# Today i officially felt left behind with being a Canon shooter



## ykn123 (Aug 23, 2018)

Hi There
I'm a Canon shooter since ages and no - Canon is not ******* ;-) I have a number of professional bodies from Canon and a lot of L lenses and also recently purchased a m50. 
I also have to say i still love the Canon lenses, the ergonomics of the bodies, DPAF (well i don't do a lot of video other than just for fun) the wifi implementation - the last 2 sucks on Nikon or are just not existent.
Also for various reasons until very lately i would never consider to move on to Sony (ergonomics,lenses,....) and thanks to Nikon with the z6/z7 i now dont need to think about switching to Sony anyway. ( i would rather switch to NIkon but i dont want to)
BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind. Why ?
In the DSLR line of products i think Nikons current models really are ahead compared to the Canon models, the D850 is better than my 5DM4/5DsR (i love my 5Dsr but still ...) , the D500 ist better than the 7DMII (which i owned and i tested the D500) even the D7500 (with some "issues like only 1 card and not grip option) is better than the 80D (i've tested them both - except video AF and Wifi as said before). Only the D5/1DX MII are probably on par.

If i had nothing and wanted a DSLR - i would go for a D850, a APS-C affordable sports camera - i would pick the D500 and a small carry around every day Dslr - the D7500 or even D5600.
And instead i would like to go mirrorless - i would pick the Z6 and a D850 as a combo.

I don't want to change but please Canon respond quickly and do it right in terms of features and price. Please. Give us a great FF mirrorless that has 2 card slots and eye-AF , a great sensor and a good EF adapater and a nice line up of original lenses at the beginning , 10fps, good grip/handling/weather sealed - even steal from z6/z7 body if required ;-) like the battery compatibility between Dslr and mirrorless camera. Also give us a 90D that is better than the rest of the market (and make it without AA filter please) and give us a 5DM5 that is on par or better than the D850. Please. At least tell us when we will get it so i don't have to switch early in 2019. Please.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 23, 2018)

I think a lot of Nikon shooters feel a bit bummed you're paying lots of money for just one card slot . Not a deal breaker for anyone though. I am a bit more worried about the fact the continuous focus on the new Nikons seems to be a bit puzzling and lacking, according to DPreview's initial impressions. We'll see how the real world reviews turn out.


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 23, 2018)

edoorn said:


> I think a lot of Nikon shooters feel a bit bummed you're paying lots of money for just one card slot . Not a deal breaker for anyone though. I am a bit more worried about the fact the continuous focus on the new Nikons seems to be a bit puzzling and lacking, according to DPreview's initial impressions. We'll see how the real world reviews turn out.


my problem really is that i dont care for the Nikon problems they might have - i just want a product from Canon that compete's (and is better hopefully) Yep, it should have 2 cards as an example.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 23, 2018)

So far, I don't see any offer from the competition (or Canon itself) that I would want to spend my money on.

Which is probably a bad thing for the industry, but a good thing for my personal finances.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 23, 2018)

well yeah me too. which is not a bad thing because I'd rather spend the cash on the wildlife photog trips I have planned the coming months so I can actually use my gear 

in all fairness wouldn't mind if Canon would bring out something in 1st half of 2019, if that would allow them to really make it sing.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Aug 23, 2018)

Sit still.

One card slot and no EYE-AF. This WILL be a problem for Nikon. Believe you me...


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> Sit still.
> 
> One card slot and no EYE-AF. This WILL be a problem for Nikon. Believe you me...



Will it? Didn't they take a dual-card out of one of the recent updates?


----------



## memoriaphoto (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Will it? Didn't they take a dual-card out of one of the recent updates?



Which one?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> Which one?




Don't know, I was wondering if someone knew but I seem to recall it happening.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 23, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind. Why ?
> In the DSLR line of products i think Nikons current models really are ahead compared to the Canon models, the D850 is better than my 5DM4/5DsR (i love my 5Dsr but still ...) , the D500 ist better than the 7DMII (which i owned and i tested the D500) even the D7500 (with some "issues like only 1 card and not grip option) is better than the 80D (i've tested them both - except video AF and Wifi as said before). Only the D5/1DX MII are probably on par.
> 
> If i had nothing and wanted a DSLR - i would go for a D850, a APS-C affordable sports camera - i would pick the D500 and a small carry around every day Dslr - the D7500 or even D5600.
> And instead i would like to go mirrorless - i would pick the Z6 and a D850 as a combo.


Sit tight - it actually a good thing that Nikon has announced first. Canon and Nikon have a bit of a habit of releasing competing full frame cameras close together - and whichever one announces first always seems to get trumped by the second. Remember when Nikon launched the D700, and then a couple of weeks later Canon presented the 5D2. Then skip forward a few years, and Canon announced the 5D3 just before Nikon's D800. If Canon has the confidence to let Nikon go first, it suggests they might have something up their sleeve....
Or maybe they are just *******.

The D850 is certinally the best full frame camera on the market today (maybe about to be matched by the Z7) - but neither camera is such a step ahead of the 5D4 and 5DS that we need to panic about it. The camera manufactures are always leapfrogging each other.


----------



## zim (Aug 23, 2018)

OP - I don't understand how you can feel like that without even having seen or tried one of these z'ds?
They may be the best thing since sliced bread but I'd want to taste it first.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Don't know, I was wondering if someone knew but I seem to recall it happening.


The D7200 had two, the D7500 has one.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Don't know, I was wondering if someone knew but I seem to recall it happening.


OK. 

My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The D7200 had two, the D7500 has one.


Thanks, Neuro


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 23, 2018)

I was an early adopter of Olympus 4/3rds and then m4/3ds. Sure the sensor size is tiny but so are the cameras, but I bought into the system primarily because of the perceived benefits of 3 and then 5 axis in body stabilisation, for the increased AF points and the fast burst rates. But actually they didn't create better photos as a result and I was not expecting them to so but make life easier, it was a false god.. Sure the weight saving is significant but the results have always been inferior to APS-C or FF cameras. I have been invested into Canon for over 45 years firstly with FD glass and then with EF (I still use the EF 28mm f2.8 I bought in 1988). The 5Ds produces such detailed shots that are hard to beat, sure dynamic range is beaten elsewhere but correctly exposed, focus and composition I defy anyone to suggest any FF mirrorless camera will produce something outstandingly better to completely dump DSLRS & current L lenses for a completely new system that will be very expensive over time to change to. The other point is barring a few exceptions most lenses will not become lighter or smaller if you want fast lenses that are able to resolve up to 120MP. In fact lenses will get more expensive to do so and for the majority this is pointless if you never print larger than A3 or view everything on a large monitor, even if its 5K (Apple iMac). Emperor New Clothes?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The D7200 had two, the D7500 has one.



Between my 6D and 6D MKII Ive taken over 100K shots and never had a single card failure. I only use Sandisk SD cards and always the extreme pro series.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 23, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> OK.
> 
> My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.



How many card failure have you had? In our professional cameras the CFast cards have had a high failure rate, the SD cards almost never. I cannot speak about the card Nikon will use but Sony media cards are generally of a very high standard and unless the Z6 / Z7 are being used for lots of uncompressed 4K video I doubt most people will ever have an issue if they are handled properly.


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 23, 2018)

zim said:


> OP - I don't understand how you can feel like that without even having seen or tried one of these z'ds?
> They may be the best thing since sliced bread but I'd want to taste it first.


Well i tested or owned almost all of the cameras i've mentioned in the thread but how should i be abe to have my hands on a z6 today ? Still i can look at images / view videos and read specs to understand whether this is an interesting camera or not. I would have no problem to sit and wait a while longer and I will most probably never move over completely to another brand (due to my L lenses)- as long as i get some near/mid-term roadmap that sounds interesting/impressive from Canon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 23, 2018)

I've had SD cards fail, CF cards fail, SD cards physically break (including, annoyingly, a Sandisk Extreme Pro 256GB where a piece of plastic broke off the front of the card and it now won't fit into the card slot properly - I am going to try and hack it back to life.), and CF slots break (pins bent or snapping off)

Considering the low cost of memory these days, wouldn't it be sensible if instead of a dual card system cameras came with some reasonable amount (32GB/64GB/128GB) of high speed flash memory built-in and a single card slot as a backup/expansion?

Just connect the camera via USB to export images as normal. It also means you could never take your camera out and forget to bring a card with you. Also, by using direct memory and avoiding any card interface you should be able to get very fast performance.


----------



## cayenne (Aug 23, 2018)

Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....

What is "EYE-AF"?

That's a new term for me....

TIA,

cayenne


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 23, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....
> 
> What is "EYE-AF"?
> 
> ...


it automaticylly detects the eye of the model and tracks it to get a sharp image with focus being on the model's eye. the eos M50 has it but only in one-shot AF i think, sony's A7III and such has it and it seems to work well - just google it and you will find youtube videos demonstrating it


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 23, 2018)

The Nikon might not have EYE AF but this is something that could be added as a firmware update


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> OK.
> 
> My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.




Pros use the 6D which has one slot.
I can fully understand why some insist on 2 slots but this has quietened down a lot in recent years because of the reliability of cards.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 23, 2018)

I'm a Cannon shooter, and I feel like my Cannon is primitive and outdated.....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2018)

I'd read the DPR hands on reviews carefully. The Z7 falls short in all the important areas when compared to Nikon DSLR's. Except for using it with smaller lenses or if the smaller body is a benefit, its pretty much a step down in performance.

I'd be very careful about getting one without understanding what you lose.

As mirrorless cameras go, its a good camera, just not as good as Nikon's own DSLR's.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....
> 
> What is "EYE-AF"?
> 
> ...


EyE AF is a feature invented by Canon and used on a few of its older film cameras (I have a Elan 7E with eye AF).

Basically, the camera follows the movement of your eye and attempts to Select the AF point based on where your eye is directed.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> OK.
> 
> My problem with one slot is the fact that Nikon is clearly aiming towards pros considering the pricetag. One card will simply not cut it.



I'm not so sure they are aiming at Pro's, it looks like prosumers to me. Even compared to its prosumer DSLR's, it falls short on performance, and has a lot of compromises. DPR has a very detailed hands-on review, and while they do not really criticize it directly, almost every aspect falls short of DSLR performance, I started to feel bad for Nikon as I read page after page of areas where it fell short.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> EyE AF is a feature invented by Canon and used on a few of its older film cameras (I have a Elan 7E with eye AF).
> 
> Basically, the camera follows the movement of your eye and attempts to Select the AF point based on where your eye is directed.



The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.


----------



## amorse (Aug 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Will it? Didn't they take a dual-card out of one of the recent updates?





neuroanatomist said:


> The D7200 had two, the D7500 has one.


The new Nikon Z7 and Z6 mirrorless both have single card slots. Not an issue for me, but many seem to be worked up about it. I'd be more worked up about the 330 photo rating per battery charge on the Z7 - that is a deal breaker for me!

It seems like a double standard to ridicule Canon for their releases missing some of these features and then praise Nikon for cannibalizing the D850 with the Z7 when the D850 can do over 1800 photos on one charge and has double card slots.

Edit - looking again, some of this has already been mentioned above. Sorry for the duplication!


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind.



I don't. I'm bored with mirrorless hype. 

What does mirrorless really, truly bring to the table?

Size and weight savings, but only with smaller sensors. With FF the differences are insignificant.
EVF. I admit I think live exposure preview is useful, but EVFs still can't touch OVFs for overall viewing experience.
Potentially faster fps / quieter shooting. But few bodies have realized this potential.
Other than that? Adapter headaches and more things to buy.

To the degree that the z7 is a "better" camera than my 5Ds it is so for the same reason as the D850: it was released much later. And you'll notice that I have "better" in quotes because while I acknowledge the video gains, faster fps, and greater DR, none of those things would really affect my photography. (I'm interested in stills so the gap in video is irrelevant to me.)

I am interested in seeing what Canon does for FF mirrorless. But even if Canon took another two years to release a FF MILC body I wouldn't be tempted to switch brands. (I doubt they'll do this. I think we'll see the first Canon FF MILC in early 2019.)

I don't get the hype at all. Honestly something like the M5 or the Fuji system have more appeal to me as a 2nd lightweight kit. I'm not interested in FF mirrorless at all.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

It's rubbish at high speed bursts: 9 fps but the focus is locked after the first frame and you are getting AF at every frame only at 5.5 fps.- that's only 0.5 fps faster than a 5DS. Sony is streets ahead: R10 IV, 24 fps; A9 20 fps; and A7RIII 10 fps, with AF between each shot. Also, there is no means of toggling between different AF modes as you can with Sony. The Z7 might be enough to keep Nikon users on board but it is second rate. Let's hope Canon can do better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It's rubbish at high speed bursts: 9 fps but the focus is locked after the first frame and you are getting AF at every frame only at 5.5 fps.- that's only 0.5 fps faster than a 5DS. Sony is streets ahead: R10 IV, 24 fps; A9 20 fps; and A7RIII 10 fps, with AF between each shot. Also, there is no means of toggling between different AF modes as you can with Sony. The Z7 might be enough to keep Nikon users on board but it is second rate. Let's hope Canon can do better.


I think that demonstrates how difficult it actually is to get performance that is close to a DSLR. Sony has done better because they have put the research into it while for Nikon, its only in the past 2 or 3 years that they decided to start getting serious.

Canon has stated that they wanted to wait to produce a mirrorless camera that could compete with a DSLR. They have put a huge amount of effort and expense into their dual pixel sensors, its now paying off and may actually make a FF Mirrorless competitive, but I really do not expect better.


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2018)

I only kind of feel behind with the announcement of 500 f/5.6 defractive optics lens at 3600. I do have the 400 DO II which is FANTASTIC but I do not feel confident with the 1.4XIII with it. I would like to have access to a longer DO lens. I have read about 600 DO f/4 a couple of years ago but that lens would weigh a lot more than 400 DO (obviously) and it would have a rather big (600/4 = 15cm+ construction) front element. A 600 5.5 DO lens would be more practical. It would be the perfect birding lens. Anything else is satisfying for me (5D4, 5DsR, white lenses, UWA, etc)


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 23, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I don't. I'm bored with mirrorless hype.
> 
> What does mirrorless really, truly bring to the table?
> 
> ...



IBIS, completely silent shooting options, and short flange distances to allow you to adapt to many different lenses. You might not benefit from some of these options, but there's many people who value these options.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

tron said:


> I only kind of feel behind with the announcement of 500 f/5.6 defractive optics lens at 3600. I do have the 400 DO II which is FANTASTIC but I do not feel confident with the 1.4XIII with it. I would like to have access to a longer DO lens. I have read about 600 DO f/4 a couple of years ago but that lens would weigh a lot more than 400 DO (obviously) and it would have a rather big (600/4 = 15cm+ construction) front element. A 600 5.5 DO lens would be more practical. It would be the perfect birding lens. Anything else is satisfying for me (5D4, 5DsR, white lenses, UWA, etc)


 I agree that only the 500/4 PF makes me covetous. However, my 400mm DO II is fantastic with the 1.4xIII in terms of IQ - and lenstip's measurements with the 1.4xTC bear this out as at 560 it is as sharp as the bare 100-400mm II at 400mm. The 500/4 is just so much lighter than the 400/4 II that I would like Canon to produce an equivalent one.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The Nikon might not have EYE AF but this is something that could be added as a firmware update


Yes presumably it’s a function which could be added. I imagine there is an IP barrier at the moment.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.


The meaning didn’t change.
Canon calls the function Spokane mentioned “Eye Controlled Focus,” not “Eye Detection AF” or “Eye AF,” which are the Canon and Sony terms, respectively, for the function you described.


----------



## tron (Aug 23, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I agree that only the 500/4 PF makes me covetous. However, my 400mm DO II is fantastic with the 1.4xIII in terms of IQ - and lenstip's measurements with the 1.4xTC bear this out as at 560 it is as sharp as the bare 100-400mm II at 400mm. The 500/4 is just so much lighter than the 400/4 II that I would like Canon to produce an equivalent one.


I somehow struggle with the 1.4XIII and 400 DO. I did have some success with 7D2+400DO+1.4XIII but not always and the quality of 7D2 lacks behind 5DsR (Actually I learned that from you, bought my 5DsR and liked it a lot in addition to verifying this). Also, the 560mm focal length makes AFMA very difficult due to distance requirements (and I am not sure I always agree with Reikan's findings).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2018)

tron said:


> I somehow struggle with the 1.4XIII and 400 DO. I did have some success with 7D2+400DO+1.4XIII but not always and the quality of 7D2 lacks behind 5DsR (Actually I learned that from you, bought my 5DsR and liked it a lot in addition to verifying this). Also, the 560mm focal length makes AFMA very difficult due to distance requirements (and I am not sure I always agree with Reikan's findings).



That's odd. I find f/5.6 well-behaved with Reiken but not f/8 (400mm + 2xTC or 100-400mm II + 2xTC). I wonder if you have a bum 1.4xTC? I had 2 and found my first one was weak, OK at the centre but poor outside. I find at 400mm, the 100-400mm II and DO II are pretty similar but put on the (good) 1.4xTC, the DO leaps ahead.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 23, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> IBIS, completely silent shooting options, and short flange distances to allow you to adapt to many different lenses. You might not benefit from some of these options, but there's many people who value these options.



I mentioned "potentially quieter shooting", but also pointed out that this hasn't been fully realized. There's not a huge gap between MILC and, say, a Canon DSLR in silent shooting mode.

I didn't mention IBIS and that is a nice positive in the z7. But it's also not truly a "mirrorless" advantage. It has been done in SLRs.

I agree that MILC is the way to go for adapted manual focus glass.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> I mentioned "potentially quieter shooting", but also pointed out that this hasn't been fully realized. There's not a huge gap between MILC and, say, a Canon DSLR in silent shooting mode.
> 
> I didn't mention IBIS and that is a nice positive in the z7. But it's also not truly a "mirrorless" advantage. It has been done in SLRs.



If fairness, neither is silent shooting a mirrorless advantage, nor IBIS, nor EVF. Those things can all be done in an SLR, if the manufacturer so wishes. The only thing that a mirrorless camera can do that an SLR can not is: not have a mirror (and therefore reduce the thickness).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I'm a Cannon shooter, and I feel like my Cannon is primitive and outdated.....
> View attachment 179852


and here's my Cannon from 50+ years ago...… no innovation! Cannon is *******!


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 24, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> I don't want to change but please Canon respond quickly and do it right in terms of features and price. Please. Give us a great FF mirrorless that has 2 card slots and eye-AF , a great sensor and a good EF adapater and a nice line up of original lenses at the beginning , 10fps, good grip/handling/weather sealed - even steal from z6/z7 body if required ;-) like the battery compatibility between Dslr and mirrorless camera


*+1*
I did place a preorder for a Z6 but I will undoubtedly cancel it before November. It is single slot for a very expensive card -- and no EYE focus.
*A ML5D will be my goal!*


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> *+1*
> I did place a preorder for a Z6 but I will undoubtedly cancel it before November. It is single slot for a very expensive card -- and no EYE focus.
> *A ML5D will be my goal!*


May I ask: why order something you have no doubt you’ll cancel?


----------



## scottkinfw (Aug 24, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> Hi There
> I'm a Canon shooter since ages and no - Canon is not ******* ;-) I have a number of professional bodies from Canon and a lot of L lenses and also recently purchased a m50.
> I also have to say i still love the Canon lenses, the ergonomics of the bodies, DPAF (well i don't do a lot of video other than just for fun) the wifi implementation - the last 2 sucks on Nikon or are just not existent.
> Also for various reasons until very lately i would never consider to move on to Sony (ergonomics,lenses,....) and thanks to Nikon with the z6/z7 i now dont need to think about switching to Sony anyway. ( i would rather switch to NIkon but i dont want to)
> ...



I looked at the new Nikon mirrorless cameras you refer to above. For a moment, I got excited and got the urge to purchase...something. Then I thought, what the heck, I don't NEED anything presently. I would LIKE a 5DSR type body, and a mirrorless body with good specs and natively accepts my L lenses I would love to at least try if not buy!

Do I feel left behind? Nah. Since there isn't new camera or lens that will make me a better photographer, and my current gear doesn't limit me (I admit, my own limitiations limit me), I can calm down, and wait until Canon puts out something that I MUST have. It isn't personal, it's rational.

Don't mean to rain on your post, but as an old fart, I am well aware of the difference between a want and a need.

Scott


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> That's odd. I find f/5.6 well-behaved with Reiken but not f/8 (400mm + 2xTC or 100-400mm II + 2xTC). I wonder if you have a bum 1.4xTC? I had 2 and found my first one was weak, OK at the centre but poor outside. I find at 400mm, the 100-400mm II and DO II are pretty similar but put on the (good) 1.4xTC, the DO leaps ahead.


I have thought of that but then the 1.4XIII was excellent with a 5D3 + 100-400 II combination I had needed once. So I do not know if I can accuse it. And I had some really good 7D2+400DOII+1.4XIII photos in far away small birds. But 7D2 is not my best choice for birds any more and even then I had some failures. I guess I have to make some tests with live view. But I trust its quality (although not with detailed tests just the small bird in the center). It's focusing accuracy I am a little afraid of. Regarding Reikan the issue is that I barely have the space to put the target enough meters away. I barely manage the minimum acceptable distance (20x). Somehow the 500II+2XIII combination although giving lower contrast (sometimes) has proven quite valuable to me. Its resolution remains very good. But this is a non hand-holdable combination. I use it only when I have a car (resting it on the window). Anyway I have time before the next trip so I will try again. I wonder if I can use random targets with Reikan (for example the opposite building  ) instead of the targets it comes with...


----------



## stevelee (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.


Yes, when I first encountered the term here, I assumed it mean what Mt. Spokane said. That sounded like a neat feature. Automatically focusing on the eyes could be helpful, too. But I don't take portraits with that shallow depth of field so that I want the eyes in focus and the nose and chin blurry, so I don't see any advantage for me over just regular face tracking. It is rare that I wouldn't want the ears to be included, too, in the in-focus zone. So am I missing something about why focusing on just eyes would be desirable for me?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Yes, when I first encountered the term here, I assumed it mean what Mt. Spokane said. That sounded like a neat feature. Automatically focusing on the eyes could be helpful, too. But I don't take portraits with that shallow depth of field so that I want the eyes in focus and the nose and chin blurry, so I don't see any advantage for me over just regular face tracking. It is rare that I wouldn't want the ears to be included, too, in the in-focus zone. So am I missing something about why focusing on just eyes would be desirable for me?


What heresy is this? Did you not read the scrolls from the holy mount (fuji)? If more than a subject’s closest pupil is in focus, it’s a terrible photo!

A serious answer: no, not really. EyeAF is predicated on finding the face, so it doesn’t work better or add anything for your use case.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> May I ask: why order something you have no doubt you’ll cancel?


Pleased to answer... I am going full frame EVF which is not available from our Canon!
In the last three years, half my images have been shot on a mirrorless full frame 28mm Leica Q. A properly developed EVF partnered with proper direct controls allows me to get better images than my 6D can create. 
Aperature on lens is lovely but EOS Av mode front dial is just as good. Shutter speed dial is great but EOS M mode gives me that on back dial but removes exposure compensation. Both systems give me ISO with only one button press. The Q provides me exposure compensation directly on its own dial while shutter speed and aperature are also available. If I shoot EOS in M mode, where is exposure? And why do I need it!
We are balancing aperature, shutter and ISO — EOS requires button presses, Q does not. Aperature, Shutter, & exposure compensation (hence ISO) all have dedicated dials. 
The EVF shows me the prefixed final image dynamically, OVF does not. End of story. EVF has won my mind. 
I move a dial, I see the result!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Pleased to answer... I am going full frame EVF which is not available from our Canon!
> In the last three years, half my images have been shot on a mirrorless full frame 28mm Leica Q. A properly developed EVF partnered with proper direct controls allows me to get better images than my 6D can create.
> Aperature on lens is lovely but EOS Av mode front dial is just as good. Shutter speed dial is great but EOS M mode gives me that on back dial but removes exposure compensation. Both systems give me ISO with only one button press. The Q provides me exposure compensation directly on its own dial while shutter speed and aperature are also available. If I shoot EOS in M mode, where is exposure? And why do I need it!
> We are balancing aperature, shutter and ISO — EOS requires button presses, Q does not. Aperature, Shutter, & exposure compensation (hence ISO) all have dedicated dials.
> ...


That’s all great, but still: why order something you don’t intend to buy? Are you hoping canon announces before your order is filled, but hedging your bets?


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That’s all great, but still: why order something you don’t intend to buy? Are you hoping canon announces before your order is filled, but hedging your bets?


Yes


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 24, 2018)

As a Cannon shooter I should focus on what, where, how and when to shoot rather than what to shoot with.
The last is definitely the least to worry about!


----------



## Aglet (Aug 24, 2018)

Hmmm. Your old and newer ones both seem to suffer a rather small aperture compared to overall barrel length. 
I supposed they can provide good depth of field when shooting them but do not look to be hand-holdable even with a very advanced IBIS body. (I Big! Incredible Strong!)

Do you use a self-timer mode with that too? I can see adjusting the timer would be quite easily done with scissors. 




Don Haines said:


> and here's my Cannon from 50+ years ago...… no innovation! Cannon is *******!
> View attachment 179864


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> View attachment 179871
> 
> 
> As a Cannon shooter I should focus on what, where, how and when to shoot rather than what to shoot ...



hmmm ... not so sure about that! in your image it looks as if the rightmost soldier is what will be shot by that cannon ...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> What heresy is this? Did you not read the scrolls from the holy mount (fuji)? If more than a subject’s closest pupil is in focus, it’s a terrible photo!
> 
> A serious answer: no, not really. EyeAF is predicated on finding the face, so it doesn’t work better or add anything for your use case.



That’s an an anthropocentric view - there are other subjects other than humans. For bird portraits, the eye is the most important to be in focus and so eye-focus is useful. For human faces, as the eye is set back behind the nose and in front of the ear, you are more likely to have depth of field give you a sharp overall portrait than if you randomly focus on a nose for example in face recognition.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hmmm ... not so sure about that! in your image it looks as if the rightmost soldier is what will be shot by that cannon ...



I guess he was a snitch pretending to be a Cannon shooter in the Cannon land! Got what he deserved.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2018)

And here is a shot showing me doing eye-focus (via a 5DSR).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> That’s an an anthropocentric view - there are other subjects other than humans. For bird portraits, the eye is the most important to be in focus and so eye-focus is useful. For human faces, as the eye is set back behind the nose and in front of the ear, you are more likely to have depth of field give you a sharp overall portrait than if you randomly focus on a nose for example in face recognition.


It wasn’t inspired by an anthropogenic perspective, but rather how I understand the technology works: It doesn’t find any old eye, it finds a human-like face and then-and-only-then locates the human-like face’s eye.

Maybe I’m mistaken about how it works, but I know that with my a7rii (and the iii I rented) the camera would often lose the eye but then default back to the face.

Ultimately it may be possible to teach a camera non-human faces, but currently I don’t know of any which can. Does the canon find a bird’s eye? That would be really neat.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> And here is a shot showing me doing eye-focus (via a 5DSR).
> View attachment 179872


Well that’s cool! I didn’t know the 5DS cameras had that function.

Can it do it when the whole bird is in the frame? If so, I’m entirely wrong.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

it is a major flaw on Nikon's part to NOT put Eye-AF into Z6/Z7. in that price class of cameras it should be the clear standard in 2018. when even conservative canon can do it well in an entry level priced camera like EOS M50.

actually i would expect far more advanced AF systems in new cameras like Z6/Z7 ... high time we would finally get AF systems truly worthy of the "artificial intelligence" moniker. eg, there should be no more need for a one-shot/servo-af switch. AI-AF mode should reliably take care if this and detect mition in frame in real time in mirrorfree ("live view") cameras. 
rather than fanbois apologizing camera makers shortcomkngs, se all should push them hard and demand "state of the art" tech from them.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

not sure what the eos m50 eye detect can do, but it really should not be hard for an algorithm and some CPU power to detect any eye in any sort of "face".


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Maybe I’m mistaken about how it works, but I know that with my a7rii (and the iii I rented) the camera would often lose the eye but then default back to the face.


I don't think you can reliably focus exactly on an eye unless you have a PDAF autofocus point placed exactly over the eye.

Might be possible with DPAF, though.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> high time we would finally get AF systems truly worthy of the "artificial intelligence" moniker. eg, there should be no more need for a one-shot/servo-af switch. AI-AF mode should reliably take care if this and detect mition in frame in real time in mirrorfree ("live view") cameras.


DJI Mavic 5 Pro


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I don't think you can reliably focus exactly on an eye unless you have a PDAF autofocus point placed exactly over the eye.
> 
> Might be possible with DPAF, though.



I thought it used subject recognition (i.e., a humanoid face), and then with pattern analysis picked the AF sensitive area closest to the eye.

There is no reason other types of faces couldn’t be programmed, but I didn’t know the 5DS could recognize a bird eye.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I thought it used subject recognition (i.e., a humanoid face), and then with pattern recognition picked the AF sensitive area closest to the eye.


If I'd designed it, it would be much more complicated (and likely never finished. Anyway, it would be something like AvTvM wants, but he would need to replace the batteries and put the camera into a beer cooler after every second shot).

It doesn't look like there are that many AF sensitive areas even on a Sony sensor. It might easily grab the brow, for example.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Might be possible with DPAF, though.



thar's what we are talking about. mirrorslapper phase-af won't be able to auto-detect an eye and focus it. only possible in live view/mirrorfree - any AF would do (eg Sony hybrid AF can do the trick), so DPAF no prerequisite - but probably advantageous.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Well that’s cool! I didn’t know the 5DS cameras had that function.
> 
> Can it do it when the whole bird is in the frame? If so, I’m entirely wrong.



No you are not entirely wrong, you just didn't spot a joke staring you in the face.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> thar's what we are talking about. mirrorslapper phase-af won't be able to auto-detect an eye and focus it.


That's not true: just replace the AE sensor with one with DPAF.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> No you are not entirely wrong, you just didn't spot a joke staring you in the face.


 I default to literal.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> That's not true: just replace the AE sensor with one with DPAF.



nope, not even then. not enough resolution.

repeat after me: mirror in lightpath is always a problem, not a solution.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> BUT today with the z6/z7 i really feel left behind. Why ?
> In the DSLR line of products i think Nikons current models really are ahead compared to the Canon models, the D850 is better than my 5DM4/5DsR (i love my 5Dsr but still ...) , the D500 ist better than the 7DMII (which i owned and i tested the D500) even the D7500 (with some "issues like only 1 card and not grip option) is better than the 80D (i've tested them both - except video AF and Wifi as said before). Only the D5/1DX MII are probably on par.
> 
> If i had nothing and wanted a DSLR - i would go for a D850, a APS-C affordable sports camera - i would pick the D500 and a small carry around every day Dslr - the D7500 or even D5600.
> And instead i would like to go mirrorless - i would pick the Z6 and a D850 as a combo.



Ahhhh Grasshopper. It is not a question of which camera is better than which camera. The question is whether you, Grasshopper, are as good or better than the camera.

Ponder that for a while, while you try to catch up after feeling left behind. :


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> nope, not even then. not enough resolution.


The current resolution is about 500x300, but it is not a problem to increase it further.

The real problem is that it reads the image from the focusing screen, which means that the focusing screen needs to be somewhat modified in order for the DPAF to work.

Or the "legacy" AF sensor at the bottom of the mirrorbox needs to be made distributed DPAF-style.



fullstop said:


> repeat after me: mirror in lightpath is always a problem, not a solution.


But that's simply not true. A mirror, as well as a lens, in the light path _is_ a solution.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rather than fanbois apologizing camera makers shortcomkngs, se all should push them hard and demand "state of the art" tech from them.



Maybe it would be more a productive use of a user's time to learn how to get the best out of what he shoots with now, rather than continually to expect manufacturers to come up with miracle cameras that make up for his shortcomings as a photographer?

Oh - and for what feels like the _millionth_ bloody time: being satisfied with a camera or a brand _does not _make someone a fanboi apologist. 

Getting more than a little tired of that crap...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> View attachment 179871
> 
> 
> As a Cannon shooter I should focus on what, where, how and when to shoot rather than what to shoot with.
> The last is definitely the least to worry about!




Halifax Citadel at noon?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The meaning didn’t change.
> Canon calls the function Spokane mentioned “Eye Controlled Focus,” not “Eye Detection AF” or “Eye AF,” which are the Canon and Sony terms, respectively, for the function you described.



Eye Controlled Focus is an obsolete technology that Canon used two decades ago. For cameras with three or five focus points it worked pretty well, but I'm sure it would be chaotic on modern systems. If it could work properly with modern spread of focus points then you'd bet that at least one of the manufacturers out there would implement it - especially as the initial patents must have expired by now.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> That's not true: just replace the AE sensor with one with DPAF.



Even if this was possible, which I doubt, I can't see any of the major companies investing in radical new technology for DSLR cameras now when it's clear the entire market focus is shifting over to mirrorless.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> thar's what we are talking about. mirrorslapper phase-af won't be able to auto-detect an eye and focus it. only possible in live view/mirrorfree - any AF would do (eg Sony hybrid AF can do the trick), so DPAF no prerequisite - but probably advantageous.



Except that Canon (and maybe Nikon too?) can track faces in mirrorslapper mode (using the metering sensor to detect the faces and work in conjunction with the AF system). Its not in every camera, but the 5D4 has this feature.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

yes, 5D IV has a 150k pixel RGB+IR metering sensor which according to Canon "helps" AF system with color/object and face detection. 

How well does 5D IV detect and track moving faces in viewfinder mode in real life [NOT in live View]?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I can't see any of the major companies investing in radical new technology for DSLR cameras now


It is not "radical new technology".



jolyonralph said:


> when it's clear the entire market focus is shifting over to mirrorless.


I heard the same about "the entire market focus is shifting over to" APS film 20 years ago. Turned out to be a fad.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 24, 2018)

It's probably healthy that there is a diverse range of opinions in this forum.
It certainly broadens the mind.
Some are too quick to dismiss others opinions.
I like to consider at least "perhaps its true".
I think YKN123 is not alone in his sentiments.
The current gear is really very good. Alot of people are possibly not old enough to remember the original DSLRs.
While amazing for their time alot of the earlier ones were just not as good as film.
However all modern cameras micro 4/3 to Full Frame are pretty impressive performers.
The lens quality has jumped up incredibly too. I am a partial Olympus and Fuji user and they really can make very nice compact lens.
Really its probably the photographers fault if they can't produce in 95% of instances a sharp and well exposed photographs.
If you are a very serious photographer you do run into those 5% of occasions where you are going beyond the limit of the camera's abilities and wish it could do it.
Mirrorless can bridge some of those gaps.
I'm not sure how more silent a mirrored camera can be but a mirrorless can be impressively silent.
I'm not sure we've reached the physical limit of FPS with the 1DX II but it must be close to the limit.
Sony have their A9 up to 20FPS in times more is likely to be possible.
Like all great empires Canon will some day crumble because it will be unable to innovate further. It won't be for a while but in time its inevitable.
What Canon tries to do with its business model is to postpone that date as far into the future as possible.
There is only a diminishing market in products that don't significantly upgrade (but still a potentially profitable one for a time).
For Canon to move people like me to buy a new Canon camera it has to pass a pretty high bar.
But move people like me it has to and win newer customers to its brand and lens family. Its got to keep selling new items.
Canon have waited with mirrorless and a lot of us hope that's because they want to perfect it and make it really good.
The risk I see for Canon is if the cameras are a bit of a let down there will be many more YKN123's looking elsewhere for their next camera.
What starts as a trickle can turn to a flood reasonably quickly.
The fact Canon has such a loyal customer base they may get two bites at the cherry but maybe not much more than that.
If mirrorless is the future for Canon a replacement for the 1DX II needs to wow to maintain their presence on the sidelines of sporting events.
Iconic sporting images taken with a future Canon I DX mirrorless is a very powerful selling tool.
Most beginners don't know which camera is better than the other but they know the Canon logo from seeing the best photographers using them.
It will be fascinating here to see the reaction to Canon's announcement on mirrorless.
It won't reflect the market as a whole but I think it will be a leading indicator of what happens next for Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hmmm ... not so sure about that! in your image it looks as if the rightmost soldier is what will be shot by that cannon ...


If you zoom in on the image, you'll see that guy's name tag – Corporal Sony.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> It is not "radical new technology".
> 
> I heard the same about "the entire market focus is shifting over to" APS film 20 years ago. Turned out to be a fad.



They said that Digital would never replace film either. So what we "heard" has no bearing on this particular case. 

Mirrorless cameras will replace DSLRs because they will, eventually, do everything that a DSLR can do, but better, and a whole lot more. Building duplicate complex AF systems (one for live view, one for mirror shooting) is complex and expensive. I'm sure there will be a 1DX III, 5DV etc in the DSLR lineup, but you won't see a 5D Mark 6 DSLR, I think we can pretty much guarantee it. Time is up for the DSLR.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 24, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I heard the same about "the entire market focus is shifting over to" APS film 20 years ago. Turned out to be a fad.



APS film was killed off by digital rather than just being a fad.
And APS sized sensors have been the mainstay of the interchangeable lens market ever since.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> They said that Digital would never replace film either. So what we "heard" has no bearing on this particular case.
> 
> ...Time is up for the DSLR.



Time from launch of consumer-level DSLRs to the end of Kodachrome – 9 years. Time since the launch of popular MILCs – 10 years. 

The prediction was that time would be up for the DSLR in 5 years...back in 2012. I guess we missed it.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 24, 2018)

I focus on the Bird's Eye when looking in the frozen foods section.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Halifax Citadel at noon?



That's what it reminded me of. I confirmed by looking at my own shots:







Other shots are posted here, including a proverbial deck chair from the Titanic.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> They said that Digital would never replace film either.


Who were those "they"? Do you know any actual person who would say so?

(Digital still haven't fully replaced film, by the way. For example, a lot of dentists still use film for x-rays, because it works just fine.)



jolyonralph said:


> Mirrorless cameras will replace DSLRs because they will, eventually,


Eventually, we will all die.



jolyonralph said:


> Building duplicate complex AF systems (one for live view, one for mirror shooting) is complex and expensive.


And lucrative.



jolyonralph said:


> I'm sure there will be a 1DX III, 5DV etc in the DSLR lineup, but you won't see a 5D Mark 6 DSLR, I think we can pretty much guarantee it.


That's easy to guarantee, as "mark 6" would be a stupid name anyway. Still, we may see EOS 3D and EOS 3D mark II.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Time from launch of consumer-level DSLRs to the end of Kodachrome – 9 years. Time since the launch of popular MILCs – 10 years.
> 
> The prediction was that time would be up for the DSLR in 5 years...back in 2012. I guess we missed it.




yes. Had customers been given free choice between mirrorfree and mirrorslapper from the time when first Sony A7 appeared [2013] also by Canon and Nikon, then mirrorslappers would already be a thing of the past, except maybe a final goodbye round of Nikon D5 / Canon 1DX successors. But Nikon and Canon managed to block and stall things and sell 3 more marginal iterations of mirrorslappers to customers. Luckily they are paying a price for it. Less and less customers have been willing to fall for it. Most are smarter than Canon and Nikon together and switched to Sony or just have held off buying slappers and legacy lenses.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes. Had customers been given free choice between mirrorfree and mirrorslapper from the time when first Sony A7 appeared [2013] also by Canon and Nikon, then mirrorslappers would already be a thing of the past, except maybe a final goodbye round of Nikon D5 / Canon 1DX successors. But Nikon and Canon managed to block and stall things and sell 3 more marginal iterations of mirrorslappers to customers. Luckily they are paying a price for it. Less and less customers have been willing to fall for it. Most are smarter than Canon and Nikon together and switched to Sony or just have held off buying slappers and legacy lenses.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And the lizard people rule the world from their base under the Antarctic ice cap.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
> And the lizard people rule the world from their base under the Antarctic ice cap.



reported. It appears you are consciously attacking any of my postings with a totally off-topic attack and/or lame attempts to mock and ridicule it.


----------



## jkk1943 (Aug 24, 2018)

ykn123 said:


> Hi There
> I'm a Canon shooter since ages and no - Canon is not ******* ;-) I have a number of professional bodies from Canon and a lot of L lenses and also recently purchased a m50.
> I also have to say i still love the Canon lenses, the ergonomics of the bodies, DPAF (well i don't do a lot of video other than just for fun) the wifi implementation - the last 2 sucks on Nikon or are just not existent.
> Also for various reasons until very lately i would never consider to move on to Sony (ergonomics,lenses,....) and thanks to Nikon with the z6/z7 i now dont need to think about switching to Sony anyway. ( i would rather switch to NIkon but i dont want to)
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
> And the lizard people rule the world from their base under the Antarctic ice cap.



Seriously? Everyone knows the lizard people are not able to survive in that cold environment. They are reptiles.

Do some research before you submit made up facts, it is well established that the Reptilians control most of the world governments.
The only thing under Antarctica is a UFO base discovered by the Nazi's.


----------



## Daner (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I've had SD cards fail, CF cards fail, SD cards physically break (including, annoyingly, a Sandisk Extreme Pro 256GB where a piece of plastic broke off the front of the card and it now won't fit into the card slot properly - I am going to try and hack it back to life.), and CF slots break (pins bent or snapping off)
> 
> Considering the low cost of memory these days, wouldn't it be sensible if instead of a dual card system cameras came with some reasonable amount (32GB/64GB/128GB) of high speed flash memory built-in and a single card slot as a backup/expansion?
> 
> Just connect the camera via USB to export images as normal. It also means you could never take your camera out and forget to bring a card with you. Also, by using direct memory and avoiding any card interface you should be able to get very fast performance.



Downloading directly from the camera using USB isn't always a good option. Sports shooters at events that don't have a dedicated WiFi setup sometimes need to send their memory cards from each event in with a runner to be downloaded, edited, and posted while the shooter and camera remain on the field.


----------



## jkk1943 (Aug 24, 2018)

Canon is too stodgy and conservative. They have missed out on the mirrorless market. Canon has never been a leader in innovation. Just look at what that little upstart Fuji has done in the same amount of time Canon has been fiddling with their M line. Canon's cachet is great lenses and , rugged, dependable bodies. It looks like they are sticking with that approach. They will still be producing DSLR's was after other company's have abandoned them.


----------



## arbitrage (Aug 24, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It's rubbish at high speed bursts: 9 fps but the focus is locked after the first frame and you are getting AF at every frame only at 5.5 fps.- that's only 0.5 fps faster than a 5DS. Sony is streets ahead: R10 IV, 24 fps; A9 20 fps; and A7RIII 10 fps, with AF between each shot. Also, there is no means of toggling between different AF modes as you can with Sony. The Z7 might be enough to keep Nikon users on board but it is second rate. Let's hope Canon can do better.


The focus is not locked, only the exposure...still it sucks compared to my A9....but nothing will touch the A9 for a long time...likely never as an A9II will come out for the Olympics and CaNikon may not even want to target that market of sports/action/wildlife for a long while (if ever)....


----------



## arbitrage (Aug 24, 2018)

tron said:


> I only kind of feel behind with the announcement of 500 f/5.6 defractive optics lens at 3600. I do have the 400 DO II which is FANTASTIC but I do not feel confident with the 1.4XIII with it. I would like to have access to a longer DO lens. I have read about 600 DO f/4 a couple of years ago but that lens would weigh a lot more than 400 DO (obviously) and it would have a rather big (600/4 = 15cm+ construction) front element. A 600 5.5 DO lens would be more practical. It would be the perfect birding lens. Anything else is satisfying for me (5D4, 5DsR, white lenses, UWA, etc)



Why no confidence in the 1.4TC on the 400DOII? I can't even notice an AF or IQ difference using mine....with the 2xTC I also get amazing IQ and only a slight drop in AF effectiveness....curious to know what problems you are having with the 1.4 on your DOII?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 24, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> IBIS, completely silent shooting options, and short flange distances to allow you to adapt to many different lenses. You might not benefit from some of these options, but there's many people who value these options.



IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera. Short flangeback distances cause big light fall off issues at the edges of the sensor that is difficult to correct. Canon DSLR's have silent shooting if you know how to use it.

I suspect that the percentage of people using older manual focus and manual aperture lenses on a high mp camera will be few, particularly if they are aware of the poor resolution performance. 

Nikon proved this with the failed DF.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> reported. It appears you are consciously attacking any of my postings with a totally off-topic attack and/or lame attempts to mock and ridicule it.



If you keep making the same claims are people not allowed to refute them? Even with a bit more variety than you claims show? 

You do keep on coming up with these daft conspiracy theories, largely based on the idea of camera manufacturers being able to predict future developments and big corporations deliberately blocking them.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Halifax Citadel at noon?


Yes, that is the exact place and time.


----------



## arbitrage (Aug 24, 2018)

I wanted to give my view on all of this Z, mirrorless, DSLR...etc...

My fairly unbiased experience is based on this transition through the various systems....diehard Canon shooter from 2009 till 2015....still own some big glass...at one point had 6 Canon bodies in my house and even more big whites....bought a D500/200-500 in 2015 to try it out and shot it off and on alongside my Canon kit. I believe the D500 is far superior to the 7D2...but I continued to use my 5D4, 1DX, 1DX2 a lot while owning the D500 for the first year. In 2017 I started selling off more of my Canon kit and started to slowly expand my Nikon kit as I just found AF for fast, small BIF to be superior and was getting shots easier than with my Canon stuff. Bought 300PF, bought D850, downsized Canon eventually to just 1DX2 and 400DOII, 600II, 100-400II (and kept my normal/wide zooms..see sig). Then I got to try the A9 and A7R3 in April in Florida with my buddy who brought them on the trip and let me shoot them as much as I wanted...we rented the 500/4 Sigma and MC-11 and used the 100-400GM with both TCs as needed. I was very impressed by the A9...especially the e-shutter, blackout free, lag free, distortion free, and dead silence if you so choose....also very impressed with the AF and found it probably at least as good as Nikon and maybe better. Wasn't sure if I wanted to invest in the rather expensive A9/100-400GM when I returned home but just then found a local selling the whole kit (A9/100-400Gm/1.4TC) for a very reasonable price. Jumped on it and after more and more time found the A9 AF was a superior system in most situations to the Nikon and surely all situations to my Canons. I also could not get on with the A7R3's EVF experience with lag, blackout and difficult to track a BIF. Added a 500/4 E FL Nikon and sold my last Canon body and the 100-400II.

There are a lot of great systems out there and Canon is not totally lost...the 1DX/1DX2 is still an amazing piece of kit....actual AF speed is still faster on the Canon bodies but unfortunately the AF consistency is not up to Nikon or especially Sony A9 levels (the A9 is uncanny how many tack sharp shots you get....way too many if you shoot 20FPS...which is why I mainly keep it at 10FPS). Ergonomics is an issue with the A9...my fingers don't get pinched by the GM lens as they are rather long and on the skinny side but an unsupported pinky requires the battery grip but once the grip is on the ergo is really good for this small of a camera and I'm comfortable for an entire day. Without the grip or a plate I get finger/hand cramping fairly quickly with the big lens and also with smaller Canon adapted lenses. The Eye-Af on Sony is really amazing and I only use it with adapted 24-70/4IS and 16-35/4IS Canon lenses and still it grabs my nephews and nieces in tack sharp shots all the time. Adapted 400DOII works well for static shots and even for flight against sky but if you are way out of intended focus range it isn't pretty to get back to focus...prefocus in the range is needed. However once in the range it can track a bird bouncing around on a branch and nail tack sharp shot after shot just like the native 100-400GM.

These Nikon Z cameras are not for my intended use...they have some pros over Sony A7 series like ergo in the grip and availability of the F-mount lineup but they are of course more akin to the A7 and not A9 (as I always expected before release). However, they are lacking stuff compared to the Sony A7 already like Eye-AF, buffer, battery life (still to be determined and surprising since they take the D500/D850 battery), and AF at higher FPS has limitations...also in early FW the buttons aren't very customizable...unlike the D500/D850/D5 you can't have other AF modes/AF-On on other back buttons (like joystick push)...that is disappointing.

Unfortunately I had much higher expectation for the Z release and I really don't have much hope that Canon is even going to match the Z release and surely not come anywhere near the A7 series or of course the A9.

Therefore I'm buying a Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF as I love my 300PF but always have TCs stuck on it....I'm going to hold onto my 400DOII/600II and my zooms to see what may come out but my patience is running thin and if more cool gear comes out from Nikon and/or Sony I may start selling the Canon big guns to fund other stuff....PLEASE CANON...wake up and make us proud to be Canon shooters as I was back in 2012 when I got my 600II....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Eye Controlled Focus is an obsolete technology that Canon used two decades ago. For cameras with three or five focus points it worked pretty well, but I'm sure it would be chaotic on modern systems. If it could work properly with modern spread of focus points then you'd bet that at least one of the manufacturers out there would implement it - especially as the initial patents must have expired by now.


I never thought it worked well with the few points on my Elan7NE, personally.


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2018)

arbitrage said:


> Why no confidence in the 1.4TC on the 400DOII? I can't even notice an AF or IQ difference using mine....with the 2xTC I also get amazing IQ and only a slight drop in AF effectiveness....curious to know what problems you are having with the 1.4 on your DOII?


Which camera do you use?


----------



## NancyP (Aug 24, 2018)

I don't feel left behind at all concerning mirrorless. 

I want sensor improvements - another stop of dynamic range, still keeping the low pattern noise of the 6D and 7D2, and no funny-biz compression factors as used by Sony. (This has to do with processing of night photography, for which Canon has been quite good, no star eating or odd artifact as Sony had had).

Having said that, IF a full frame mirrorless Canon with sensor improvements became available, and IF I get the hang of the tilt-shift thing with my first TS lens, I could see my way to getting a Cambo rig allowing rear (sensor) rise-fall-tilt-swing view camera movements on the mirrorless unit - and expand my lens collection with more TS lenses and the odd film-era (affordable) medium format lens such as all those Hasselblad lenses out there. (Many modern MF (large-image-circle) lenses can be extraordinarily good, but also extraordinarily expensive - USD 2K to &K).


----------



## NancyP (Aug 24, 2018)

PS. I LIKE optical viewfinders, well implemented (Canon, I am looking at you - why did you change the exposure scale from the bottom to the side in the 7D2? The 6D style is SO much easier to see in brighter light).


----------



## AlanF (Aug 24, 2018)

arbitrage said:


> The focus is not locked, only the exposure...still it sucks compared to my A9....but nothing will touch the A9 for a long time...likely never as an A9II will come out for the Olympics and CaNikon may not even want to target that market of sports/action/wildlife for a long while (if ever)....


Good to see you back in CR. It is odd that AE is locked on the first frame and not AF - with the first Olympus AF was locked. It's not easy to find the info on the Sony site and I wonder if DPR is entirely correct.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes. Had customers been given free choice between mirrorfree and mirrorslapper from the time *when first Sony A7 appeared [2013]* also by Canon and Nikon, then mirrorslappers would already be a thing of the past, except maybe a final goodbye round of Nikon D5 / Canon 1DX successors. But Nikon and Canon managed to block and stall things and sell 3 more marginal iterations of mirrorslappers to customers.



Canon was selling the EOS M when the first Sony A7 appeared. In fact, the EOS M is probably part of the reason for the a7 – Sony again running away from a market where they couldn’t compete. But the simple fact of the EOS M renders your statement that DSLRs would already be a thing of the past as nonsensical, asinine and ridiculous. 



fullstop said:


> Less and less customers have been willing to fall for it. Most are smarter than Canon and Nikon together and switched to Sony or just have held off buying slappers and legacy lenses.


Sure, that’s why Canon’s ILC market share has grown to 50%. Keep living in your fantasy world, and say hello to the Lizard Men for us. Oh, wait..._they’re_ the ones buying all the MILCs, aren’t they? They’re smart enough to be our overlords, so of course they only buy MILCs.

Report away...if you keep posting ridicuous statements, you’re going to keep getting ridiculed.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera.


Yes it does. At least in viewfinder operation. And instead of LiveView better a *real mirrorfree* camera. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Short flangeback distances cause big light fall off issues at the edges of the sensor that is difficult to correct.


Problem solved long ago. Leica pioneered some of it. Just a matter of proper lens mount dmensions and adequately designed/off-set microlenses. No more real-life issue these days.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon DSLR's have silent shooting if you know how to use it.


unfortunately not. At least not in viewfinder mode. And LiveView mode is only good on tripod, but not handheld (no EVF). 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I suspect that the percentage of people using older manual focus and manual aperture lenses on a high mp camera will be few, particularly if they are aware of the poor resolution performance.
> totally agree. for whatever reasons, those "old skoolers who still believe their old F-shards or 1987 EF L lens are still top notch today on a 50MP digital sensor" are over-represented on many forums.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon was selling the EOS M when the first Sony A7 appeared. In fact, the EOS M is probably part of the reason for the a7 – Sony again running away from a market where they couldn’t compete. But the simple fact of the EOS M renders your statement that DSLRs would already be a thing of the past as nonsensical, asinine and ridiculous.



YOu know what? I find your comparison of underspecced and overpriced APS-C EOS M 1st gen vs. first FF-sensored MILC Sony A7 ... "nonsensical and ridiculous". 

And that's how the entire market saw it as well. It resulted in Sony saving teir ass from the unmitigated SLT desaster and Canon having to firesale the EOS M at USD 299 including kit lens and having to work their way through 3 more generations of M cameras until they finally got it about right (M5/6, and now M50).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> And LiveView mode is only good on tripod, but not handheld (no EVF).


Huh? Did I miss the live view activation switch built into the tripod socket? Perhaps you’ve not seen all the cameras with neither OVF nor EVF. Have you not taken a single picture with your EOS M, without the external EVF attached? So again...huh??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> YOu know what? I find your comparison of underspecced and overpriced APS-C EOS M 1st gen vs. first FF-sensored MILC Sony A7 ... "nonsensical and ridiculous".
> 
> *And that's how the entire market saw it as well.* It resulted in Sony saving teir ass from the unmitigated SLT desaster and Canon having to firesale the EOS M at USD 299 including kit lens



Really? The original EOS M was the second best-selling MILC in Japan without a discount, outsold only by a 2-gen-old and deeply discounted Sony NEX model. At that time, the MILC market in the US was nearly nonexistent anyway, the Asian MILC market was an order of magnitude larger, and there the EOS M was a smashing success.

Maybe the Lizard Men can fix your intellectual myopia. You should ask them.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Time from launch of consumer-level DSLRs to the end of Kodachrome – 9 years. Time since the launch of popular MILCs – 10 years.
> 
> The prediction was that time would be up for the DSLR in 5 years...back in 2012. I guess we missed it.



Let's not forget that mirrorless digital consumer cameras have been around for way longer than DSLRs - if you look at all digital cameras and don't fixate on those that have fixed lenses vs those that have removable lenses. Mirrorless isn't a technology that's developed over the last ten years. It's a technology that's developed over the last 25 years or so - more or less starting at the same time as the Digital SLR was first emerging, but reaching the consumer market (with the Apple Quicktake 100) over a decade before the first truly affordable DSLR (Canon 300D).

While the DSLR has taken over the entire market for SLR cameras, mirrorless cameras of all kinds have overtaken them and outsell by several orders of magnitude simply because they can now be reduced in size to the point they fit inside a cellphone.

The average person no longer needs a camera. Their cellphone takes fantastic photos. And part of the reason for this is the intelligence of the software behind it, both in terms of focus (eye tracking etc) and post-processing. Apple alone have 800 engineers working on the cameras and associated software for their iPhones. 

And now the DSLR is stuck. Without a full live reading of the digital sensor for the camera CPU to interpret the DSLR has to do its best from the limited view of the image it gets from the low resolution PDAF sensor behind the mirror. It's quite incredible how far they've pushed this technology and how well and how fast a modern DSLR such as the 5D Mark IV can focus, but the DSLR is hindered. It can't do proper eye autofocus, realtime histograms, focus peaking and all the other things that we take for granted with the modern generation of mirrorless cameras. When people realise their phone camera has a more intelligent focus and tracking system than their $3000 DSLR they start to wonder if they made a mistake.

Now, I'm sure many of you will start saying that your DSLR is perfectly capable of taking the photos that you want to take today - and that's true. And that's why I also still use a DSLR. 

I'm not saying the DSLR is useless. I'm simply stating the economic case for why camera companies will inevitably drop them.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 24, 2018)

arbitrage said:


> I wanted to give my view on all of this Z, mirrorless, DSLR...etc...
> 
> My fairly unbiased experience is based on this transition through the various systems....diehard Canon shooter from 2009 till 2015....still own some big glass...at one point had 6 Canon bodies in my house and even more big whites....bought a D500/200-500 in 2015 to try it out and shot it off and on alongside my Canon kit. I believe the D500 is far superior to the 7D2...but I continued to use my 5D4, 1DX, 1DX2 a lot while owning the D500 for the first year. In 2017 I started selling off more of my Canon kit and started to slowly expand my Nikon kit as I just found AF for fast, small BIF to be superior and was getting shots easier than with my Canon stuff. Bought 300PF, bought D850, downsized Canon eventually to just 1DX2 and 400DOII, 600II, 100-400II (and kept my normal/wide zooms..see sig). Then I got to try the A9 and A7R3 in April in Florida with my buddy who brought them on the trip and let me shoot them as much as I wanted...we rented the 500/4 Sigma and MC-11 and used the 100-400GM with both TCs as needed. I was very impressed by the A9...especially the e-shutter, blackout free, lag free, distortion free, and dead silence if you so choose....also very impressed with the AF and found it probably at least as good as Nikon and maybe better. Wasn't sure if I wanted to invest in the rather expensive A9/100-400GM when I returned home but just then found a local selling the whole kit (A9/100-400Gm/1.4TC) for a very reasonable price. Jumped on it and after more and more time found the A9 AF was a superior system in most situations to the Nikon and surely all situations to my Canons. I also could not get on with the A7R3's EVF experience with lag, blackout and difficult to track a BIF. Added a 500/4 E FL Nikon and sold my last Canon body and the 100-400II.
> 
> ...




Sell the remaining Canon gear. Use that money to fund up coming Sony FE 400f2.8, 500 and 600. Current FE 400f2.8 has more elements and more glass and 2lbs lighter.


----------



## FramerMCB (Aug 24, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Please pardon what is likely to be a stupid question, but I"m still trying to learn the mirrorless jargon....I've seen it referred to here twice....
> 
> What is "EYE-AF"?
> 
> ...


"EYE - AF" refers to the camera's autofocus sensor (capability) of recognizing there are "EYEs" in the photo and the autofocus will track/focus on the eyes. I believe that Sony has darn near perfected this in the A7 III and perhaps the A9 and/or A99. And I think that it is a setting you have to choose. Like, "One Shot", "AI-F", or "AF". But don't know that with certainty...check any spec sheet and/or review of the Sony A7 III or any of their recent (within the last 2 years) offerings.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 24, 2018)

“There’s nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” – Ansel Adams 
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.” – Ansel Adams 

People (hobbyists and pros) will use cameras they like to use, and lenses they like to use. Few photographers (as opposed to snapshot takers) really like cell phones as their main camera, and I expect the hobbyists will still be buying regular cameras, whether mirrorless or SLR or whatever (yes, there are film and "alternate processes" enthusiasts out there) and lenses (from Otus to replicas of 19th century Petzval lenses). Remember, there is more to photography than performance on wall charts.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 24, 2018)

Does Sony "eye focus" work on bird eyes when the bird is moving or is relatively small in the frame?


----------



## NancyP (Aug 24, 2018)

Magic Lantern alternative firmware (primarily for video) is available for most models of Canon cameras. The ML coding team takes a few weeks from commercial release to issue the beta of the ML firmware for that model, and final is done usually by 6 months. It does focus peaking and a number of other video-centric tasks. I have no idea what the capacities are of the native Canon firmware used by Canon video-centric SLRs (the "C" series). Video is not my thing. The reason Canon doesn't issue its stills-centric cameras with the full suite of video features is that the full suite goes in the C series "pro" video cameras. No, the C series aren't top level Red cameras, but the price differential between C and Red is substantial.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Mirrorless isn't a technology that's developed over the last ten years. It's a technology that's developed over the last 25 years or so
> 
> ...the DSLR is hindered. It can't do proper eye autofocus, realtime histograms, focus peaking and all the other things that we take for granted with the modern generation of mirrorless cameras. When people realise their phone camera has a more intelligent focus and tracking system than their $3000 DSLR they start to wonder if they made a mistake.
> 
> I'm simply stating the economic case for why camera companies will inevitably drop them


Mirrorless didn’t come along 25 years ago, heck...camera obscura and pinhole cameras were mirrorless too. While you’re technically correct that a cell phone is a mirrorless camera, the topic of discussion here is MILCs – precisely because of the interchangeable lenses.

I don’t think the majority of people give a hoot about the intelligence of the focus and tracking system. They just want the camera to take pictures of the subject they point it at, and have those pictures turn out well. For the majority of people and the majority of subjects, any currently available camera – DSLR, MILC or smartphone – will do that. The choice comes down to budget and needs. What their smartphone won’t do that an ILC will do is allow them to put on a longer lens, or a wider lens, or a bounce flash, etc., and both DSLRs and MILCs can do those.

The economic case for companies dropping DSLRs will be when people stop buying them. That’s not going to happen soon, and it might not ever happen ‘because of MILCs’, because the extended and possibly incomplete transition to MILCs may be obviated a paradigm shift (e.g. lightfield cameras, and don’t even go to the ‘lightfield cameras are mirroress too’ place  ).


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2018)

NancyP said:


> Magic Lantern alternative firmware (primarily for video) is available for most models of Canon cameras. The ML coding team takes a few weeks from commercial release to issue the beta of the ML firmware for that model, and final is done usually by 6 months. It does focus peaking and a number of other video-centric tasks. I have no idea what the capacities are of the native Canon firmware used by Canon video-centric SLRs (the "C" series). Video is not my thing. The reason Canon doesn't issue its stills-centric cameras with the full suite of video features is that the full suite goes in the C series "pro" video cameras. No, the C series aren't top level Red cameras, but the price differential between C and Red is substantial.


This is not entirelly true.
1. They may take years not weeks for new releases.
2. For some cameras they may never release anything ( and I do not mean the forbidden by Canon 1 series)
They have some F.A.Q sections which explain this. They even have a troll section  
Still they have accomplished a lot (and proved that Canon could have worked more on their firmware)


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> nope, not even then. not enough resolution.



They can put any resolution they want.



> repeat after me: mirror in lightpath is always a problem, not a solution.



I have yet to experience an EVF without perceptible lag and grain. They also have relatively poor color and DR compared to the real world (OVF). People make a big deal out of increasing gain in low light situations, but that amplifies lag/grain/color/DR issues. And while it's helpful to a point, it ultimately fails. I recently framed the Milky Way with a 24mm f/1.4 lens and a mirror. But while stars showed up in LiveView for checking focus, the Milky Way did not. In other words, I could not have framed it with EVF.

And after 10 years of development, on sensor PDAF still trails off mirror PDAF when it comes to acquisition and tracking speed. The z7 can only AF at 5.5 fps, and missed a lot of shots in DP Review's rather tame tracking test. Mirrorless can track a slow moving eye, but won't give you as many keepers when a sprinter is running towards the finish line.

So it seems a mirror in the light path is still a solution for some issues. We will see how the market reacts to Nikon and Canon FF MILC bodies over the coming years. And how technology progresses. But at the moment I can't see myself ditching DSLRs completely even if Canon introduced a dream FF MILC at a dream price.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

"real color" in viewfinder is irrelevant to me, as long as colors in my images are right. 

And i don't shoot fast moving subjects, so .. mirrorfree perfect.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera.
> 
> 
> fullstop said:
> ...



I must admit I’ve never thought about this before, but: why?

What has the viewfinder to do with IBIS? Does IBIS use image analysis (as opposed to accelerometers and gyros) to inform the sensor actuation? (I’m not speaking of canon’s “crop the image” style here)


----------



## Kit. (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Let's not forget that mirrorless digital consumer cameras have been around for way longer than DSLRs - if you look at all digital cameras and don't fixate on those that have fixed lenses vs those that have removable lenses. Mirrorless isn't a technology that's developed over the last ten years. It's a technology that's developed over the last 25 years or so


My first camera was a fullframe mirrorless. In 1970s.



jolyonralph said:


> While the DSLR has taken over the entire market for SLR cameras, mirrorless cameras of all kinds have overtaken them and outsell by several orders of magnitude simply because they can now be reduced in size to the point they fit inside a cellphone.


Mirrorless cameras were always outselling SLRs.



jolyonralph said:


> The average person no longer needs a camera.


The average person already has a camera. And that camera is mirrorless. What the average person does not need (and never needed) is an ILC.



jolyonralph said:


> And now the DSLR is stuck. Without a full live reading of the digital sensor for the camera CPU to interpret the DSLR has to do its best from the limited view of the image it gets from the low resolution PDAF sensor behind the mirror. It's quite incredible how far they've pushed this technology and how well and how fast a modern DSLR such as the 5D Mark IV can focus,


The main advantage of an electronic SLR is a moving semi-transparent mirror that allows it to use _three_ different sensors to prepare and capture the same image. For the modern camera, it's a 3d-information sensor at the bottom of mirrorbox, fast 2d color exposure and object tracking sensor above the mirrorbox, and the final image sensor behind the mirrorbox.

If you think that the two specialized fast sensors are not good enough for you because of their "low" resolution (which is still too high for the contemporary image-processing neural networks to run at full fps on embedded chips), you can turn them off by locking the mirror up, which will conveniently convert your camera into "mirrorless".



jolyonralph said:


> but the DSLR is hindered. It can't do proper eye autofocus, realtime histograms, focus peaking and all the other things that we take for granted with the modern generation of mirrorless cameras.


They can do that - and more. It is just not the market segment they are optimized for. When you really need fast autofocus acquisition (and not just tracking), you have neither time nor screen space for focus peaking and realtime histograms. You still may need to grasp what is in focus and what is in the dynamic range, but your brain should be pretty capable of doing it over OVF image.



jolyonralph said:


> When people realise their phone camera has a more intelligent focus and tracking system than their $3000 DSLR they start to wonder if they made a mistake.


...except that it doesn't.

And if it does, it burns the phone battery in no time.



jolyonralph said:


> Now, I'm sure many of you will start saying that your DSLR is perfectly capable of taking the photos that you want to take today - and that's true. And that's why I also still use a DSLR.


My phone is perfectly capable of taking the majority of pictures I need. My PowerShot is perfectly capable of taking the majority of the rest.



jolyonralph said:


> I'm not saying the DSLR is useless. I'm simply stating the economic case for why camera companies will inevitably drop them.


I am not saying the market for DSLRs won't shrink (or even disappear). I'm simply stating that there is no reason to believe that FF MILCs will do any better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I must admit I’ve never thought about this before, but: why?
> 
> What has the viewfinder to do with IBIS? Does IBIS use image analysis (as opposed to accelerometers and gyros) to inform the sensor actuation? (I’m not speaking of canon’s “crop the image” style here)



IBIS stabilizes the image seen in the EVF, the same way lens IS stabilizes the image in an OVF or EVF. I find that stabilization to be useful with longer lenses (but there, IBIS is less effective than lens IS).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> IBIS stabilizes the image seen in the EVF, the same way lens IS stabilizes the image in an OVF or EVF. I find that stabilization to be useful with longer lenses (but there, IBIS is less effective than lens IS).


But is there something which fundamentally prevents IBIS from stabilizing the captured image in an SLR, e.g. requiring image analysis to function?

If as I always assumed they use gyros and accelerometers, I’m out of reasons why an optical viewfinder and its mirror are a contraindication for IBIS. Although composition without it in the viewfinder could be more difficult, why couldn’t IBIS be operating throughout and thus active when the shutter is open?

[edited for boneheadedness]


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

tron said:


> Sorry answered to the wrong post (and there is no delete post button)...


Worst space scenario, ask the admins to delete it, but when I make a post, the option to delete shows up at the bottom....


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Worst space scenario, ask the admins to delete it



 They do not have a problem deleting some of my posts. There so nice I do not even have to ask.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> But is there something which fundamentally prevents IBIS from stabilizing the view in an OVF, e.g. requiring image analysis to function?
> 
> If as I always assumed they use gyros and accelerometers, I’m out of reasons why an optical viewfinder and its mirror are a contraindication for IBIS.



IBIS works by shifting the sensor around.... in a mirrored camera, there are two separate light paths..... one to the viewfinder, and the other (mirror up) to the sensor. Whatever is done shifting the sensor around will have no impact on the view through the OVF..... in fact, when the mirror is up, you have no view....

As to which is better, In lens or sensor image stabilization, IBIS is better for wide angles, while OS is better for long lenses..... an interesting variation comes from Panasonic, who uses both.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> IBIS works by shifting the sensor around.... in a mirrored camera, there are two separate light paths..... one to the viewfinder, and the other (mirror up) to the sensor. Whatever is done shifting the sensor around will have no impact on the view through the OVF..... in fact, when the mirror is up, you have no view....
> 
> As to which is better, In lens or sensor image stabilization, IBIS is better for wide angles, while OS is better for long lenses..... an interesting variation comes from Panasonic, who uses both.....


Yes, I was being dumb when I said “view in the OVF.” Really I meant “image capture,” and I edited the post accordingly.

You wouldn’t be able to see it working, but that wouldn’t prevent it from working, right?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

Another interesting possibility.... I wonder if Canon is going to use a combo of OS and IBIS?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Yes, I was being dumb when I said “view in the OVF.” Really I meant “image capture,” and I edited the post accordingly.
> 
> You wouldn’t be able to see it working, but that wouldn’t prevent it from working, right?


It isn’t the same, but on the 6D2 when shooting video, the software can jiggle the used area of the sensor around to add more stability to video, but there is no comparable function for stills.....


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> But is there something which fundamentally prevents IBIS from stabilizing the captured image in an SLR, e.g. requiring image analysis to function?
> 
> If as I always assumed they use gyros and accelerometers, I’m out of reasons why an optical viewfinder and its mirror are a contraindication for IBIS. Although composition without it in the viewfinder could be more difficult, why couldn’t IBIS be operating throughout and thus active when the shutter is open?
> 
> [edited for boneheadedness]


Pentax seem to manage just fine with IBIS in their K series dslrs. Pretty effective too on the ones I've tried though I didn't like the way the sensor assembly sloped about in the body when the camera wasn't activated. Obviously it doesn't stabilise the viewfinder.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 24, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Pentax seem to manage just fine with IBIS in their K series dslrs. Pretty effective too on the ones I've tried though I didn't like the way the sensor assembly sloped about in the body when the camera wasn't activated. Obviously it doesn't stabilise the viewfinder.



true, thx. . overlooked the Pentax implementation. 

@3kramd5 - I stand corrected, you were right to question my statement. 

Still wondering whether IBIS in a DSLR will not also come with some "unwanted effects". At least image captured might be slightly off from the one seen in viewfinder, if IBIS moves sensor to an extreme position right at the moment of capture ... eg. in high fps sequence? Can CPU/software/algorithms really sort all of that out? Is that (one of the) reasons why K-1 II can only do 4.4 fps max speed?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> true, thx. . overlooked the Pentax implementation.
> 
> @3kramd5 - I stand corrected, you were right to question my statement.
> 
> Still wondering whether IBIS in a DSLR will not also come with some "unwanted effects". At least image captured might be slightly off from the one seen in viewfinder, if IBIS moves sensor to an extreme position right at the moment of capture ... eg. in high fps sequence? Can CPU/software/algorithms really sort all of that out? Is that (one of the) reasons why K-1 II can only do 4.4 fps max speed?


It’s conceivable I suppose that there could be some cropping, exacacerbated by less than full viewfinder coverage. I don’t think the sensor moves all that much. Maybe it could be mitigated by making it slightly bigger such that it would never move off the format image circle.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Aug 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera. Short flangeback distances cause big light fall off issues at the edges of the sensor that is difficult to correct. * Canon DSLR's have silent shooting if you know how to use it.*
> 
> I suspect that the percentage of people using older manual focus and manual aperture lenses on a high mp camera will be few, particularly if they are aware of the poor resolution performance.
> 
> Nikon proved this with the failed DF.



Which ones and how? The only silent modes should have been called quieter mode. The photographers we used for BTS photographs used those modes including LV silent and still have the sound of the shutter popping up on the audio track. 

Knock on the old lenses as much as you want, but there's still a lot of people who enjoy playing around with them. Or would like to buy a specialty lens that won't be used too often, but don't want to pay thousands of dollars for a modern one or hassle with renting. Video shooters benefit the most from the old school lenses where the video is still 8 megapixels on the newer camera crops.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> And now the DSLR is stuck. Without a full live reading of the digital sensor for the camera CPU to interpret the DSLR has to do its best from the limited view of the image it gets from the low resolution PDAF sensor behind the mirror.



But that dedicated off-mirror PDAF sensor is *better* than mirrorless on-sensor PDAF elements at acquisition (i.e. predicting how far out of focus the lens is and driving the lens to the predicted point) and tracking speed. This has to do with limits placed on the design of on-sensor elements (i.e. you don't want to see stripes in your photos) and is not easily overcome in mirrorless.



> It's quite incredible how far they've pushed this technology and how well and how fast a modern DSLR such as the 5D Mark IV can focus, but the DSLR is hindered. It can't do proper eye autofocus, realtime histograms, focus peaking and all the other things that we take for granted with the modern generation of mirrorless cameras.



Proper eye AF only requires a metering sensor with sufficient resolution. Note that past a certain point more resolution is not necessarily superior for AI tracking of objects like eyes. Focus peaking is huge with manually focused lenses, but then I don't think anyone would argue the superiority of mirrorless for adapted manual focus lenses. 



> When people realise their phone camera has a more intelligent focus and tracking system than their $3000 DSLR they start to wonder if they made a mistake.



There isn't a phone made that can touch the AF on my Canon DSLRs _within their area of expertise._



> I'm simply stating the economic case for why camera companies will inevitably drop them.



Mirrorless ILCs are not new. They have been around for a decade and are mature. They do out sell DSLRs in Japan. In Asia DSLRs out sell MILC. In Europe DSLRs are ahead 2:1. In the Americas, 3:1.

Camera companies will make what people buy. I'm not convinced people who are interested in ILC bodies are all of a sudden going to rush to EVFs simply because there are a few more niche (FF is a niche) product offerings available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Yes, I was being dumb when I said “view in the OVF.” Really I meant “image capture,” and I edited the post accordingly.
> 
> You wouldn’t be able to see it working, but that wouldn’t prevent it from working, right?


Certainly IBIS can work in a DSLR. 

But...AvTvM stated that IBIS offers a MILC-specific advantage in terms of viewfinder (EVF) operation. You asked why. I replied that it stabilizes the image in the viewfinder. 

Note that you asked to fundamentally different questions, one: does IBIS offer a unique advantage on a MILC?, two: is IBIS contraindicated on a DSLR? The answer to the first is yes, the answer to the second is no.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 24, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera. Short flangeback distances cause big light fall off issues at the edges of the sensor that is difficult to correct. Canon DSLR's have silent shooting if you know how to use it.
> 
> I suspect that the percentage of people using older manual focus and manual aperture lenses on a high mp camera will be few, particularly if they are aware of the poor resolution performance.
> 
> Nikon proved this with the failed DF.



You're right re IBIS, and you're probably right that the proportion of people wanting to use manual lenses, old or new, is tiny, but I would note that (a) many older manual lenses don't have poor resolution performance on high mp cameras; (b) some of the highest resolution lenses made today are manual focus/aperture (e.g. Rokinon 135mm f/2); and (c) some older lenses/lens designs are appealing despite the fact that (or even because) their resolution is poor (one of my favorite lenses to use wide open is the Helios 85 1.5 which photozone dismisses as producing "color soup" away from the center; they seem to assume that everyone will agree that's a bad thing, but if you like that lens's distinctive soup...).


----------



## tron (Aug 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Worst space scenario, ask the admins to delete it, but when I make a post, the option to delete shows up at the bottom....


I found it too. But it didn't exist before! It also asks to enter the reason for the deletion. 
Thanks for letting me know anyway...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> does IBIS offer a unique advantage on a MILC?



I’m not sure I asked that. If I phrased something accordingly I misspoke. I took Spokane’s post as the subject and responded to the repudiation of it, and the “viewfinder operation” part of AVTVMs post didn’t really register (my bad)
Either way, fair enough. I had my suspicion answered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I’m not sure I asked that. If I phrased something accordingly I misspoke.
> Either way, fair enough. I had my suspicion answered.


I was referring to this exchange. But perhaps I misunderstood.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was referring to this exchange. But perhaps I misunderstood.


No, you didn’t, I just wasn’t complete in my own reading (wasn’t considering AVTVM’s second sentence, despite including it in the quote). He was absolutely right in that assessment, and the omission was my own. I often read "MILC can do x, y, and z that SLR can not," and that was largely what I had in mind in my reply.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2018)

jkk1943 said:


> Canon is too stodgy and conservative. They have missed out on the mirrorless market. Canon has never been a leader in innovation. Just look at what that little upstart Fuji has done in the same amount of time Canon has been fiddling with their M line. Canon's cachet is great lenses and , rugged, dependable bodies. It looks like they are sticking with that approach. They will still be producing DSLR's was after other company's have abandoned them.



LOL! And what has Fuji done? Nothing, really. Same with Ricoh, Olympus, etc.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 25, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I am not saying the market for DSLRs won't shrink (or even disappear). I'm simply stating that there is no reason to believe that FF MILCs will do any better.



Wisdom. For all I hear about how the ILC market is shrinking (dying) and that somehow MILC is going to save the industry... ^^^^^^^ that is the smartest thing I have read in a long time. There ain't no got dang way MILCs are going to change anything about the popularity of, or gravitation away from, ILC type cameras. Ain't happening.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Wisdom. For all I hear about how the ILC market is shrinking (dying) and that somehow MILC is going to save the industry... ^^^^^^^ that is the smartest thing I have read in a long time. There ain't no got dang way MILCs are going to change anything about the popularity, or gravitation away, from ILC type cameras. Ain't happening.


agreed. The masses will not notice the difference. The forum fanatics will be talking about earth shattering revolutionary paradigm shifts and the impending death of (insert camera and/or mount here) and expound upon how the never ending flow of Canon patents means that they have given up on research and are not innovative.... and the masses will continue to not notice the difference......


----------



## Aglet (Aug 25, 2018)

fullstop said:


> true, thx. . overlooked the Pentax implementation.
> 
> @3kramd5 - I stand corrected, you were right to question my statement.
> 
> Still wondering whether IBIS in a DSLR will not also come with some "unwanted effects". At least image captured might be slightly off from the one seen in viewfinder, if IBIS moves sensor to an extreme position right at the moment of capture ... eg. in high fps sequence? Can CPU/software/algorithms really sort all of that out? Is that (one of the) reasons why K-1 II can only do 4.4 fps max speed?



Just speculating here:
IBIS processing might be part of it.
I think another reason Pentax may be a bit "slow" is that it's a tradeoff to the image quality.
They will usually extract just a little more IQ from a given sensor technology than Nikon. This might be due, in part, to running all the electronics a little slower for the sensor readout, providing a slightly cleaner image. (compare K-1 to D810, earlier crop bodies) And they do that at a considerably lower price point too. So, without knowing any details about how either company engineers the guts of their products, it may be that Pentax selects some lower grade components to reduce the cost but then runs them (slower) to optimize their performance to maximize IQ.

If anyone knows more on the topic, I'd love to hear about it.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> agreed. The masses will not notice the difference. The forum fanatics will be talking about earth shattering revolutionary paradigm shifts and the impending death of (insert camera and/or mount here) and expound upon how the never ending flow of Canon patents means that they have given up on research and are not innovative.... and the masses will continue to not notice the difference......




"the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive. But if Canon, Nikon and Sony all believe, their ILCs and lenses need to be made always "higher end, extra premium priced", then market shrinkage will continue and intensify.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 25, 2018)

fullstop said:


> "the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive. But if Canon, Nikon and Sony all believe, their ILCs and lenses need to be made always "higher end, extra premium priced", then market shrinkage will continue and intensify.



FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.

I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 25, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.
> 
> I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.



no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses. 
1. If it is expensive, then its gotta be perfectly FF capable or 
2. If it is crop only, then its gotta be inexpensive (and really small + light) 
as far as I am concerned. Up to now EF-M lenses have met criteria #2 perfectly well. 32/1.4 ... likely not.

But i will NOT buy anything, until i get mirrorfree FF in compact shape, decent IQ and at low price. 
I DON'T HAVE to buy. 
Canon, Nikon, Sony HAVE to sell. 
Advantage on my end.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 25, 2018)

Aglet said:


> Just speculating here:
> IBIS processing might be part of it.
> I think another reason Pentax may be a bit "slow" is that it's a tradeoff to the image quality.
> They will usually extract just a little more IQ from a given sensor technology than Nikon. This might be due, in part, to running all the electronics a little slower for the sensor readout, providing a slightly cleaner image. (compare K-1 to D810, earlier crop bodies) And they do that at a considerably lower price point too. So, without knowing any details about how either company engineers the guts of their products, it may be that Pentax selects some lower grade components to reduce the cost but then runs them (slower) to optimize their performance to maximize IQ.
> ...



I do think the maximum frame rate of the K-1 is due to the selection of one component in particular. However I don’t think they cheaped out; it’s unquestionably the most expensive single part in the camera, and probably dominates the BOM cost.


----------



## TAF (Aug 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.



Interesting - and all along I thought we were talking about AF that tracks where the photographer was looking (like the EOS-3 film camera). That would be a very nice feature to have (assuming my glasses didn't screw it up).

Tracking the eye of a person in the photo? I would disable such a feature; it serves no useful purpose for me.

I wonder which it will be?


----------



## lb (Aug 26, 2018)

memoriaphoto said:


> Which one?


one of my friends has a Nikon DF and that has only one card slot no problems, in all the time i have been shooting i am the only one with my Canon with 2 slots that has had issues getting my images back from faulty camera problems.????


----------



## Kit. (Aug 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses.


Someone else will.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2018)

TAF said:


> Interesting - and all along I thought we were talking about AF that tracks where the photographer was looking (like the EOS-3 film camera). That would be a very nice feature to have (assuming my glasses didn't screw it up).
> 
> Tracking the eye of a person in the photo? I would disable such a feature; it serves no useful purpose for me.
> 
> I wonder which it will be?


All features can be disabled, but they are there if you want them, which is better than not having a choice.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 26, 2018)

The second slots in my 5Ds have been occupied by unused SD cards waiting for me to fill up the CFs, which has never happened - but one day it will.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The second slots in my 5Ds have been occupied by unused SD cards waiting for me to fill up the CFs, which has never happened - but one day it will.



I've never put an SD card in my 5Ds yet  

Love the arguments over one slot being hopeless. I seem to remember that originally two card slots were fitted so one could be SD, that is SD instead of CF, and that seems to have morphed into having to write to two cards simultaneously in order not to lose all your data.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2018)

I use the 2nd slot (record to multiple) on our vacations. I also bring a laptop to do editing at night, and then I clear out the memory cards a few weeks after getting home and confirming that all the pics I wanted are off the card. If I'm after framerate, then I write to CF only, but then I might copy the files to the 2nd card in camera afterwards. I've run out of space for the cards, so I often use a second set of CF/SD from the second body.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> it's clear the entire market focus is shifting over to mirrorless.



It is?? I must have missed that press release.


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 26, 2018)

scyrene said:


> It is?? I must have missed that press release.



Do pay attention then


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2018)

scyrene said:


> It is?? I must have missed that press release.



Don't worry. The people who say those things don't actually look at sales numbers, where DSLRs still far out sell MILCs.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2018)

jkk1943 said:


> Canon [has] missed out on the mirrorless market.



LOL what share of the mirrorless market does Canon command?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

scyrene said:


> LOL what share of the mirrorless market does Canon command?



Don't bother yourself with facts. Just make it up like so many others around here Facts mean nothing. Delusions, premonitions, feelings, and the force are what matter. Oh, and Sony. Sony is the "Gold Standard." Don't believe it? Just check out those spec sheets. The spec sheets tell you everything you need to know. Everyone knows Canon sucks.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses.
> 1. If it is expensive, then its gotta be perfectly FF capable or
> 2. If it is crop only, then its gotta be inexpensive (and really small + light)
> as far as I am concerned. Up to now EF-M lenses have met criteria #2 perfectly well. 32/1.4 ... likely not.
> ...




But you are not 'the masses' - you are someone with very esoteric requirements who thinks they represent the masses.

Yousaid 


fullstop said:


> "the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive.



dtaylor responded 


> If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.


Which is a fair point. APS-C is absolutely fine for 'the masses' - heck, it is absolutely fine for most people who shoot FF most of the time.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

You really believe a decent, mirrorfree FF-sensored camera in a compact form factor is an "esoteric requirement"? 
I'd say, there are "masses" of folks interested in exactly that.

I don't see, why those people should remain relegated to half-sensor systems, when full-sensor goodness can be packaged into not much larger cameras. And compact lenses covering the entire most frequently used focal length range are also perfectly feasible - technically and economically.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> You really believe a decent, mirrorfree FF-sensored camera in a compact form factor is an "esoteric requirement"?
> I'd say, there are "masses" of folks interested in exactly that.
> 
> I don't see, why those people should remain relegated to half-sensor systems, when full-sensor goodness can be packaged into not much larger cameras. And compact lenses covering the entire most frequently used focal length range are also perfectly feasible - technically and economically.




I said you particular requirements are esoteric - FF, not fast lenses, etc etc and you expect Canon to listen to you and give you what you need whereas you will actually get is Canon's defined compromises. 'The masses' do not care about FF mainly because they cannot afford it nor will they spend the money and even if you get your wild fantasy of a 1,000 USD FF that is still more than 'the masses' would pay. As you say, they prefer a compact camera and APS-C will give them that in a more compact format than FF with a minimal hit on image quality. I am not relegating anyone to 'half frame' formats just being aware of what the market actually is.

You seem to imagine what you know 'the masses', but you then define 'the masses' as yourself.

PS - did you know that your beloved 'full frame' was actually developed as 'half frame' ('half sensor' in today's parlance) to save size?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> PS - did you know that your beloved 'full frame' was actually developed as 'half frame' ('half sensor' in today's parlance) to save size?



of course. In German 36x24mm" is called "Kleinbild" = small image, translated literally. 
"Full frame" is technically a dumb term, i just use it because it is widely understood, rather than typing 36x24mm every time. 

I consider APS-C as a compromise that was necessary in the early days of (consumer priced) digital cameras, when 36x24 sensors where not available or prohibitively expensive. It also reeks of some of the spirit that was at work with APS-C film ... basically cheating customers out of "FF goodness". 
Those days are really over. Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices and not having to put up with half-format or even quarter-format sensored gear [unless they pursue such "exotic" niches of photographic interest where a smaler sensor is of advantage]. 

A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto. Industry typical oligopolist gross margin levels would be a few percentage points lower. That's all. But definitely not "loss leader". 

I know, CaNikonSony want to push hard to go always more hi-end. "Premium" [= making people pay a lot more for a product than its true, functional value] ... it will only accelerate the "spiral of death". Very similar to how those once proud and arrogant german camera/optical manufacturers lost everything to more affordable products from Japan. There is little room at the top of the pyramid and it is firmly taken by Leica. Canon, Nikon, Sony will not be able to occupy that space. Just like Nissan Infinity and Toyota Lexus did not dislodge Mercedes-Benz, Porsche or Bentley.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You seem to imagine what you know 'the masses', but you then define 'the masses' as yourself.


AvTvM is legion. 




fullstop said:


> A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto.


Again I ask...is this assertion:
A) based on your extensive and demonstrated knowledge of R&D, production and overhead costs in the ILC industry?, or
B) based on your documented discussions with finance groups at Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al.?, or
C) more sh!t that you just make up to post on the internet?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices
> ...
> A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto. Industry typical oligopolist gross margin levels would be a few percentage points lower. That's all. But definitely not "loss leader".



I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable - and even if they could afford it, whether they are willing to spend that money on a camera.
For all your quasi-historical ramblings about the birth of APS-C, it does not escape my point (which I note you studiously avoided) that APS-C suits the requirements of a vast majority of people, and probably more so than FF does.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable - and even if they could afford it, whether they are willing to spend that money on a camera.
> For all your quasi-historical ramblings about the birth of APS-C, it does not escape my point (which I note you studiously avoided) that APS-C suits the requirements of a vast majority of people, and probably more so than FF does.


What is the difference between a 67D2 and an 80D?

Both are roughly the same size body, roughly the same featyure set, yet one is crop and the other is FF? It is the sensor.

Way back when, it cost Canon $15 to make a 60D sensor and $250 to make a 5D2 sensor, mostly because of yield problems. Nowadays, the cost should be closer.... lets say $100 difference.... by the time you figure in margins and markups and distribution percentages, that might turn into $250-$500 difference to the consumer (just guessing here)..... So yes, I CAN see a FF rebel being sold for $1000 in the future, but as long as enough people are willing to pay more than that, Canon (and Nikon/Sony) are going to sell them for as much as they can get away with.....


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

@neuroanatomist 

A,B,C not needed. a much simpler 3 step thought process is all it takes. 

1. Delta in max. wafer yield for APS-C [80) vs. FF sensors (24). Based on 8" sensors. Ratio: 3.3, let's generously round it to 5 to allow for less than optimal yields. If they use larger diameter wafers in 2018 [12" ?], that ratio will be even more favorable, closer to 3x. According to various industry sources, production costs should be in the area of around 30 - 40 bucks for APS-C CMOS image sensors. So at factor 5, FF sensors might be around 150 to 200 bucks. Probably already a high guesstimate.

2. Now, if both Canon and Fuji can sell EOS M50/X-T100 APS_C cameras for around 500 retail (including 20% VAT) and with profit [assumed, but "extremely likely" ] then an equivalent FF mirrorfree camera with slightly larger body shell and somewhat stronger DIGIC/processing pipeline and somewhat better power pack should be also possible at 999 [retail]. 

3. Ah yes, gross margin per unit would be lower. But ... I dare to predict that "the masses" would buy A LOT of "decent FF-sensored Canon "EOS X5" at USD 999". A lot more units than any marginally iterated 6D Mk. III, IV, V mirrorslappers or Nikon Z6/Sony A7 III at 2 grand. Not to mention even more expensive products. 999 is a very nice price point. Just look how well it worked for Canon when they had the wisdom to launch an industry-first digital SLR at 999.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable



ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.


If Canon integrates a dual-SIM Android with camera2 API....


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.



Which is part of my point. For 'the masses' camera purchases are not high on the agenda because smart phones are 'good enough' as cameras' and once you accept that APS-C will be more than they ever need. Why do they need to go down the FF route? 
If you argument is the mirrorless offers the option of smaller kit then APS-C offers even smaller and even cheaper while producing image quality more than most people will ever need. 
You keep on going about a smaller cheaper package then denying the very logic when it does not result in the camera that you personally want.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3. Ah yes, gross margin per unit would be lower. But ... I dare to predict that "the masses" would buy A LOT of "decent FF-sensored Canon "EOS X5" at USD 999". A lot more units than any marginally iterated 6D Mk. III, IV, V mirrorslappers or Nikon Z6/Sony A7 III at 2 grand. Not to mention even more expensive products. 999 is a very nice price point. Just look how well it worked for Canon when they had the wisdom to launch an industry-first digital SLR at 999.




Yes, the masses would buy them. But then SOny, Nikon and everyone else jumps on the same bandwagon and you end up with exactly the same market share you have now except that everyone is making a lot less profit. And a lot less profit means less money to invest in development and innovation.
And to then draw a parallel with a time when Canon were the only one making them to any reasonable extent is ludicrous in the extreme.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

yes, but no.  
When Canon came with the Digital Rebel @999, Nikon and others could have done so too. But ... it took them a while. Meanwhile Canon's market share gained massively in the meantime. And they got a lot of new customers into their system, who purchased lots of successor products and lenses, even if on average only 1.25 lenses or so. In any case ... record profits.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, but no.
> When Canon came with the Digital Rebel @999, Nikon and others could have done so too. But ... it took them a while. Meanwhile Canon's market share gained massively in the meantime. And they got a lot of new customers into their system, who purchased lots of successor products and lenses, even if on average only 1.25 lenses or so. In any case ... record profits.



And it won't happen again. The first digital was totally revolutionary. Mirrorless is a variation and people have perfectly viable alternatives in their hands already and can afford to 'wait and see'. It is a totally different environment.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You keep on going about a smaller cheaper package then denying the very logic when it does not result in the camera that you personally want.



No. There is more than enough demand for "my" mirrorfree compact FF @999. Why should such a product - in addition to more expensive, bigger, fatter ones - not also be offered?. 

"Canon proudly announces the all-new EOS X50 camera. Full-size sensor goodness! More photographic possibilities at your hand. Bright viewfinder to frame your images. AI-powered autofocus system to get them sharp. Great touchscreen and a few wheels and buttons for quick and simple operation. Advanced imaging technology in a compact package. 100% guaranteed free of smoke, mirrors, vibrations and noise. And best of all: yours for only USD/€999. 

Enjoy the future of photography. 

Innovative Canon can. And so can you.


----------



## BillB (Aug 28, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.
> 
> I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.



Hindsight speculation is really great. There will never be any facts to prove you wrong.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No. There is more than enough demand for "my" mirrorfree compact FF @999. Why should such a product - in addition to more expensive, bigger, fatter ones - not also be offered?.
> 
> "Canon proudly announces the all-new EOS X50 camera. Full-size sensor goodness! More photographic possibilities at your hand. Bright viewfinder to frame your images. AI-powered autofocus system to get them sharp. Great touchscreen and a few wheels and buttons for quick and simple operation. Advanced imaging technology in a compact package. 100% guaranteed free of smoke, mirrors, vibrations and noise. And best of all: yours for only USD/€999.
> 
> ...



You really don't understand business economics do you? Or the economics of doing business? 
Question: why hasn't anyone done it? Not Canon, but anyone?
Answer: Company X throws all in with a FF at 1,000 USD. Within 6 months all companies are doing it and the only result is that the market is exactly as it is now but everyone is making much less money.
And the 1,000 USD mirrorless FF price will pull down the price of the 5D4, 6D2, D850, A9, A73 so that makes it worse. 

As you seemed to miss that logic first time round, does repeating it help?

And this is brand agnostic. Any company that starts such a price band had better be prepared for a shitstorm of bad profit warnings. The only long term result would be Sony pulling out because they have better things to do with their money, Nikon not surviving (they have no other business areas to supplement the imaging business) and Canon deciding they will make more money with security and surveillance cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

AvTvM just wants Canon to make his personal unicorn camera and lenses. The rest of the lineup —heck, the rest of reality— be damned.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Those days are really over. Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices and not having to put up with half-format or even quarter-format sensored gear [unless they pursue such "exotic" niches of photographic interest where a smaler sensor is of advantage].



Why should they be able to do this? Because you wish it?

It's easy to show that FF sensors are more expensive just on wafer sizes/yields. But what you don't see is economies of scale where APS-C sensors are made in far larger numbers than FF.

That said, *there is a $1k "FF Rebel" available right now:* the Canon 6D. Yet it has not swept the market, and crop remains dominant. Why? Truth be told FF may push the IQ envelope but the envelope is already *huge* for APS-C systems. Any shipping crop body with a decent lens can produce stunning 16x20/24 landscape photos through ISO 800. Do you realize how few consumers ever make a 16x20? Do you think consumers are regularly producing 48" exhibition prints of Yosemite?

Crop more than meets their needs and they either get to save money or enjoy extra features. The masses are not clamoring for FF.

Let's not forget the wrinkle of "matching lenses." It's not easy to make corner-to-corner sharp FF glass. FF buyers demand it, but it's expensive. There's not a huge market for cheap FF glass that sacrifices speed and IQ.



> I know, CaNikonSony want to push hard to go always more hi-end. "Premium" [= making people pay a lot more for a product than its true, functional value] ... it will only accelerate the "spiral of death".



Have you priced Sony FF equipment?

It's not what they're pushing. It's what the market is demanding. FF has become the medium format of today. A profitable niche, but a niche where the utmost in IQ is expected. Low sales volume + perfection is priced accordingly.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 31, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I've had SD cards fail, CF cards fail, SD cards physically break (including, annoyingly, a Sandisk Extreme Pro 256GB where a piece of plastic broke off the front of the card and it now won't fit into the card slot properly - I am going to try and hack it back to life.), and CF slots break (pins bent or snapping off)
> 
> Considering the low cost of memory these days, wouldn't it be sensible if instead of a dual card system cameras came with some reasonable amount (32GB/64GB/128GB) of high speed flash memory built-in and a single card slot as a backup/expansion?
> 
> Just connect the camera via USB to export images as normal. It also means you could never take your camera out and forget to bring a card with you. Also, by using direct memory and avoiding any card interface you should be able to get very fast performance.


Sony just answered your prayers with the announced SD tough cards launching in October. We handle hundreds of media cards the failures of SD are tiny like almost never whereas CF & CFast are unreliable.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 1, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sony just answered your prayers with the announced SD tough cards launching in October. We handle hundreds of media cards the failures of SD are tiny like almost never whereas CF & CFast are unreliable.



Yes, I saw this and I will probably buy one.

And I would much rather an SD card break in a slot meaning I need to replace the SD card than a CF card break in a slot meaning my CF slot is screwed. 

Fortunately CF slots are history now, I can't imagine Canon putting one on another camera in the future, it'll either be SD or CFast from now on, both of which have much more reliable slots than CF. Actually, considering CF -> CFast mirrored the change from AT-IDE to SATA on hard disks I'm shocked it's taken so long for CF to die out.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 1, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Another interesting possibility.... I wonder if Canon is going to use a combo of OS and IBIS?


"OS"? 

No - Sigma would sue 'em...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 1, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I'm not saying the DSLR is useless



You'd have been laughed off the forum if you had...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 1, 2018)

fullstop said:


> And i don't shoot fast moving subjects, so .. mirrorfree perfect.



Indeed - MILCs are fine for unchallenging snapshots...


----------



## jkk1943 (Sep 8, 2018)

I have a Canon 5D4 and 7D2. Love them both and have enough Canon lens to make transitioning to a Nikon a chore, especially at my age 74. I was hoping new Canon mirrorless would be lighter and use EOS lenses. See now reason to switch to the EOS R because it is almost as heavy as my 5d4, ditto for the kit 24-105 lens. My real gripe is Canons failure to develop a native lens line up for the terrific new M bodies. They are light, capable mini 80D's. After five years of diddling with the system Canon comes out with a M 50mm f1.4 that costs more than their bodies. Still to this day they have no fit 35m's except the pancake lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2018)

jkk1943 said:


> My real gripe is Canons failure to develop a native lens line up for the terrific new M bodies. They are light, capable mini 80D's.


What lenses beyond the 7 available and one announced were you expecting? Compare EF-M to EF-S. Ultrawide through short tele focal lengths benefit from an APS-C image circle and shorter flange focal distance. For the M, Canon has a UWA zoom, standard zooms, a short telezoom, a superzoom, a macro, and a fast wide prime. All that was really missing was a fast normal prime...like the one just announced. 



jkk1943 said:


> After five years of diddling with the system Canon comes out with a M 50mm f1.4 that costs more than their bodies. Still to this day they have no fit 35m's except the pancake lens.



In what market? In the US, the M32/1.4 is $479. Although that's cheaper than an M100, the entry level xxxxD bodies are cheaper than the 35/2 IS. As for 'no fit 35m's except the pancake lens', what do you expect? The 22/2 pancake *is* 35mm FF equivalent. 

Sorry, your points really don't make sense, sounds like you just want to gripe about nothing. Hope the rest of your weekend goes better.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 8, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> IBIS has nothing to do with mirrorless, that's a red herring, it can be in any camera. Short flangeback distances cause big light fall off issues at the edges of the sensor that is difficult to correct. Canon DSLR's have silent shooting if you know how to use it.
> 
> I suspect that the percentage of people using older manual focus and manual aperture lenses on a high mp camera will be few, particularly if they are aware of the poor resolution performance.
> 
> Nikon proved this with the failed DF.


Poor resolution???? Are you kidding?
Ever used the apochromatic Leica lenses?
As a user of Canon L and Leica lenses, whenever I can (manual focusing being the limit), I use Leica apo lenses!


----------



## dtaylor (Sep 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> What lenses beyond the 7 available and one announced were you expecting?



If Canon had a few more primes like the 22 f/2 the M series would probably have a cult following. The lens costs practically nothing yet can hang IQ wise with much, much more expensive glass. It's so good and cheap it's worth buying an M body, slapping on that lens, and treating it like a P&S even if you have another crop system (Sony or Fuji).

I wish they would do a cheap 32 f/2 and a cheap 85 f/2 or f/2.8 with IQ similar to the 22 f/2. That would make for one heck of a lightweight, low cost, high IQ kit.


----------



## BillB (Sep 8, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> If Canon had a few more primes like the 22 f/2 the M series would probably have a cult following. The lens costs practically nothing yet can hang IQ wise with much, much more expensive glass. It's so good and cheap it's worth buying an M body, slapping on that lens, and treating it like a P&S even if you have another crop system (Sony or Fuji).
> 
> I wish they would do a cheap 32 f/2 and a cheap 85 f/2 or f/2.8 with IQ similar to the 22 f/2. That would make for one heck of a lightweight, low cost, high IQ kit.


I think it may have a cult following already, a cult that likes inexpensive, light high quality zooms, with a couple of inexpensive, light high quality primes thrown in.


----------

