of the issue. You claim Canon should create a new line of cameras with their own range of lenses. But where is the evidence that 'millions' would buy them. I never have been, and never will be, an apologist for any company - but what I will do is try and understand why they make the decisions they do.

Sony has made smaller bodies with reputedly better sensors and an increasing number of gizmos built in.Yet over 10 years, you would expect there to be sufficient turnover in users (old fogies dying, young people coming in) for Sony to get a good solid foothold in the market and even get close to Canon as a force in the Camera World if those were such important factors - and new users would not care about having a stack of legacy lenses. But they haven't. Which to me (and probably Canon) only shows that those factors are but a small part of the camera-buying decisions. And in basing a whole camera range on those factors you consider so important would, in market terms, be 'niche'. And yes, you have admitted your requirements are very specific and so by default, you have admitted your requirements are (in market terms) 'niche'. 

For the vast majority of people you think would be after the same small size, small excellent lenses as you want, the micro 4/3 range would be even better for them. An increasing number of pros are moving to PanaLympus for that reason so I am starting to think that MFT is as big a threat as Sony is (and Sony is in fact behind MFT in the market statistics).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> typical Neuro, whenever out of arguments ... trying to ridicule



If you're going to make ridiculous assertions, you can expect ridicule.


----------



## Talys (Apr 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So it seems it is OK for you to refer to Canon as 'stupid' for not selling a camera you want (a camera you admit is very niche camera and as a result would be financially unviable) but when someone points out the illogicality of your criticisms, it is not OK to refer to that as 'stupid'. And to you, pointing out the illogicality of your statements is being a Canon apologist?
> Sorry, bud but you reap what you sow.



AvTvM has actually stated that he thinks that tons of people want his dream camera, which sounds suspiciously like a full frame smartphone with digital zoom (no mechanical or moving parts, size over all else, get rid of "ugly" physical features, walkaround FL's, nothing > 100mm, etc etc). I think the market is more like, single digit, but I guess we'll never find out, because nobody will ever make it.

I don't have a problem with people who don't like Canon cameras, but it irritates me to no end whem someone labels those who do like Canon as "apologists". I mean, if someone wants to go and buy a camera every 24 months and try out every new technology before it's ready for prime time, _please do_, but don't criticize people who don't want to pay thousands of dollars to be trying out stuff that's half-baked and won't ever be fixed on that hardware iteration.

I personally think it's crazy, because both Canon 1DX Mark II and Sony A7R were released in 2013. One is an excellent professional tool that has received periodic, meaningful firmware updates and is still the best in the business; the other is so "old" that you can hardly give it away.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 13, 2018)

Since we have raised the issue of flash sync, can somebody quickly comment on the fast flash sync feature? I’ve never used it, and frankly don’t know when I might want to or why. I don’t use flash a lot as it is, but might do more if I knew more what I was doing. How well does the fast sync work and under what circumstances?

I now have a 6D2, and haven’t noticed this feature in instructions for any previous camera of mine.


----------



## Talys (Apr 13, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Since we have raised the issue of flash sync, can somebody quickly comment on the fast flash sync feature? I’ve never used it, and frankly don’t know when I might want to or why. I don’t use flash a lot as it is, but might do more if I knew more what I was doing. How well does the fast sync work and under what circumstances?
> 
> I now have a 6D2, and haven’t noticed this feature in instructions for any previous camera of mine.



If you use regular flash sync, as you set your shutter speed goes faster than 1/180 to 1/250 (depending on the camera), an increasingly large portion of the bottom image will be blacked out, because of a "rolling shutter". 

Without getting technical, to get around that, a high speed sync (HSS) flash rapidly fires in succession (so fast that it just looks like one flash to the human eye). It works great, with the downside being that it is much less powerful than a single flash. HSS will let you set your shutter all the way to 1/8000, which is faster than your 6DII supports.

Under normal circumstances, especially indoors, if you want to illuminate your subject, you'd never fiire a GN60 flash (like the Canon 600EX-RT) at full power anyways, because you'd just turn everything white. About 1/4 power is as high as you normally need, even when you're bouncing it off of something. Therefore, HSS at 100% power is still usually bright enough.

However, one important use of flash is to balance out the sun, or to illuminate your subject the way you want to despite the brightness of sun. In this case, you need the flash to be very bright, and HSS just gets crushed on a small camera flash. Realistically, on battery powered units, you're looking at 10-pound strobes to really "overpower" the sun, especially if you want to use high speed sync.

In addition, high speed sync uses a ton of battery power, meaning longer refresh between shots, and fewer flashes. Plus, you're running it at 100% most of the time, meaning the flash will work for even fewer shots.

When you look at outdoor fashion and celebrity photography, you'll see big strobes firing off at 10 frames a second as the cameras click-click-click away, because "the shot" can happen in a fraction of a second -- and so your flash/strobe needs to keep up.

With a global shutter, the dream is, even outside, you can use a strobe at 1/3200 or whatever shutter speed you want, and either have a more powerful or longer lasting/faster refreshing strobe. And importantly, it means that photographers will need to lug around less/smaller gear to do on-location shoots. For example, if you're trying to do portraits at beach, you might be carrying stuff in a bag instead of a big case.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> If you use regular flash sync, as you set your shutter speed goes faster than 1/180 to 1/250 (depending on the camera), an increasingly large portion of the bottom image will be blacked out, because of a "rolling shutter".
> 
> Without getting technical, to get around that, a high speed sync (HSS) flash rapidly fires in succession (so fast that it just looks like one flash to the human eye). It works great, with the downside being that it is much less powerful than a single flash. HSS will let you set your shutter all the way to 1/8000, which is faster than your 6DII supports.



Thanks for your thorough explanation. I'll try it out some time, though I doubt I will have any real-world use for it. If it times the flashes so that you don't get bands of light and dark from overlaps and misses, but gives somewhat even illumination, then it sounds like a technological achievement.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 15, 2018)

AvTvM Don´t get discouraged. These guy bring nothing useful to the discussion really, and it doesn´t take much for them to ridicule others. It was before even the sensor and DR performance of Canon cameras, and now, when all this is forgotten, we actually see it was important for Canon, and that they needed to act on all those voices. It was just that it happens slowly.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 15, 2018)

crashpc said:


> AvTvM Don´t get discouraged. These guy bring nothing useful to the discussion really, and it doesn´t take much for them to ridicule others. It was before even the sensor and DR performance of Canon cameras, and now, when all this is forgotten, we actually see it was important for Canon, and that they needed to act on all those voices. It was just that it happens slowly.



Oh, believe me. I have nothing against AvTvM's objective observations about where Canon is falling short of the competition, or where Canon will need to catch up (not that it takes a genius to put two and two together). Where he invites ridicule is when he draws the conclusion that Canon are incompetent, don't know the market and are as a result ******* to failure because they do not create the very specific camera that he wants to buy.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM Don´t get discouraged. These guy bring nothing useful to the discussion really, and it doesn´t take much for them to ridicule others. It was before even the sensor and DR performance of Canon cameras, and now, when all this is forgotten, we actually see it was important for Canon, and that they needed to act on all those voices. It was just that it happens slowly.
> ...



nope. thats the constant spin you and Neuro want to put on things. it just does not work. LOL 
A small, but powerful FF MILC system is NOT something (only) I want .. it is an absolute necessity for Canon .. or they will lose market leadership. 

Canon has been and acting rather stupidly in many ways as far as their (stills) imaging product portfolio and strategy. Fuji and Sony would be NOWHERE today had Canon cut them short from the start with a decent mirrorless camera offering (APS-C and FF).


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> nope. thats the constant spin you and Neuro want to put on things. it just does not work. LOL
> A small, but powerful FF MILC system is NOT something (only) I want .. it is an absolute necessity for Canon .. or they will lose market leadership.
> 
> Canon has been and acting rather stupidly in many ways as far as their (stills) imaging product portfolio and strategy. Fuji and Sony would be NOWHERE today had Canon cut them short from the start with a decent mirrorless camera offering (APS-C and FF).



Yes, it is a necessity for Canon - no-one has ever denied that. Please show me where I did (hint: you won't be able to).

"Fuji and Sony would be NOWHERE today had Canon cut them short " - impossible to say because Sony's superior sensor would have given them a foothold anyway irrespective of what Canon did. 

"Canon...Acting rather stupidly"...You just did it again. LOL.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 15, 2018)

yes. it is really stupid if you dont hinder/squash your competitors while they are still in their nascent stage. Adobe is a lot smarter in that respect than stupid Canon.


----------



## BillB (Apr 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> yes. it is really stupid if you dont hinder/squash your competitors while they are still in their nascent stage. Adobe is a lot smarter in that respect than stupid Canon.



Sony and Fuji are hardly startup companies. We have no idea whether or not they are making money on mirrorless camera manufacturing if their front end costs are included. Hard to squash established companies when you are new to the sector (mirrorless) yourself. You call Canon stupid, but the game is a long way from over.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 15, 2018)

BillB said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > yes. it is really stupid if you dont hinder/squash your competitors while they are still in their nascent stage. Adobe is a lot smarter in that respect than stupid Canon.
> ...



had Canon launched a direct competitor vs. Sony A7 (1st gen) when it was launched as well as offering a more decent APS-C offering [instead of anemic EOS M, M2, M10, etc. ] against Sony A6000/6300 and all the Fuji crop stuff ... Fuji and Sony would be absolutely nowhere in stills imaging today. And Nikon quite possibly bankrupt.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



WOW! Have you sent your CV to Canon, Nikon, Google, and every other tech company because you clearly have unparallelled understanding and foresight in the technological arena. Awesome! 



After all, Canon might still be #1 five years after the A7 was introduced.....oh, wait....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2018)

All of AvTvM's arguments are logical and all his facts are true...inside his own personal reality. But out here in the real world, his arguments are fallacies and his facts are lies. 

His persistent belief in his own delusional world view reminds me of a Kansas schoolmarm droning on about the earth being 7000 years old and dinosaur fossils being animals that perished because Noah ran out of room on his ark.


----------



## BillB (Apr 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Speculation about what might have happened is even more fun than speculation about what will happen. Time will never prove your wrong. I'm not sure how far Sony and Fuji are from nowhere in stills photography now. It may come down to whether they can end up in the black in their camera business with the models they already have on the market. This is likely even more true for Nikon. "Innovation" generates internet buzz, but it costs money and we don't really know how many cameras it has sold.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 16, 2018)

Well, me, and some of my friends jumped elsewhere for a reason. So I conclude AVs vievpoint to be valid, and the data might have some truth in it. But now I see how he goes overboard. It takes a lot to make all this happen. Resources, time, and so on. If Canon could do this by fingers snap, they would sure do it. Didn´t happen for reasons....
There are some hipsters out there, being happy to buy newer tech in the camera, not caring about the whole system, and there are people, for which Sony cameras can do more. But they´re still minority, so Canon is not even in a danger. They know what to do when trouble is near, and I´m sure they will. It´s just annoying that current users are milked and acted on only in a case the majority would be about to levave. In my estimation (and experience) this is not gonna happen with A7III. They still don´t deliver in size matters, lens selection matters, support and service. Vital things. I´ll look into Sony again after five years. Until then, Baaad baaad stupid Canon.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2018)

as written before .. stupid Canon has the good luck that all its (main) competitors are equally stupid.

Sony: wrong lens mount choice. APS-C E-mount pressed into FF service = lenses too big, too complex and way too expensive.

Nikon: even more conservative and backwards mirrorslapper-minded. And when they tried mirrorless they chose a dwarf-sensor (Nikon 1). DOA. 

Fuji: APS-C and "Pseudo-MF" plus retro-UI plus weirdo sensors plus high-price lenses only. Instead of APS-C plus FF mirrorless and regular sensors. Minority program, will never get beyond single digit market share.

That's what saved Canon ... for now.


----------



## crashpc (Apr 16, 2018)

"as written before .. stupid Canon has the good luck that all its (main) competitors are equally stupid."

That´s exactly what I feel really happens, although they have very different angle of view:
Marketing statistics, managements, business, share holders. It is very close to not being about cameras anymore. That´s what troubles me mostly. But Canon seems to be least affected side now.

For the lenses: I have no idea. It seems to me that M mount is very good for anything between 0-50mm. Then things start to turn, but everything is supposed to be big and heavy on any mount, so it´s not a great problem either. Sony has poor lens choice for me, and is expensive. That´s one third of my problem with them. The other third is reliability issues, and the last one is for their support and attitude, as they don´t mind to throw loyal customer base over, in no time, for little stoopid things. They simply don´t care.

Nikon 1 was a joke from get go. Not that it is bad, but it was obvious it won´t be competitive.
Fuji is nice ecosystem, but they try to differentiate so much, that it´s not even funny. And it is in the prices of FF gear, so here I do agree.

The issue is, that Canon doesn´t do their stuff stupidly. They do it so because they can. They can milk us, they can not to go full blast. That makes their engineering and technology cost go down.
I think they mean it like that, strategically. Then they have smaller sensors, and so on. 
One small piece to the other one, and next one, and you have 20% more money on hand. That´s what they do.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> as written before .. stupid Canon has the good luck that all its (main) competitors are equally stupid.
> 
> Sony: wrong lens mount choice. APS-C E-mount pressed into FF service = lenses too big, too complex and way too expensive.
> 
> ...



You clearly have no idea about business management do you.
Part of success is about making fewer errors than the competition - and it seems Canon makes fewer than the others. Smart Canon. 

Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?


----------



## scyrene (Apr 16, 2018)

What's that old adage about playing chess with a pigeon? I honestly don't know why you guys are wasting your time with this guy.


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



In some circles, this is rather grandiously known as counterfactual history. Some think of it as fantasy.


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> as written before .. stupid Canon has the good luck that all its (main) competitors are equally stupid.
> 
> That's what saved Canon ... for now.



Capablanca, a great chess player of the past, was called lucky, because he often seemed to win because of his opponents blunders. His response was that the good players are always lucky.

Spassky, another great player, from a somewhat later era, said that if your opponent makes a mistake, often it is best to give him the chance to make another one.

It has often been said that people who don't understand often think that things happen because of luck.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?



*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Sony lenses too big? Which ones? The f2.8 pro-grade zoom lenses? Tell me how you can make them significantly smaller for a FF camera. Any idea what the f value means and how it is calculated?
> ...



So if they had chosen the right mount (whatever that is) how much saving in size/weight do you predict if they had done it 'properly'? Let's work on a 16-50 (approx) f2.8 as a start.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



With a really right mount, a 16-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens would be 3 cm long, 5 cm in diameter, and have no moving parts. And be optically perfect. Because that's how physics works in the AvTvM Universe. 

And cost less than €100. Because that's how business works in the AvTvM Universe.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive". 

"really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations: 
Throat width: open diameter as big as possible 
FFD ... probably around 22-25 mm 
would be good, allow for compact camera bodies and compact lenses with decent IQ ... and big camera bodies + big lenses are also possible ... no problem.


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...




No. A 16-50/2.8 lens for mirrorless FF was "Mikehit universe". 

I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> nope, I don't look at a white-unicorn 16-50/2.8 for a mirrorless FF camera. I look at a 16-35/4 and at a 24-70/4.0 ... and at a 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.4 ... all of those could be really compact, optically very good and comparatively "inexpensive".
> 
> "really right" mount for mirrorless FF? My guess (!) based on comparing specs for various camera systems and mount parameter combinations:
> Throat width: open diameter as big as possible
> ...



So tell me, what approx size/weight would your lenses be. 
16-35/4 
24-70/4.0
24/2.8
35/2.0
50/1.8 
85/2.4

Because 'really compact' and 'comparatively inexpensive' are so bland as to be meaningless. You are the one making statements about how everyone is doing it wrong which means you have an idea of what they should be achieving.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...



Then you should already be happy. The Sony FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS has a 22% lower volume than the Canon 24-70mm f/4L IS, the Sony is 28% lighter than the Canon, the IQ is comparable, and you can get a new Sony FE 24-70/4 on the gray market for $900. 

Given that the lens you want actually exists, why haven't you bought one? Oh, and please explain how your earlier statement, "_*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount_," makes sense in light of the size comparison of the Sony vs. Canon 24-70mm f/4 lenses.


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2018)

*All* Sony FE lenses are too big ... as a direct consequence of Sony's (wrong) choice of lens mount ... E-mount parameters are fine for APS-C sensors, but less than optimal for FF. Throat width a bit too narrow, FFD a bit too short [same would apply to Canon EF-M mount if used for FF sensor image circle]. This is why all Sony FE lenses are too long ... with a lot of air-filled tube towards mount ... in order to "artificially lengthen" FFD. And more complex optical formula are needed. And all FE glass is too expensive. Sony lens prices generally significantly higher than corresponding Canon (L ) glass, but not better IQ.
[/quote]

It seems to me that for some lens designs, minimum size and weight might be achieved with the EF, the FE, or your magic mount parameters, i.e. designs with longer minimum focal lengths. (call them Class A). Then there may be lens designs where minimum size and weight can be achieved using FE or your lens mount parameters, but not EF mount parameters i.e those in which the EF mount requires designs with a size and weight penalty (such as retrofocal designs) but the FE mount and your mount do not (call them Class B). There may also be lens designs where your mount parameters could avoid designs with a size and weight penalty that would be required by the EF and FE mounts. (Class C). 

So why are you saying that the only usable lens designs are Class C designs?


----------



## stevelee (Apr 16, 2018)

BillB said:


> Spassky, another great player, from a somewhat later era, said that if your opponent makes a mistake, often it is best to give him the chance to make another one.



Occasionally I find myself at the end of a bridge hand with one losing card too many. I could admit defeat and throw in the hand, but usually I will just play it out and hope that an opponent will throw away the wrong card toward the end, so I give the opponents that opportunity. What is obvious about the hand from my perspective is more ambiguous from the view of a defender.


----------



## BillB (Apr 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...
> ...



Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though. .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2018)

BillB said:


> Might be a good idea to check the Sony 24-70 on Photozone before picking one up though. .



I've used one on an a7RII, and I found it to be a decent lens. It's not quite up to my 24-70/2.8L II, but neither is the Canon 24-70/4.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 16, 2018)

Sometimes I get the feeling that Dilbert is still posting. 

Jack


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I would be perfectly happy with a 24-70/4.0 ... same IQ, but maybe 25-33% more compact and lighter than the EF 24-70 IS. For USD / € 999,- ... should not be a real problem, thanks to economies of scale ... it would sell "in the millions" ...
> ...



nope. Sony 24-70/4 is a bit longer than Canon EF 24-70. But its gotta be shorter on a proper mirrorless mount.


----------



## Talys (Apr 17, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



If you take the lens caps off, they are almost identical in length, so much so that the difference just becomes whether you're measuring to the mount or contacts, as the two lenses are recessed differently. 

If that matters, you're being silly, because the only size that should matter is the total camera size, and most certainly the Sony is (and feels) smaller. Once you get to 2.8, though, the Sony is much longer (about an inch?) and more importantly, it kind of feels awkward on the Sony body, in my opinion (and does not feel any smaller) 

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone I'd going to build your unicorn, but based on your prolific posting, Canon will probably not build anything closer to what you want than what Sony already has, certainly not within the near future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2018)

Even if Canon builds his unicorn, he'll just move the goalposts and keep on bitching and complaining.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Apr 17, 2018)

So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what? One of the biggest features that has me eyeing up an A7 III is its ability to turn all of my lenses into IS lenses.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 17, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what?



Probably not.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Apr 17, 2018)

Dammit. The only thing I hate more than Canon's slow pace of innovation is Sony's horrible ergonomics and poor control interface.


----------



## Talys (Apr 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Even if Canon builds his unicorn, he'll just move the goalposts and keep on bitching and complaining.



It's already being tested in Europe, evidently, in the Casio-meets-Canon Frakenphone:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34765.msg714594#msg714594

Evidently, there is an EF version of this same beast!


----------



## AvTvM (Apr 17, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what? One of the biggest features that has me eyeing up an A7 III is its ability to turn all of my lenses into IS lenses.



unfortunately there will be no real IBIS (not the digital trickery for video) in Canon cameras. "innovative" Canon has no clue how to implement IBIS and make it work ... especially not in combination with IS lenses. maybe innovative Sony is holding all relevant patents already. 

personally i dont care. all my relevant lenses are IS and i dint like moving parts in cameras ... eg a sensor-wiggler.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Apr 17, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Kit Lens Jockey said:
> 
> 
> > So anyway, is this camera going to have sensor image stabilization when it finally comes out, or what?
> ...


+1
After all, even the first Sony (and Fuji) Ml didn't have IBIS. I took them 2 or 3 generations (or several more, if your count from the ancient NEX family) to implement it.
BTW, if the future 5DM had IBIS, how could Canon sell us the 5DM Mark II in 202x?


----------



## zim (Apr 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> If you take the lens caps off,




Nailed it ;D


----------

