# Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 11, 2018)

```
<a href="https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.aspx/">According to Nikon Rumors</a>, the upcoming full frame mirrorless from Nikon will have a new mount, dubbed the “Z Mount”. That name could change before the announcement.</p>
<p><strong>Specifications of the new mount:</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Designed for full frame mirrorless cameras</li>
<li>External diameter: 49mm</li>
<li>Flange focal distance: 16mm</li>
</ul>
<p>This is where Canon could really have an advantage. If they can somehow make the 130million or so EF lenses compatible with a full frame mirrorless without an adaptor, they won’t have a hard time getting Canon DSLR shooters to add a full frame mirrorless to their kit.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 11, 2018)

The flange focal distance of 16mm is 2mm shallower than the Sony E mount. If true, that probably means some pretty substantial optical compromises will need to be made for lenses, or Nikon's lenses will effectively need a built-in extension tube like the Sony G master series. 

Yet another mount flavor… Just with Nikon needs to add to their already confusing lens/body compatibility matrix.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 12, 2018)

It might not be such a bad move on Nikon's part. The new mount might allow an adapter that will enable the use of Canon glass...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The flange focal distance of 16mm is 2mm shallower than the Sony E mount. If true, that probably means some pretty substantial optical compromises will need to be made for lenses, or Nikon's lenses will effectively need a built-in extension tube like the Sony G master series.
> 
> Yet another mount flavor… Just with Nikon needs to add to their already confusing lens/body compatibility matrix.



Yes....

It seems that few people realize that the sharper you bend light, the more problems you get with chromatic aberration and sharpness. Canon could have easily made your 600F4 only half as long, but it would be a terrible lens....


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The flange focal distance of 16mm is 2mm shallower than the Sony E mount. If true, that probably means some pretty substantial optical compromises will need to be made for lenses, or Nikon's lenses will effectively need a built-in extension tube like the Sony G master series.
> 
> Yet another mount flavor… Just with Nikon needs to add to their already confusing lens/body compatibility matrix.



well based on the rumors on this site previously that canon will just use the EF-M mount modified for full frame (google it), nothing nikon and sony will find hard canon will not find hard too. All 3 companies are going the same way.

Honestly, do you really think canon will slap the EF mount without a mirror and call it done? What about all those rumors of a new mount? Seem more likely all 3 companies have decided to ditch their DSLR mounts in favor of mounts with closer flange focal distances.

This means actually EF glass on nikon bodies being top of the 3rd party adapter companies' priorities out there. It seems the end of the DSLR mounts is here. 

Adapters will rule during the transition. No doubt the reason nikon and canon have taken so long: creating the perfect adapters is key.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2018)

psolberg said:


> Honestly, do you really think canon will slap the EF mount without a mirror and call it done? What about all those rumors of a new mount?



I think it's a better than even chance they'll do just that. Sony, and to a lesser extent Nikon, need to drive users to switch to their brand. As such, adapted compatibility with another brand's lenses is rather important. Canon will take switchers, of course, but as the market leader by a substantial margin, their most important need is direct compatibility with their own lenses...all 130 million of them. 

As for rumors, what about >6 years of 100-400 MkII rumors? :




psolberg said:


> Adapters will rule during the transition. No doubt the reason nikon and canon have taken so long: creating the perfect adapters is key.



No doubt?? Yeah, Canon and Nikon's engineers couldn't figure out how to properly design a sturdy, empty tube with some simple pass-through electronic contacts. Sheesh. If I send you $1 by PayPal, will you go buy a clue? : : :


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <a href="https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.aspx/">According to Nikon Rumors</a>, the upcoming full frame mirrorless from Nikon will have a new mount, dubbed the “Z Mount”. That name could change before the announcement.</p>
> <p><strong>Specifications of the new mount:</strong></p>
> 
> <ul>
> ...



this assumes:

1) nikon won't do the same thing by trivially removing the mirror from a D850 (which they may still do anyway and probably will because there are some people who want a big dslr for balance). This rumor doesn't negate that possibility at all. In fact, I bet they do both and see what people buy.

2) nikon intends to fully replace their lens lineup for the professional market which may not be the case at all: they could simply release lenses for the market interested in such smaller cameras while leaving the big gear to the people interested in dslrs. Again, just because they are making a lens or two for a full frame camera doesn't mean everything is going to migrate. If sales aren't there, they can easily pull back to #1.

3) that canon will sit on the sidelines and never create a full frame interchangeable lenses compact camera in the spirit of the EF-M. But if they sit it out, they risk giving market away to sony and nikon making smaller cameras with smaller flange distances for full frame buyers. will canon really sit it out and risk falling behind should #1 prove a sales flop? I doubt it. You yourself reported on this site canon was working on an adapter.

most likely both companies will hedge bets. I think the consumer will decide in the end but neither canon nor nikon would be investing this much it seems if their plans were to only delete the mirror and call it a day. And it may very well be both ditch their DSLR mounts in the end if in fact consumers and pros start to transition to the new gear.


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, do you really think canon will slap the EF mount without a mirror and call it done? What about all those rumors of a new mount?
> ...



well again, this site reported on such rumors. Are you saying canon RD cannot make an adapter as a means to exploit a potential new market? You sound like a true arm-chair engineer. so I'll give you my dollar and add another for you to buy double the clues 

And if you're right, then the EOS-M is well dead then as it will not see a full frame offering and will need to compete with sony FE and Nikon Z full frame options with nothing to come back with except...an apology for misleading its customers into a dead mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2018)

psolberg said:


> well again, this site reported on such rumors.



Seems you don't understand what the word 'rumor' means. 

*ru·mor* ˈro͞omər _noun_
1. a currently circulating story or report of *uncertain or doubtful truth*.

If you're looking for canonfacts.com, you're in the wrong place – check out Canon's press release page. The rumors reported here are wrong far more often then they're right. 




psolberg said:


> Are you saying canon RD cannot make an adapter as a means to exploit a potential new market?



No, you said that. According to you, that's why Canon and Nikon haven't released a FF MILC. Please, quit while you're behind and before you embarrass yourself further.


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > well again, this site reported on such rumors.
> ...



There is a difference between saying canon is taking long in making one and you implying they cannot. I say they are taking long as a statement of fact. YOU are the one embarrassing yourself implying they cannot do so. 

And while true that a rumor is just a rumor, it is certainly not beyond the realm of what canon can do. Right now on this very front page we see a patent for an adapter. Not to say that is what they do, but we see certainly canon is interested. So again, quit the armchair engineering and stop telling it as if YOU had a clue because you don't.

Off course canon could do both, or neither. That's not my point. My point is, this site has had several tips, we have seen some patents, and adapters are not out of the realm of what is possible. So unless you have an actual shread of evidence as to a mirrorless full frame camera on EF, maybe connect the dots a bit better next time.

Also I find the fact you're arguing with me over me citing rumors FROM canon rumors, IN canon rumors, as if that subject is taboo here entirely ridiculous. So you should take your own advice and go to canonfacts.com. This is the rumor site as the name implies.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 12, 2018)

psolberg said:


> well based on the rumors on this site previously that canon will just use the EF-M mount modified for full frame (google it), nothing nikon and sony will find hard canon will not find hard too. All 3 companies are going the same way.



That was one of the most outstandingly stupid rumours that ever graced this site.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 12, 2018)

Considering how contrarian* Nikon and Canon are I’d take this to be confirmation that Canon will keep the EF mount for theirs. 

*Things like lens mount direction, dial direction etc etc. if Nikon do it one way Canon do it the other and visa versa.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2018)

psolberg said:


> There is a difference between saying canon is taking long in making one and you implying they cannot. I say they are taking long as a statement of fact.



So, you are claiming this statement as fact: "No doubt the reason nikon and canon have taken so long: creating the perfect adapters is key." It's a fact that neither Canon nor Nikon have yet launched a FF MILC. But your statement that the _reason_ they have not done so yet is that they have not yet managed to create a perfect mount adapter is, quite simply, ludicrous and asinine. It's your opinion, you are welcome to share it, no matter how foolish it makes you appear.




psolberg said:


> YOU are the one embarrassing yourself implying they cannot do so.



Oh, you mean the statement that was followed by the word 'sheesh' and three successive . Oh my goodness, yes, that was a totally, completely, and in all other ways serious, honest statement on my part. Sheesh.







Only one  this time, but I made it bigger, 'cuz I guess you didn't see the first three. It denotes sarcasm. Here's a good read for you:

https://www.gq.com/story/three-years-for-the-eye-roll-emoji

You might also try this handy tome:


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 12, 2018)

Canon could make an EF mount that allows Mirrorless lenses to sink another 20mm into the mount, giving you an effective 20mm flange distnace if required.
So it would basically still be an EF mount, but a few nice wide angle lenses could be made.

The worst part would be using a 20mm deep rear cap.


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > There is a difference between saying canon is taking long in making one and you implying they cannot. I say they are taking long as a statement of fact.
> ...



lol you're pissing into the wind. Not a good idea. but please continue as it is amusing to see the desperation in your oversized dramatical emojis. Pretty weak. My statement of fact refers to the fact canon is yet to show a full frame system for mirrorless while the rumors of it date back from quite a number of years, and some of its competitors have moved there. I say it is taking long because, just like nikon, every time there is even a hint of what they may do, everybody reports on it. Or do you think they are not taking long? If so, there is a bridge in Alaska I need to sell you. It has a great view. And yes, My OPINION is just that, because I think they are talking long to do this move, because it needs to work flawlessly or it will cause end-user backslash. Could my opinion be wrong? off course, but as you're an armchair engineer, it will not be wrong because you know any better, which clearly you do not. 

You attempt to speak from a position of authority yet, you have basically no clue yourself. Then re-inforce that by resorting to pretty empty arguments and forum flaming, that honestly, doesn't even advance your argument.

Again armchair engineering aside, you've given no reason yourself other than trying to insult anybody who calls you out for your cluelessness or has a different opinion. That doesn't strengthen your argument, if there is any whatsoever. Again if you have any FACTS to the contrary, pleas do share them. I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But If you just have your opinion to counter my opinion.... : : at least get a towel to wipe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2018)

psolberg said:


> My statement of fact refers to the fact canon is yet to show a full frame system for mirrorless while the rumors of it date back from quite a number of years, and some of its competitors have moved there. I say it is taking long because, just like nikon, every time there is even a hint of what they may do, everybody reports on it.





psolberg said:


> No doubt the reason nikon and canon have taken so long: creating the perfect adapters is key.



You said it's taking long because they haven't been able to create the perfect adapter.

Really, there's no point in discussing anything with someone so dishonest. Have a nice day.


----------



## peters (Jan 12, 2018)

I personaly thing this would be a bad decision. In my opinion the lense selection is realy important - and I would never want to carry different lenses around that I cant use with my secondary camera... 
Nikon offers realy great and very sharp lenses - I realy don't think winning a few mm in camera size is eraly worth throwing all this away...


----------



## tmroper (Jan 12, 2018)

Why not go with an interchangeable viewfinder like the old Nikons like the F3? One can have a pentamirror, another could have an EFV (used with the mirror locked up/mechanical shutter locked open)?


----------



## Talys (Jan 12, 2018)

peters said:


> I personaly thing this would be a bad decision. In my opinion the lense selection is realy important - and I would never want to carry different lenses around that I cant use with my secondary camera...
> Nikon offers realy great and very sharp lenses - I realy don't think winning a few mm in camera size is eraly worth throwing all this away...



Indeed. It will be years before there is a native mount lens portfolio that is complete enough for the Nikon FF MILC to be a replacement for their mirrorslappers, for most people who would need/want a full frame camera.


----------



## Sarpedon (Jan 12, 2018)

If Nikon is smart they'll offer an excellent adapter for a very low price.


----------



## brad-man (Jan 12, 2018)

Sarpedon said:


> If Nikon is smart they'll offer an excellent adapter for a very low price.



They will most certainly offer an excellent adapter. The price is another matter.


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > My statement of fact refers to the fact canon is yet to show a full frame system for mirrorless while the rumors of it date back from quite a number of years, and some of its competitors have moved there. I say it is taking long because, just like nikon, every time there is even a hint of what they may do, everybody reports on it.
> ...



When you attack the person instead of the argument, you lost all credibility. I will have a nice day. I can agree on that.


----------



## psolberg (Jan 12, 2018)

peters said:


> I personaly thing this would be a bad decision. In my opinion the lense selection is realy important - and I would never want to carry different lenses around that I cant use with my secondary camera...
> Nikon offers realy great and very sharp lenses - I realy don't think winning a few mm in camera size is eraly worth throwing all this away...



Nikon rumors talks about an adapter so it is the same thinking behind EOS-M. The only lenses that wouldn't be compatible would be a new modern mirrorless lenses mounted on the old dslr bodies. But that won't matter until the mirrorless selection is superior, at which point the original concern of the new mount needing an adapter will be mostly moot. 

I've seen NR post a few patents for nikon mirrorless lenses which intrigued me a bit. one was a 50mm f/0.9x and a 35mm f/1.2. IF (and I emphasize that) such patents are representative of their first lens batch, it could be indeed a bit of a burn for the larger DSLR buyers. However more realistically I'd expect a new system to start with your standard variety of redundant zooms and basic primes. Nothing that would make a nikon dslr owner care much as long as whatever they own does work with the new mirrorless camera.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> So my money is on a thin mount FF mirrorless (+FX adaptor, surely) for Nikon, and -- their pride be damned -- without saying the words "Canon lenses will work on it" they will make it clear what the advantages of a thin mount is.



...and the more I think about it, this is a non-zero land-grab opportunity for Nikon.

Have a lot of Nikkor glass or Nikon speedlites? Keep using 'em.

Want some tiny mirrorless 35f/2.8 for a tiny travel kit? Here you are.

Always wanted to try that Canon 11-24 / MP E 65 / 400 5.6 / etc? Done.

Oh, you're an A7 user with a bag full of adapted glass who doesn't want a tiny grip and menu/controls designed by a 14 year old binging on Monster energy drinks? Welcome! The tears you involuntarily are ugly crying right now are from the feeling of a comfortable hand grip and buttons and controls where you need them -- this is normal. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Canon could make an EF mount that allows Mirrorless lenses to sink another 20mm into the mount, giving you an effective 20mm flange distnace if required.
> So it would basically still be an EF mount, but a few nice wide angle lenses could be made.
> 
> The worst part would be using a 20mm deep rear cap.



...and mis-mounting the lens. That idea above sounds teleconverter-y to me, and I'm always skittish about mounting my 2x III vs. the ease of a standard EF lens changeout.

(It's a super clever idea you get at -- I don't mean to dismiss it -- but perhaps in our focus by wire collapsible electronic future all the 'reaching into the body' bits _telescope backwards automatically after startup_ to avoid a mis-mount or optical element scratch.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Sarpedon said:
> 
> 
> > If Nikon is smart they'll offer an excellent adapter for a very low price.
> ...



One of the pain points of being second or third in the market is that you have to come harder each and every new launch.

So if you can get a first Nikon grip for free with a body these days, the FX adaptor may just come in the box as well as _two_ batteries with this new mirrorless offering.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Jan 12, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Sarpedon said:
> ...



They might also come with chocolate. I like chocolate.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 12, 2018)

There is a reason Sony didn't keep the A mount on their mirrorless. There is a reason that Nikon didn't keep the F mount on theirs.

And that's the same forward-thinking that Nikon failed with, and Canon excelled with, when switching to autofocus lenses back in the 80s. 

You ditch the mount, you have an amount of pain in the short term (but far less than the FD->EF transition), and you win from having the better system.

There is no compromise about a shorter flange distance. The EF mount *IS* the compromise, with a large flange distance required to keep the mirror out of the way of the back of the lens.

Without the mirror this compromise is not needed.

All the talk about shorter flange distances bending light differently are complete red herrings. Lenses don't have to be designed with the rear element right bang on the flange distance. Indeed even most EF lenses have at least some gap already.

Your personal fear of having to upgrade lenses is just that - fear. It has nothing to do with what Canon needs to look at, which is building the future market. Selling cameras to existing customers is important, but the number of Canon EOS owners who own more than just the kit lens is a small percentage of their market.

If Canon caves in and does an EF mount mirrorless body it will be uninspired, it will likely fail in comparisons with the other makes in independent reviews, and potentially a commercial failure. 


But, if Canon were to do a new mount (or even just the EF-M mount) suitable for FF pro-cameras, and were to bundle the camera body with an adaptor for EF glass that is:

a) fully weather sealed

b) physically securable by more than just the bayonet, perhaps with a device that attaches to the bottom of the adaptor and also to the tripod mount on the body, to give a more stable platform.

Then you have the best of both worlds. Take the adaptor off, and you have a compact FF camera that will take a new generation of compact lightweight primes for the new system 35mm f/2.8, 50mm 1/.8 etc.

That's what I want to see


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 12, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Your personal fear of having to upgrade lenses is just that - fear. It has nothing to do with what Canon needs to look at, which is building the future market.



I'm split on the mount as I see enthusiasts and gadgety folks wanting something smaller (for modestly spec'd short/mid-FL lenses) vs. pros / serious hobbyists wanting a 5D sans mirror.

But forget any fear you perceive for a moment. _What is the benefit of going thin_ and making people either use an adaptor or buy new native glass? As I see it, the lists include:


Adapt older/other-mount glass.


For those decidedly unsexy lenses you just stated, you can create a smaller aggregate lens + body combo, sure.

And....? Anything else?

Because if not, it sounds like you're saying _all Canon owners of existing glass_ need to choose between using adaptors for all their old glass (and hoping they never leave that adaptor at home while on assignment) and buying all new mirrorless mount lenses?

...just so _some_ of us can occasionally build a cute 35 f/2.8 travel setup or tinker with a Nikkor 14-24 or old Canon FD lens -- even though very few of us are going to do that? Really? Is that all?

Now I am actually not a flat-out 'no thank you' opponent to thin mount -- I sit somewhere between the gearhead tinkerer who might love that value proposition and the 'I hope it is totally seamless with my FF SLR' camp. I see both sides of it. But for me, the move to a thin mount will mean years of adaptor use as Canon builds the lenses I need for the new mount. I can't honestly say I'm looking forward to that, as I don't plan to adapt much old glass and the times I _must_ have a smaller rig are only when I'm traveling on business and my bag is stuffed with work items. 

That's a hard sell, dude -- I need more to willingly walk into that convenience. Tell me it's a curved sensor and FF lenses will actually get smaller and you'll get my money. Tell me these new mount lenses are (IDK) carbon fiber or basalt based and that they're half the weight but still just as tough. I just need a little more to tipped over to Thin.

But depending on where you sit on the continuum of the [opportunity of thin mount] vs. the [nuisance of thin mount], your love of the sales pitch above will vary, and wildly so.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But forget any fear you perceive for a moment. _What is the benefit of going thin_ and making people either use an adaptor or buy new native glass?



The benefit for you, or for Canon?

From Canon's point of view there is one benefit. They sell more cameras and lenses. You may not be happy with having (eventually) to upgrade lenses, but you'll do it.




ahsanford said:


> and hoping they never leave that adaptor at home while on assignment
> 
> ...
> 
> But for me, the move to a thin mount will mean years of adaptor use as Canon builds the lenses I need for the new mount.



Well, if you're going to keep the adaptor stuck on the camera all the time you're not going to leave it at home, are you?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

I love the idea of curved sensors, but that would be a real problem for all of us with legacy glass! Entirely new lenses for us all.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, if you're going to keep the adaptor stuck on the camera all the time you're not going to leave it at home, are you?



It's a rare threat, but it's still a threat. Most people if stuck with a thin mount setup will eventually say 'aw shucks' and get a pancake or smaller mirrorless mount lens. 

Then you put it in your bag with that lens attached and with three EF lenses and a speedlite to shoot an an event. You do the visual check of body / lenses / speedlites / blackrapid / batteries / memory cards / etc. and -- everything being there -- you go out on your way.

And you walk into that event without the adaptor.

As improbable as that might be, it 100% will happen to people in their first year of ownership. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but someone will feel the pain of this. That failure mode / situation is completely taken off the board with a full EF mount.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I love the idea of curved sensors, but that would be a real problem for all of us with legacy glass! Entirely new lenses for us all.



Any chance a *really* fancy adaptor can 'unbend' the light so than an EF lens works on a curved sensor?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Selling cameras to existing customers is important, but the number of Canon EOS owners who own more than just the kit lens is a small percentage of their market.



The number of Canon EOS owners who own a FF dSLR is also a small percentage of their market. But, I'd bet good money that there's a significant overlap between those who own more than just the kit lens and those who own a FF dSLR...and we're discussing a FF MILC here. In other words, Canon owners looking for a FF MILC are those most likely to own multiple lenses.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> It's a rare threat, but it's still a threat. Most people if stuck with a thin mount setup will eventually say 'aw shucks' and get a pancake or smaller mirrorless mount lens.



And yet you're still more likely to go out without a memory card and/or spare batteries. 

I don't really see why this is such a big issue.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Any chance a *really* fancy adaptor can 'unbend' the light so than an EF lens works on a curved sensor?
> 
> - A



Only with an adaptor with extra glass inside, and that would impact on quality.

So no, you don't want to use existing glass with a curved sensor.

Now, if Canon can get the sensor to change shape....


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 13, 2018)

Lenses already cast light at an angle, the sensor would work just fine with existing lenses, even the field of focus is already curved (if my understanding is correct).

The only problem is lenses corrected for a flat sensor would have a bit of distortion on the edges, but it would have to be pretty severe for most people to care, and Canon could build in a software correction.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Lenses already cast light at an angle, the sensor would work just fine with existing lenses, even the field of focus is already curved (if my understanding is correct).
> 
> The only problem is lenses corrected for a flat sensor would have a bit of distortion on the edges, but it would have to be pretty severe for most people to care, and Canon could build in a software correction.



No, the image would be defocused towards the edges as the lens is designed (if it's designed properly!) to project a sharp image onto a flat surface, when that surface is curved you're moving the sensor out of that plane of focus.

The whole reason to do this is that it's much easier to design new lenses that focus onto the curved sensor (so less glass = higher quality + lower weight) than onto a flat plane, so that the new lenses won't work with old sensors, and vice versa.

This would be very much like the switch from FD to EF. There'd be converters to allow attaching lenses, but it'd be optically pointless so you'd be better off selling your old glass and investing in new.


----------



## littleB (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Now, if Canon can get the sensor to change shape....


At least we saw such patent from Canon.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

littleB said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if Canon can get the sensor to change shape....
> ...



Yes, but this is an order of magnitude at least more difficult than IBIS, which Canon still haven't figured out.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> This would be very much like the switch from FD to EF. There'd be converters to allow attaching lenses, but it'd be optically pointless so you'd be better off selling your old glass and investing in new.



Canon made a very small number of FD to EOS converters that only worked with some of the big telephoto lenses, they were actually TC's and had glass in them and never went on the retail market, they were reserved for some of the pros. There was no way, or convertor, that attached general FD glass to EOS bodies reliably.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Yes, but this is an order of magnitude at least more difficult than IBIS, which Canon still haven't figured out.



What makes you think they haven't figured it out? All we know is that they haven't _implemented_ IBIS, and they've stated repeatedly that in-lens IS is better. I'm sure they don't mind that they can charge more for every lens with that feature...


----------



## dak723 (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> There is no compromise about a shorter flange distance. The EF mount *IS* the compromise, with a large flange distance required to keep the mirror out of the way of the back of the lens.
> 
> Without the mirror this compromise is not needed.



You seem like a nice fellow. Your posts, in general, are smart and informative. So why you keep repeating this falsehood is beyond me. The more you need to bend the light to meet the sensor, the more image quality decreases. This is basic optics. The space needed for the mirror is NOT the only or perhaps even the main reason that the flange distance is what it is in the EF mount. More space - and less bending of the light - is a plus optically. Yes, with wide angle lenses, this extra space seems not to be needed. But otherwise, it is a plus.



> All the talk about shorter flange distances bending light differently are complete red herrings. Lenses don't have to be designed with the rear element right bang on the flange distance. Indeed even most EF lenses have at least some gap already.



Yes, this is correct and exactly why Sony's higher priced lenses are larger than their EF counterparts. They add space in the back of the lens. And those EF lenses you mention that already have some space - my guess is that at those focal lengths, that extra space is needed precisely because *more space = better optics*. So, whether you add the space in the back of the lens or in the mount seems to equal things out. Thus, there is no real advantage in the smaller mount, is there?



> Your personal fear of having to upgrade lenses is just that - fear.



Fear as nothing to do with it. To replace lenses going from one system to another costs money. More money than most people can afford. And it will take years to build up a system of lenses. I believe it has been said that Canon - or any camera company - can afford and has the resources - to put out 2 or 3 lenses a year. Just take a look at this forum and the lens requests that people are wanting. Are you wiling to wait 5 years of more for that prime or super-telephoto that you already have now in EF mount?


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 13, 2018)

This is where Canon could really have an advantage. If they can somehow make the 130million or so EF lenses compatible with a full frame mirrorless without an adaptor, they won’t have a hard time getting Canon DSLR shooters to add a full frame mirrorless to their kit.

It is very simple to make EF lenses compatible.
Look at the FTb, the mount area is extended from the body for the proper lens to film distance and keeping the body thin and in my opinion as thin as can easily be held.
The same could be done for a FF Canon mirrorless keeping the EF mount and even allowing for all EFs lenses as well as there is no mirror issue making all the lenses work wonderfully. This would orphan the M series unless they have the M for the uber small line sort of like Sony has the 6000 series and the M would still be great for using the old FD, FL and R lenses with an adapter not needing glass in it and the M series would still work wonderfully with EF lenses and have M lenses when you want a truly small package for walking around with a lightweight package and still use your 100-400mmL easily with it if desired. Also no incompatibility with any EF lens ever made due to the brilliant engineering of Canon with the EOS system others are just now catching up to.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 13, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The more you need to bend the light to meet the sensor, the more image quality decreases. This is basic optics.



And again you're missing the point.

With a shorter flange distance you can make a cheap lens that suffers from the problems you suggest.

But:

a) Sony seem to have done just fine with excellent lenses such as the FE 35mm f/2.8 and the incredible FE 55mm f/1.8 So, if there's an insurmountable optical problem how have Sony figured it out?

b) A longer flange distance prevents you making lenses with a shorter distance to the sensor. A shorter flange distance does not prevent you making lenses with a longer distance.


I get the argument that you don't want adaptors. It's not ideal, I skipped on the iPhone 7 because I didn't want to use an adaptor for my headphones.

This is a perfectly valid reason NOT to want a new mount.

But, sorry, it's spreading FUD to say that a smaller flange distance = poorer quality optics, for the reasons I've stated above.

I'm going to attach the following image just to show that I have a vested interest in supporting the EF mount. It would be very much more sensible for me to get a EF mirrorless mount. In fact, I'm sure I'd buy one if it had a high enough resolution sensor. I already have the A7RII so I don't actually *need* a more compact FF camera. 

But I still think in the long term to compete with Sony and Nikon that Canon do need to look at a new system that is smaller and lighter (at least when using small primes). The 200D shows that this isn't necessarily impossible with an EF mount, but it comes down to can Canon sell the camera to *new buyers* over the Nikon or Sony offerings. Canon, rightly or wrongly, figure that their existing customers will buy what they have to offer regardless!


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 13, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses already cast light at an angle, the sensor would work just fine with existing lenses, even the field of focus is already curved (if my understanding is correct).
> ...



https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/field-curvature-and-stopping-down/

The idea of lenses being "designed properly" is sufficiently vague that I'm confident no-one would actually care outside of maybe wanting to re-adjust their micro focus.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 14, 2018)

It's not a matter of micro focus. A curved sensor is designed for lenses that project an image onto a curved sensor. A normal lens won't work - except perhaps when shot with very narrow apertures where the depth of field is greater therefore the area in focus will be greater. 

But otherwise you'd get an area in the center in focus with increasing defocusing as you move towards the edge of the sensor. Maybe you'd be fine with portrait shots. but the wider the aperture the worse the effect would be.

Micro focus won't help because it's nothing that can be adjusted electronically, the only way you'd get a sharp image from an old lens would be to stick it on a tripod and for the camera to automatically stack multiple shots at slightly different focus points to get the whole image in focus.

So, curved sensors really make a lot more sense in fixed-lens cameras than ILCs right now, unless Canon wants to launch a brand new range of lenses from scratch. That's unlikely.


----------



## Talys (Jan 14, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not a matter of micro focus. A curved sensor is designed for lenses that project an image onto a curved sensor. A normal lens won't work - except perhaps when shot with very narrow apertures where the depth of field is greater therefore the area in focus will be greater.
> 
> But otherwise you'd get an area in the center in focus with increasing defocusing as you move towards the edge of the sensor. Maybe you'd be fine with portrait shots. but the wider the aperture the worse the effect would be.
> 
> ...



Not that I'm very knowledgeable about this subject, but would it not be possible to correct a lens designed for a flat sensor with additional optical elements (in an adapter), that distorts the image to accommodate the curved sensor?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 14, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> So, curved sensors really make a lot more sense in fixed-lens cameras than ILCs right now, unless Canon wants to launch a brand new range of lenses from scratch. That's unlikely.



Not just fixed, but prime. Lenses of different focal lengths require different degrees of curvature. Fortunately, Canon has anticipated this with a patent on a deformable sensor that can adopt varying degrees of curvature...including none (i.e. flat). Thus, such a sensor could work with current flat-field lenses, as well as newly-designed simpler lenses that don't flatten the field.


----------



## bwud (Jan 14, 2018)

psolberg said:


> 1) nikon won't do the same thing by trivially removing the mirror from a D850 (which they may still do anyway and probably will because there are some people who want a big dslr for balance). This rumor doesn't negate that possibility at all. In fact, I bet they do both and see what people buy.



There's zero chance anyone would buy a D850 without a mirror installed. If you want to use the D850 without a mirror, you lock it up via the menu. Removing completely hamstrings the camera as Nikon has perhaps the worst on-sensor autofocus available.


----------



## Ryananthony (Jan 14, 2018)

bwud said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > 1) nikon won't do the same thing by trivially removing the mirror from a D850 (which they may still do anyway and probably will because there are some people who want a big dslr for balance). This rumor doesn't negate that possibility at all. In fact, I bet they do both and see what people buy.
> ...



This is what has me worried about any ff mirrorless from Nikon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> But I still think in the long term to compete with Sony and Nikon that Canon do need to look at a new system that is smaller and lighter (at least when using small primes). The 200D shows that this isn't necessarily impossible with an EF mount, but it comes down to can Canon sell the camera to *new buyers* over the Nikon or Sony offerings. Canon, rightly or wrongly, figure that their existing customers will buy what they have to offer regardless!



Okay, you believe it needs to be small to be market competitive. Understood.

But what is a new buyer? I still (strongly) believe this market -- an FF camera that is anything but a point and shoot -- is not going to be your soccer mom, hockey dad, instagrammer jumping up from cell phone, etc. and walking into a store and buying one. These are four figure investments that generally are made by folks in the know who highly likely have cameras and lenses already (though possibly with a less pricey setup, say an APS-C body with a lens or two).

As such, if you break the market into three chunks...

1) Folks who do not own an ILC
2) Existing Canon ILC users
3) Competitive ILC users

...Canon is going to go after Group #2 with all its might. They know us from a customer/expectations standpoint and they have us somewhat trapped in the brand with prior glass. We are not a hard sell. short, for Canon, it's quite possibly more profitable knocking on the same old usual customer's door than taking the risk / cost / trouble of trying to the speak the language and fulfill the expectations of the competitive user.

I'm not dismissing the notion of making a new system attractive to camp #1 above, but that's a much bigger deal for the *crop *market customer, who might walk into a Best Buy, camera store, etc. and see 4-5 different companies' gear side by side. I just don't think FF buyers shop that way nearly as much.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 14, 2018)

bwud said:


> There's zero chance anyone would buy a D850 without a mirror installed. If you want to use the D850 without a mirror, you lock it up via the menu. Removing completely hamstrings the camera as Nikon has perhaps the worst on-sensor autofocus available.



Sure, but if Nikon got its sensor AF working better and put a solid EVF on the body, surely people _would _buy a mirrorless D850 for a host of reasons (mirrorless 5D4 analogy here).

That said, I don't think Nikon will do that as they are not the market leader -- for them to put a full FX mount on their mirrorless would basically be Nikon putting up a fence around its own customers and saying 'these folks will do, we don't need any others'. I see them going thin and offering an FX adaptor.

Canon, on the other hand, _*could *_go full mount (EF) and get away with it. Market leadership + (how many million?) lenses means that aiming a seamless solution to its hordes of shooters might be a higher priority (and much easier sale) than courting Sony and Nikon customers. 

- A


----------



## BillB (Jan 14, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > But I still think in the long term to compete with Sony and Nikon that Canon do need to look at a new system that is smaller and lighter (at least when using small primes). The 200D shows that this isn't necessarily impossible with an EF mount, but it comes down to can Canon sell the camera to *new buyers* over the Nikon or Sony offerings. Canon, rightly or wrongly, figure that their existing customers will buy what they have to offer regardless!
> ...



Another piece of the puzzle is aps-c, which is very much in the small size race. How well, really, can FF compete as small against aps-c, especially if it is more expensive and the lenses, especially zooms, are bigger (and more expensive)? On CR, we talk a lot about primes, and we may even buy them, but I don't know that there are all that many of us.


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 14, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> It's not a matter of micro focus. A curved sensor is designed for lenses that project an image onto a curved sensor. A normal lens won't work - except perhaps when shot with very narrow apertures where the depth of field is greater therefore the area in focus will be greater.
> 
> But otherwise you'd get an area in the center in focus with increasing defocusing as you move towards the edge of the sensor. Maybe you'd be fine with portrait shots. but the wider the aperture the worse the effect would be.
> 
> ...



A little more homework for you: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/11/testing-lenses-finding-the-best-average-focus-point/


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 14, 2018)

Talys said:


> Not that I'm very knowledgeable about this subject, but would it not be possible to correct a lens designed for a flat sensor with additional optical elements (in an adapter), that distorts the image to accommodate the curved sensor?



Yes, but with some loss of quality. You could theoretically have adaptors produced to high precision for specific lenses (or maybe groups of lenses at a similar focal length, eg Canon could produce an adaptor to allow the 'big whites' to work in such a way) but it'd still be one more group of elements in the way reducing quality.


----------



## BillB (Jan 14, 2018)

I wonder how small Canon could make a fullframe mirrorless with interchangeable lenses. My guess is they have reached there own conclusions on that question.


----------



## bwud (Jan 14, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > There's zero chance anyone would buy a D850 without a mirror installed. If you want to use the D850 without a mirror, you lock it up via the menu. Removing completely hamstrings the camera as Nikon has perhaps the worst on-sensor autofocus available.
> ...



I fully agree many people would buy a mirrorless camera in a body the size of an SLR. 

But for people to buy a D850 without the mirror, nikon would not merely have to get its sensor AF working better, it would have to work as well or better than nikon’s off sensor AF in most shooting scenarios. They might get there in 2-3 generations, but they’re not even close now.

Recall the post I responded to predicted Nikon will trivially remove the mirror from D850 to see what people buy. If they do that, the find that no one buys mirrorless. 

Mirrorless 5D4 would be significantly more credible since it has DPAF.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 14, 2018)

BillB said:


> I wonder how small Canon could make a fullframe mirrorless with interchangeable lenses. My guess is they have reached there own conclusions on that question.



I think Sony's gone as afar as you reasonably can - APS-C could go much, much further but you would need to have an APS-C specific mount (Compatibility with FF lenses is what limits the minimum size on Cnon/Nikon APS-C lenses). But some of the criticisms of the Sony is their size - yes, they have improved their interface on the latest modeal (A9 and A7R-III) but people still talk about small buttons hard to operate in some circumstances, particularly when wearing gloves. And on group Canon want to keep are the pros. So that is where I see the smallest size of the first Canon FF mirroless being maybe a bit bigger than the original 6D - maybe even the 5DIV. And once their die-hard Canon fans are happy then, and only then, they will start to experiment with body size.


----------



## BillB (Jan 14, 2018)

bwud said:


> I fully agree many people would buy a mirrorless camera in a body the size of an SLR.
> 
> But for people to buy a D850 without the mirror, nikon would not merely have to get its sensor AF working better, it would have to work as well or better than nikon’s off sensor AF in most shooting scenarios. They might get there in 2-3 generations, but they’re not even close now.
> 
> ...



In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850. I can't much evidence that Nikon is close to solving the AF or the EVF problems associated with mirrorless FF, but maybe Nikon can pull a rabbit out of the mirrorless hat.

Canon, on the other hand, seems to have a workable approach to AF in a FF mirrorless FF camera based on the 5DIV's Liveview and has marketed an EVF at the aps-c level in the M5.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 14, 2018)

BillB said:


> In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.



One thing Nikon do differently is that they're prepared to outsource major components such as sensors for the cameras. They may not have a good EVF, but they can go out and buy the technology in from someone else without any problems.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 15, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.
> ...


Epson make EVF for Olympus (and others), Nikon used to have some lenses made externally and Fuji definitely still do. Many parts inside all the manufacturers are made by various medium & small companies in Japan.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 15, 2018)

If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount or the F mount they have a fixed back focus, period. This governs what you can do with a FF mirrorless camera, you cannot side step it. 

Canon has a 18mm back-focus with the EF-M (Sony E mount is also 18mm), with both the EF & EF-S it is 44mm. I'm struggling to understand how Canon other than via an adaptor can make a mirrorless camera work and save size / weight (the point of mirrorless) without a fundamental change in camera design. 

When they moved from FD/FL to EF it was a complete change and arguably a very profitable one in the longer term. However when you factor in the cost of development of the tilt shift lenses and 85mm f1.4 alone in 2017, they are committed to EF. So they have a packaging dilemma (as do Nikon). 

Sensors are normally fixed maybe one solution is a variable sensor (two positions) retracted flat field 44mm, extended curved, 18mm. However a 26mm travel (just over 1 inch) doesn't really solve a packaging issue in the body depth and requires a mechanism to move it (more space) so I'm stumped as to how they pull this trick off without a full-frame version of the EF-M lenses. 

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?


----------



## BillB (Jan 15, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.
> ...



Maybe so, but the key technology would seem to be for the information processing needed to drive the information display which would need to be integrated into the camera's main information processing system. Not sure how easy it would be to outsource that integration.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 15, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Sensors are normally fixed maybe one solution is a variable sensor (two positions) retracted flat field 44mm, extended curved, 18mm. However a 26mm travel (just over 1 inch) doesn't really solve a packaging issue in the body depth and requires a mechanism to move it (more space) so I'm stumped as to how they pull this trick off without a full-frame version of the EF-M lenses.


In theory you could extend the distance with mirrors that move in and out of the light path. 
No I'm not suggesting that will happen but it is (maybe) possible.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...
> 
> [truncated]
> 
> Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?



So if:

1) the whole point of mirrorless is to be small (as you stated),
2) you only gain an inch (26mm) of space by pulling the mirror,
3) FF lenses will be huge no matter what and will water down any body size savings, and
4) Canon has a massive commitment to EF... 

*Why go thin mount at all if you are Canon?*

#1 above is a strongly held opinion by some -- I am not one of them. Mirrorless has a host of virtues that are unrelated to size. However, Mirrorless (potentially) being thin adds to what a mirrorless camera could possibly do: (a) you could build a smaller/lighter rig under certain circumstances (purpose built, small/slow/light lenses) and (b) you could adapt older/other/competitor's lenses.

_Now weigh (a) and (b) against (i) having to build a lot of new lenses and (ii) saddling EF Nation with an adaptor._ Is it still worth it to go thin? Should Canon do what the market thinks it wants despite all common sense to not do this in their case?

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...
> ...



If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t. 

The last mount change was arguably a major win for the company, but I don’t envy the ultimate decision maker.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t.
> 
> The last mount change was arguably a major win for the company, but I don’t envy the ultimate decision maker.



This won't be an FD to EF sort of change. There is near zero likelihood Canon climbs this mountain of lens building pain all over again (like Sony is doing) as a similar move would stoke fears of abandoning EF altogether, which would cost them customers. 

Also, as many have said, once you get above a certain speed and/or FL, you'll just end up with big lenses that evaporate your size savings. Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.

So I see this being one of two outcomes:

1) Canon goes thin and offers say 5-7 lenses over the first 3-4 years just for the new mount: 2 small wide-standard primes, UWA f/4 (or variable) zoom, standard f/4 (or variable) zoom, macro and possibly one relatively compact portraiture tool (say an 85 f/1.8.).

2) Canon goes full EF mount.

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t.
> ...



Either way could cost them customers:

those who don’t buy the big lenses and/or want the smaller package mirrorless can *sometimes* provide (e.g. that portion of the market which never buys a lens not sold as a package deal), and
those who if they need new lenses anyway may look at other manufacters (i.e. those who no longer feel “captive”).

Both calls are risky, hence my not envying the person holding the bag for the decision. 



ahsanford said:


> Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.



It makes sense if they can sell them, and if it’s a new mount it wouldn’t be a cloning exercise, they’d have fundamentally different designs. 

I wouldn’t expect them to pursue two full frame lines, however. Much like Sony’s a mount lenses, *if* canon changes mounts, they would likely ramp down and eventually end EF development. 

If I were a gambler, I’d put money on them keeping EF. But strategy is never an easy call, and changing mounts could very well be advantageous in the long run.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.
> ...



But it would sap your economies of scale -- offering both an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and an EF-M 24-70 f/2.8L would mean 2x of everything: design, production process, inventory, etc. and unit prices of lenses would have to go up. 

Sony knows this pain. They sell an A-mount and an FE-mount 24-70 2.8 lens -- _and they both cost over $2k. _Part of this is surely their lower manufacturing volumes compared to Canon in general, but having to build two of these is not a cheap proposition.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...
> ...



One question would seem to be how small a camera Canon could make while still sticking with an EF mount. I don't know what the answer is, but my guess is that Canon has come up with their answer. If it is somewhere around the size of an SL1, would that be enough to wipe out any significant advantage from a new mount?


----------



## bwud (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



You have to look long term though. Any decision regarding a new mount will incur costs probably for several years before ROI is made. 

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production. There may be some overlap initially (although they likely have inventory of popular items, making it easier. All their inventory including non-photographic products is consolidated into a single value, $5.4 billion US, in their financials, so it’s impossible to know how big the cushion is) and those would be pain points, but if it serves the overall strategy, so be it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.



End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 15, 2018)

I must get round to replacing all the mirrors in my house with display screens and cameras.


----------



## bwud (Jan 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.
> ...



Yes, given the above if:

“If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

The current market isn’t set in stone. The SLR lens share could increase, or decrease. It could be saturated or have a great deal of growth potential. Either way there is a business opportunity.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production. There may be some overlap initially (although they likely have inventory of popular items, making it easier. All their inventory including non-photographic products is consolidated into a single value, $5.4 billion US, in their financials, so it’s impossible to know how big the cushion is) and those would be pain points, but if it serves the overall strategy, so be it.



Is the promise of offering a 1" smaller aggregate FF setup and adapting other lenses worth _walking away from the EF portfolio?_

Short answer: no flipping way. A Sony-like migration from A to FE mount (i.e. a huge push in FE, the occasional dying embers of an A mount released as a PR stunt 'with an ongoing commitment to A mount') would be tantamount to Canon severing it's own leg on the prospect of running even faster someday. It would be madness.

Again: It's either full EF mount or a thin mount with a very-well bounded small number of tinier mirrorless only lenses. An exodus from EF or running two FF mounts in parallel with the same lenses for many years to come isn't going to happen.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



Agree, actually. But Canon couldn't possibly believe the 'if' clause above. Here is the list of Pros for migrating from EF to EF-mirrorless:


A handful of smaller lenses (say 10-20% of the current EF portfolio) could lead to a nontrivially smaller body + lens combination


[...crickets...]

And the Cons list looks like what would happen if a black hole for all resources and product development consumed your company for 10+ years.

Unless you want to talk about a major tectonic delta in lens design to support curved sensors, every lens will be a compact telescoping/collapsible design, they start to offer leaf shutter lenses, etc., rebuilding all/most of EF into mirrorless FF lenses is a colossal waste of time and money when you consider the very meager pickings on the Pros list above.

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Your list appears to be from the customer perspective, which is fair enough. It assumes however the continuation of EF, otherwise it would necessarily include:

The availability of new lenses

Canon controls its supply, and can make new EF lenses unavailable. The questions include:

Can they credibly strong-arm people into a new mount?
How much market potential is there in continuing EF for new sales versus convincing EF owners (refresh) and new customers to buy a new mount?

If th best way to grow is to obsolete your legacy products, that’s what you do. Witness SpaceX’s BFR strategy.


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 15, 2018)

bwud said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...


That's a very big "if." I can imagine Canon starting to investigate lens design in a primarily mirrorless market, but we are not anywhere close to that point yet.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 15, 2018)

of course mirrorless FF will come with a new mount. For a number of good technical reasons and even more so for a number of compelling profit reasons for makers. Nikon as well as Canon.

My only surpise would be if Nikon really goes down to only 16mm FFD ... but if they want to offer an adapter for all their old F-shards and their mechanical and Phase-Af shenaningans, they obviously need every mm for they can get for the adapter. 

Thanks to their bold, radical and 100% correct decision in 1987 to jettison old FD mount and "to hell with backwards compatibility", Canon is in a much better position now. Something like 20-22mm FFD and an even wider mount than rumored Nikon Z (49mm) will make life for Canon lens designers a hell of a lot easier than for their Nikon counterparts. And may give Canon customers optically excellent, and less expensive lens options in the future - ofc in addition to a wide selection of Luxuriously priced L glass. 

Now Canon just needs to get around launching their FF MILC system .With new, short FFD /wide-mouth Canon mount. It wont be called Z-mount. My preliminary guess of a Canon EF- *X*-mount may well turn into reality soon. Until then i shall continue to not spend a cent on new Canon gear.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> of course mirrorless FF will come with a new mount. For a number of good technical reasons and even more so for a number of compelling profit reasons for makers. Nikon as well as Canon.



Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.

Please concisely state for me the upsides of a thin mount mirrorless vs. full EF mount mirrorless.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 15, 2018)

we are not talking "marginally smaller/lighter". We talk about a universal, fully capable mirrorless camera [better than a 5D IV or Nikon D850 in every respect] in a much smaller package. When combined with compact lenses like f2.0-2.8 primes and f/4 zooms in the most frequently used focal lengths ranges it makes for a much smaller kit than any DLSR. If and when needed - but ONLY then- it can also be used with larger lenses. On a gliobal scale and across all Canon users, 24-105 is used way more often than 70-200 and a well of a lot more often than 400-800mm monsters.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.



Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?

If there were no advantages, why bother?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.
> ...



You still didn't give me any reason other than 'it is smaller'. I'd like more to go on than that.

Yes, it can be smaller with modest speed of glass and more common standard focal lengths, sure, but us it _much_ smaller? See 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 and 24-70 f/4 examples below. And _that_ difference in size is worth rebuilding the EF portfolio?!

- A


----------



## slclick (Jan 15, 2018)

6 pages of comments. The one which resonates with me the most is not about size but about weight. I'd too love it the size of the 5D series but at maybe 1/3 the weight. I'm a large hand handstrap/wrist strap guy so that might give you insight into my choices.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 15, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?
> 
> If there were no advantages, why bother?



Because EOS M is in a consumer market and not in a professional market:

1) I believe a far higher percentage of folks looking at EOS M will be new ILC customers than with an FF mirrorless setup (i.e. EOS M is far more likely to be your first camera than a FF mirrorless would be).

2) I believe more people in APS-C care about 'how big is it in general' compared to 'does it have a stout grip for my big glass'.

3) A far lower percentage of EOS M users are bolting huge glass to it like FF mirrorless users will.

In short, mirrorless is great for some folks to make a smaller kit. I argue that being smaller -- and the degree to which it can be smaller -- is of greater value for the more entry-level parts of the market. The more you slide up to speedlites, big glass, demanding burst/AF considerations, etc. the less folks care about how small it is and they more they care about what the camera can do in the field.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jan 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Besides making for a marginally lighter/smaller camera + lens combination and adapting older/other lenses, I would like to hear those reasons. Ending mirror slap, the power of an EVF, etc. do not count, as a full mount mirrorless rig could have those upsides as well.
> ...



The advantage is that it is a APS-C size sensor in a MUCH smaller body. As has been pointed out numerous times and for numerous reasons, a FF camera will never ever be much smaller than other FF cameras and still be ergonomically usable with larger fast and zoom lenses. The M5 is much smaller than not only other APS-C cameras, but most higher level 4/3rds cameras. So if you are looking for a very small camera, the M5 fits the bill. That, for some, is a huge advantage. It is the main reason I bought one.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 16, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?



Not quite all, the 55mm f1/8 is a tiny thing (and way, way, way better than the Canon 1.4) - but your point is valid. There's no difference in size/weight for faster zooms. But they're no worse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

Hflm said:


> Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.



So a relatively slow, moderately wide prime lens benefits from a new design yielding a more compact lens. Whoopiddydoo. No one is arguing that point. Now, ask Zeiss if that applies to fast primes and f/2.8 zooms.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?
> ...



So the more popular types of lenses are 'no worse'. Yeah, that sounds like a massively strong driver for a new, thinner mount. 

:


----------



## bwud (Jan 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?
> ...



I'm not an optics guy, so I have to ask a couple of questions:

Can slow zooms be smaller for mirrorless than for SLR?

If so, why? Is it that slow zooms and primes for SLR are bigger than they need to be?

Is the statement that there is no difference for faster zooms based on the physics, or based on an observation about one manufacturer's initial product line? 

I get the relationship between front element and the apparent pupil size as it pertains to f-number, but it doesn’t initially make sense that only some lenses can be made smaller.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Why did Canon go for a new mount for the EOS-M series of cameras rather than using the EF-S mount?
> ...



...and companies can saddle that (largely consumer) market with variable aperture zooms and very slow primes and people will still buy and use them.

You simply can't get away with that in FF.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 16, 2018)

*This whole conversation is utterly pointless.*

We are all expressing our personal wishes for a new camera when we know that nothing we say has any impact on what Canon will do.

Canon, quite wisely, are asking *professionals* what they want, not us.


But, if you all want to continue a pointless argument I'm happy to oblige


----------



## Hflm (Jan 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.
> ...


What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 16, 2018)

Hflm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



And if you want to pay Zeiss prices for all your optics, fine.


----------



## LDS (Jan 16, 2018)

Hflm said:


> What kind of argument is this? Zeiss was just giving an example. Honestly, I believe more in Zeiss lens design competence than yours. If they say such a short flange distance provides benefits I wouldn't argue that unless I had similar competence. Do you?



Sure, it's a non AF, non IS, manual aperture lens. Think, the Canon FD 20/2.8 was lighter (305g vs 394g), more or less same size (shorter but larger), and at least had auto aperture. This kind of lens could be done more than thirty years ago, even for SLR.

Start to increase max aperture, add AF, etc. and the lens size and weight increases rapidly.


----------



## BillB (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...




For some people, there are advantages to an EF-M camera, but the M5 is hardly blowing Canon's crop DSLRs away. 
I wonder how many persons who have an M5 also have a DSLR, particularly an FF DSLR.

IF Canon thinks it can make money introducing an EF-X FF camera in addition to its EF lline, DSLR and/or mirrorless, that would be fine, at least to me. Several of us are skeptical about the size and weight advantages of EF-X, especially when fast primes and zooms are concerned, and so question whether an EF- X mirrorless would be better than an EF camera in every way, as has been contended. I am willing to leave the economic viability of an EF-X mount to Canon, whose opinion on that question would seem to be the one that matters.


----------



## BillB (Jan 16, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Before Canon released its 16-35 f4 IS, I might have been willing to buy a small 21mm f2.8 prime (although not a manual lens at Zeiss prices). Not any more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

Hflm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



It's a logical response to your 'look everyone, the sky is blue and water is wet' post. The benefit for slower primes has been generally acknowledged. Why did Zeiss choose _that_ example?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2018)

LDS said:


> Sure, it's a non AF, non IS, manual aperture lens. Think, the Canon FD 20/2.8 was lighter (305g vs 394g), more or less same size (shorter but larger), and at least had auto aperture. This kind of lens could be done more than thirty years ago, even for SLR.
> 
> Start to increase max aperture, add AF, etc. and the lens size and weight increases rapidly.



+1. Anyone who claims that mirrorless could be soooo tiny if we only had manual f/5.6 primes, if we only had collapsible/telescoping lenses like compacts, if Canon only 'took some fat' out of some optical designs and optimized things for smallest physical length, etc. is missing the point. _SLRs could do that, too._

So we're hemming and hawing about whether Canon will jump the shark and fully rebuild the EF portfolio for the opportunity of taking up one. less. inch. in your bag. It's simply not going to happen.

That _doesn't_ mean a thin FF mirrorless mount + adaptor won't happen -- I'm just saying that it might offer 3-5 key mirrorless mount lenses in the first few years and that would be it. Even if FF mirrorless does very well commercially, letting more and more EF creature comfort lenses fall into the new mount is a slippery slope.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2018)

BillB said:


> Before Canon released its 16-35 f4 IS, I might have been willing to buy a small 21mm f2.8 prime (although not a manual lens at Zeiss prices). Not any more.



+1. Primes can do wonderful things compared to zooms, but for an slower UWA lens that is principally a landscape instrument, (a) it's hard to move your feet when you are on a shoreline or cliff and (b) I don't really give a damn how fast it is or sharp it is wide open when it's constantly being used at f/8 - f/11.

The 16-35 f/4L IS _soundly_ put to bed any need for me to get a pricey German fast wide manual prime. It is the landscape lens we were waiting so long for.

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > Before Canon released its 16-35 f4 IS, I might have been willing to buy a small 21mm f2.8 prime (although not a manual lens at Zeiss prices). Not any more.
> ...



I’m about 50/50 for wide angle landscapes between the 16-35/4 and the Zeiss 25/2 (Sony mount). Both are excellent.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The 16-35 f/4L IS _soundly_ put to bed any need for me to get a pricey German fast wide manual prime. It is the landscape lens we were waiting so long for.



There's no doubt about it, the 16-36 f/4L is a wonderful lens. I use my extensively. I have the Canon 24mm f/2.8IS. Guess how often I use that.

But this isn't really the point. There are times I want to carry a big heavy camera and lens to do spectacular landscape shots. And there are times I want something smaller.

The question for the future is whether that means I'm going to be restricted to APS-C cameras (and with increase in quality/resolution of the APS-C sensors this certainly can't be ruled out - especially when I continue to be amazed at what people are doing with even smaller 4/3 sensor cameras) - or whether we get a full frame camera in the more compact form factor of the EOS-M series (or close to) which would mean using the EF-M mount or something similar.

That isn't the camera that many of you want. But it may be the camera that Canon needs in order to sell more cameras to the millennials who don't want to carry huge heavy DSLR-sized bricks around their necks all day, yet understand the advantage that full frame (currently) gives. 

I think it's likely that Canon WILL go that route. Maybe they'll do an FF EF mirrorless body too (after all, that'd be splendid for video people too)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> That isn't the camera that many of you want. But it may be the camera that Canon needs in order to sell more cameras to the millennials who don't want to carry huge heavy DSLR-sized bricks around their necks all day, yet understand the advantage that full frame (currently) gives.
> 
> I think it's likely that Canon WILL go that route. Maybe they'll do an FF EF mirrorless body too (after all, that'd be splendid for video people too)



Entirely possible. Canon could have mountains of market data that says that millenials want smaller gear to IG with, pros want less weight for a day's carry, that there's a lot more money in courting the nouveau riche with a pricey first (for them) ILC camera, etc. So as practical as a full mount EF mirrorless would be for folks like us, if a thin mount FF happened, I wouldn't be surprised one bit. 

_But if it comes with a tiny grip or the promise of rebuilding the entire EF portfolio, _it will be both DOA to me (for grip reasons) and I imagine the Sony A-mount abandonment panic will set in like a freight train. 

But would Canon do this?

I could see Canon idiotically putting a Rebel-ish grip on a thin FF mirrorless rig, getting throttled by 2/3 of its users for doing so, and course-correcting with a future model. But I just _can't_ see them signing up to FD --> EF 2.0. New lenses for mirrorless would happen with a thin mount (of course), but not a rebuild of EF for mirrorless -- there's no chance of that until all the mirrorslappers retire their mirrors.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Jan 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> But I just _can't_ see them signing up to FD --> EF 2.0. New lenses for mirrorless would happen with a thin mount (of course), but not a rebuild of EF for mirrorless -- there's no chance of that until all the mirrorslappers retire their mirrors.



+1

With dSLRs accounting for 65% of the ILC market, the demise of the reflex mirror is still a long way off...and by the time it happens, it may not be the current version of MILCs, but an industry paradigm shift that supplants today's ILCs (think: light field cameras, multi-lens 'bug-eye' cameras, holography, etc.).


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 16, 2018)

Eldar said:


> Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...



Awesome, but what does pulling the mirror have to do with that example? 

I appreciate the M mount is mirrorless, but why couldn't Canon make tiny FF lenses for SLRs while it was at it? If they did, it would just be 1" smaller in your bag with mirrorless than SLR.

I'm not saying you can't make a great small lens. But if mirrorless' greatest virtue only really pops _if mirrorless is given special things SLRs don't get_, how special really is mirrorless?

- A


----------



## Eldar (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...
> ...


I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?


----------



## BillB (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> +1. Anyone who claims that mirrorless could be soooo tiny if we only had manual f/5.6 primes, if we only had collapsible/telescoping lenses like compacts, if Canon only 'took some fat' out of some optical designs and optimized things for smallest physical length, etc. is missing the point. _SLRs could do that, too._
> 
> So we're hemming and hawing about whether Canon will jump the shark and fully rebuild the EF portfolio for the opportunity of taking up one. less. inch. in your bag. It's simply not going to happen
> 
> ...



One key question, it seems to me, is how small Canon could make a mirrorless FF camera with an EF mount. At this point, I would think that Canon has an answer to this question. Canon isn't going to introduce an EF-X mount unless they are very sure that they want to go someplace they can't get to with an EF mount. To me, it seems very likely that Canon's first FF mirrorless will have an EF mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

Eldar said:


> Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...



Fair point. Of course, the Leica is rather costly...and has a manual aperture (so two missing motors). But it does show that a compact fast prime is possible (actually, it has been for a while, looking back at some old Canon lenses, like their S-monut 35/1.5 that was similar in size to the Leica 35/1.4, or their 50/0.95 that was the same physical length as the Leica 35/1.4 albeit quite a bit fatter, but f/0.95 will do that  ).


----------



## 9VIII (Jan 16, 2018)

As soon as you move to a 50mm sensor then Mirrorless has obvious size advantages.

Really someone “could” be making a pocketable mirrorless body.
Looking at what they’re doing with cellphones I bet someone “could” make a 10mm thick ILC body and some 5mm thick lenses, that would fit pretty firmly in the “pocketable” category, but practical reality dictates no-one wants to make that many compromises for size.

Right now Mirrorless basically exists for video.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

Eldar said:


> I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?



Perhaps, at least in part, it's the microlens design of the sensor. With the Leica 35/1.4, the rear element of the lens is actually recessed into the body when mounted (like some Canon EF-S lenses), and whereas Sony seems to have issues with high IQ from lenses with a very short sensor-to-rear-element distance, Leica uses a microlens/pixel design (greater microlens curvature, shallower pixel wells; right image below) that compensates for the high incident light angles you get when the lens is so close to the sensor.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 16, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Something in what you said gave me an idea. How about a short mount where you need an adapter to use EF lenses, but the adapter has a leaf shutter, so suddenly all EF lenses now are leaf shutter lenses. Would that be interesting (or possible)?


----------



## Eldar (Jan 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I don´t pretend to know anything about lens design. However, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that Leica are making these fantastic prime lenses, like the 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Summilux lenses, in such a small package, while their DSLR counterparts are huge in comparison. Can anyone explain why a DSLR lens have to be that much bigger?
> ...


That may help. On the other hand, you can use Leica lenses that are several decades old, so they are at least not designed for a digital sensor.


----------



## midluk (Jan 16, 2018)

kphoto99 said:


> Something in what you said gave me an idea. How about a short mount where you need an adapter to use EF lenses, but the adapter has a leaf shutter, so suddenly all EF lenses now are leaf shutter lenses. Would that be interesting (or possible)?


Inside that adapter is not all too far away from the sensor and would just cause a great amount of vignetting. A leaf shutter has to be located right next to the aperture in the lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2018)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



That's the advantage of the Leica sensor design – lenses with lower incident light angles work just fine (as they do on typical sensors), but so do those with higher angles. But with a rangefinger history, shorter backfocus distances were historically common – those short Canon S-mount lenses I mentioned were for rangefinders, too.


----------



## LDS (Jan 16, 2018)

Eldar said:


> Compact lenses? Here we have the Canon 35mm f1.4L to the left and the Leica M 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH to the right. Both fantastic, full frame, lenses. Adding AF to the Leica would grow it a bit, but still ...



A retrofocus design will make the lens much bigger. Without a mirror, the lens can protrude inside the camera body, and that can lead to smaller wide angle lenses because different lens designs becomes available. Rangefinder always had this advantage.

See for example: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/03/the-development-of-wide-angle-lenses/

This could be an advantage for mirrorless cameras and lenses, and you don't need to change the mount. For example, some earlier Canon UWA like the FL 19/3.5 required to lock the mirror because of the protruding element - but it was quite compact when mounted, alike a pancake (later a retrofocus one was made available). The Pellix, with its fixed mirror, could also use some specific small lens because the mirror didn't need space to move.

A mirrorless with EF mount could use this kind of lenses to keep them smaller, of course they couldn't be mounted on an EF SLR.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 17, 2018)

I am quite invested in Quality glass, not as extreme as maybe others, and use my FF System as a Hobbyist (with chronically lack of time)

When buying my equipment, i assumed that glass would Keep it's value better than other consumer products, so i spent money easier (i can sell a lens if i dont use it enough)

Now i have a Smartphone as well and not the need to carry the big camera all the time, so take part of my photos with the phone and if i try be serious with the DSLR.

If Canon now presents a new Mount and it is expected that over some period the DSLR's get replaced my Mirrorless with a new mount, this will very fast reduce the value of my Investment so i had to decide if i should

a) Keep on the old System
b) move soon and sell my old gear in short term 
c) or if i postpone the move and sell my lensess at a time when they are woth almost nothing

on a) i must Forget about all my Money and use my equipment, knowing that it will get passed by the developpment and after some time i have no longer competitive Equipment

on b) i must spend lot of Money in short term, replaplace the camera(s) soon and the lenses soon after equivalents came out.

on c) i live with Adapters for a long time and accept a big loss on my lenses which nobody wants anymorwe, after they have obsolet for a longer time already.

So, all 3 ways are so frustrating, that leaving the hobby is a valuable option, rely on the phone and maybe buy a better compact (on 1'', mft or apsc basis) camera.

i think the FD to EF Transition was similarely painful, but then one got a fast development, autofocus, better Flash Systems etc. Now DSLR to Mirrorless gives much fewer benefit in comparision, so abandonning the Mount is very dangerous, they can put many customers into frustration. This especially as there are still coming high value lenses on the market, which are not ment to be used 4 years only.

AND, as many times written already, "small" will be only very few combinations, and not the bundles i usually see FF cameras used with. Combined with a 16-35 & 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 lens trio, 20mm gain in thickness doesnt matter at all.

If there are other benefits, as faster FPS for example, then a Mirrorless camera can make sense, but please it should support my lens collection.


----------



## BillB (Jan 17, 2018)

hendrik-sg said:


> I am quite invested in Quality glass, not as extreme as maybe others, and use my FF System as a Hobbyist (with chronically lack of time)
> 
> When buying my equipment, i assumed that glass would Keep it's value better than other consumer products, so i spent money easier (i can sell a lens if i dont use it enough)
> 
> ...



My guess is that it will be quite a while before you are faced with unpleasant choices created by the collapse of the value of EF lenses and related equipment. For the reasons you describe, I think Canon will continue to make EF cameras because people will continue to buy them.


----------



## Dvash7 (Jan 17, 2018)

than*



neuroanatomist said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > well again, this site reported on such rumors.
> ...


----------



## Tugela (Feb 1, 2018)

There are other, practical, reasons for moving to a new mount:

1) It allows for greater flexibility in lens design.
2) It allows for the implementation of a mount that is protected by IP, in other words you get to decide what lens goes on the camera, not some third party manufacturer that is competing directly with you and taking revenue from you.
3) A new mount allows for greater computational integration between the lens and camera (similar to how Samsung used lenses with the NX cameras). As cameras become more computer like in the future this will increasingly allow more creative design options.

Basically starting a new mount (which can be made backwardly compatible with older lenses using adapters) is a sensible approach that looks to the future and not the past. Doing this in conjunction with the development of new MILC lines is an obvious time to do it. It is much more difficult to this sort of thing in the middle of a camera line since it is very disruptive to the eco system.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > But I just _can't_ see them signing up to FD --> EF 2.0. New lenses for mirrorless would happen with a thin mount (of course), but not a rebuild of EF for mirrorless -- there's no chance of that until all the mirrorslappers retire their mirrors.
> ...



MILCs will be the dominant ILC type by the end of 2019 if current sales trends continue. That may even happen in Asia this year. The end of the DSLR era is a lot closer than you think.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 1, 2018)

Tugela said:


> MILCs will be the dominant ILC type by the end of 2019 if current sales trends continue. That may even happen in Asia this year. The end of the DSLR era is a lot closer than you think.



And Canon -- hardly committed in this market -- is #2 in mirrorless. 

So what's your point? Either:


*Canon's too late to the (very small unit) FF mirrorless market and will never catch up to the competition because of it?* No. EOS M showed Canon can show up late (and underspec'd) and still sell like gangbusters. They've gone from nothing to 2nd place in span of 2-3 years _without trying all that hard._



*Canon will get stuck with a bunch of SLRs no one wants?* No. They are purring at about a 50% ILC share right now. They know how to move units and will wisely rationalize/obsolete/not update SLR lines and replace them with mirrorless ones when they need to.


*Canon isn't symbolically stating mirrorless is the future and aggressively and abruptly migrating its existing lines to mirrorless?* No. That's madness given their current market share and global userbase. That's what AvTvM or some other internet expert would do, and it would set the business on fire. It makes a ton more sense to slowly work from the bottom of the Rebel line to the top of it -- line by line -- and offering mirrorless in that segment. Which is likely what Canon will do (if not sell both side by side for a time).

This notion that 'time is running out on the mirror' and Canon isn't getting the message is off target. Time _*is*_ running out on the mirror, but (a) it isn't running out imminently, (b) mirrorless can be slowly phased in gradually on a market by market basis over time, and (c) when mirrorless does arrive, EOS M is proof positive that they will succeed in moving units.

The sky isn't falling. Why? _Because Canon's plan doesn't have that on the Gantt chart._ 

- A


----------



## Tugela (Feb 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > MILCs will be the dominant ILC type by the end of 2019 if current sales trends continue. That may even happen in Asia this year. The end of the DSLR era is a lot closer than you think.
> ...



No they are not. They are #2 in half of the Japanese market, not #2 everywhere else. And a good part of that is due to lower end Canon video ILCs being included in that number. 

The trends in the 2017 shipment numbers are consistent with previous years, so there is no reason to think that will not continue. MILCs are already almost half the market in Asia, and it will not be long before that happens in the NA market as well. 2019 will be the inflection point in market share, after that DSLRs will rapidly decline in market share and be limited to a few niche markets.

DSLRs are dinosaurs, and the meteorite is about to hit. The writing is on the wall. You will be surprised at how fast they disappear once we pass the inflection point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

Tugela said:


> No they are not. They are #2 in half of the Japanese market, not #2 everywhere else.



So, you believe that the BCN rankings are the only source of data? Hint: No they are not.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 2, 2018)

Tugela said:


> DSLRs are dinosaurs, and the meteorite is about to hit. The writing is on the wall. You will be surprised at how fast they disappear once we pass the inflection point.



Ah, so it's not about a prediction of doom for Canon so much as a big change is coming once the market sees mirrorless take over. Sure, I suppose that's plausible, but we've been hearing predictions of momentous shifts away from mirrors for years now. It still hasn't happened. 

I would argue that the great mirrorless exodus *cannot occur without Canon and Nikon deprioritizing their Rebel/D5X00 lines* by (a) not updating them any longer or (b) selling identically spec'd mirrorless rigs for the same price alongside the SLRs. Seeing as SLRs kind of keep the lights on for both of those companies (which might halt energy to tackle (a) above) and that mirrorless enjoys a lovely little upcharge over SLRs today (nixing (b) above), _it might be a while._ 

Don't get me wrong, I agree it will eventually happen, but it won't happen in earnest until the two largest SLR manufacturers put their consumer SLR lines out to pasture.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2018)

Tugela said:


> The trends in the 2017 shipment numbers are consistent with previous years, so there is no reason to think that will not continue.



Once again, your 'facts' are contradicted by reality. 







You really should try to live in the real world with the rest of us, instead of inventing your own private reality where you know stuff.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The trends in the 2017 shipment numbers are consistent with previous years, so there is no reason to think that will not continue.
> ...



http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/when-does-mirrorless-suppla.html
showed two scenarios based on unit volume which are very possible (based on 10% decrease in dslrs and 10% increase in mirrorless, for example).





Change the growth rate to account for new MILC models introduced by Canon and Nikon and thing can change faster:





So 2019 or 2020 are easily possible in my opinion.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 2, 2018)

Neuro seems to have "forgotten" adding rapidly shrinking mirrorslapper shipments : ... real picture looks like this ... with some rather conservative projections for 2018-2020 ... given Nikon will come with mirrorless system(s) ... APS-C and/or FF ... and Canon will [have to] add FF MILC system as well .. 






http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/when-does-mirrorless-suppla.html

end of mirrorslapping is in sight. Transition will happen very quickly now


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2018)

Hflm said:


> http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/when-does-mirrorless-suppla.html
> showed two scenarios based on unit volume which are very possible (based on 10% decrease in dslrs and 10% increase in mirrorless, for example).
> 
> So 2019 or 2020 are easily possible in my opinion.





AvTvM said:


> ... real picture looks like this ...



Anything is _possible_. What is *true* is that Thom would have gotten a very different trendline for MILCs if he'd included all of the available data (CIPA started separately tracking MILCs in 2012). Many people like to base conclusions on incomplete or 'carefully selected' data. In my field, I call those people poor scientists.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 3, 2018)

Here's a serious question. Why do you all care so much about if and when mirrorless cameras outsell DSLRs? They do not compete against one another. So who cares?

Mirrorless will replace DSLRs when the EVF is indistinguishable from an OVF. And when that happens, *no one will care if the camera is mirrorless or has a mirror.* Because - I realize forum dwellers won't understand this at all - most people don't care what is inside the camera. When I had a DSLR I spent zero moments thinking about the mirrror. Now that I have mirrorless, I spend zero time thinking about, well, having no mirror. Most folks owning DSLRs probably aren't even aware that there is a mirror in there.

In other words, no one cares and since they don't compete against one another - no one should care. What an unbelievable waste of time and hot air that this topic generates.

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Here's a serious question. Why do you all care so much about if and when mirrorless cameras outsell DSLRs? They do not compete against one another.



Of course they do [compete], but your question stands. Then again, I don’t get team sports either.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a serious question. Why do you all care so much about if and when mirrorless cameras outsell DSLRs? They do not compete against one another.
> ...



Just to throw my hat in the ring, I don't care when one outsells the other, just so long as there is good R&D and improvements to all models in both ranges I'll be happy.

As a 1DX MkII owner I can already think of meaningful improvements that are not out of the box on my DSLR, as an EOS-M owner I can think of improvements I'd like there too. I'd happily buy a FF mirrorless camera with or without an EF mount if it had features I found compelling.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 3, 2018)

^^ yes. That, precisely.

I sold my A7Rii when I got a 1Dx. They don’t really compare, but I just didn’t find myself using the former any longer. There are some noteworthy aspects to the Sony A9 which I would love to see in a canon future body (especially zero blackout in live view). Likewise there were things in my A7Rii that were tedious and frustrating, but work seamlessly with the 1Dx (low light autofocus, and autofocus in portrait orientation, for example).

If someone makes a best of all worlds, sure I’ve got money.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/when-does-mirrorless-suppla.html
> ...


True?
I think Thom Hogan is well aware of the data and is not selecting only a small part suiting himself, being a DSLR user himself. He reports a likely scenario and isn't reporting it as the truth, his estimate and I think he could be right, is 2020. But, please provide your own data and prove he is wrong, explain what he leaves out in detail, that he may do so purposedly. So please substantiate your claim. So far, his data proved to be very accurate in hindsight over the years and I believe him to be far more knowledgeable in this field than you.

I am a scientist, too (full university prof), as certainly are others here. Only because I am, I am not calling others poor scientists so fast, without knowing a bit more details. 
Calling him a poor scientist is a cheap shot which is not backed up by you. But getting personal against others is something I often see in your contributions, here. Nothing new.


----------



## Talys (Feb 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Mirrorless will replace DSLRs when the EVF is indistinguishable from an OVF. And when that happens, *no one will care if the camera is mirrorless or has a mirror.*



As long as "indistinguishable" includes battery life, I'm all on board.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless will replace DSLRs when the EVF is indistinguishable from an OVF. And when that happens, *no one will care if the camera is mirrorless or has a mirror.*
> ...



So never? That’s one thing which can not happen.


----------



## Talys (Feb 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I wouldn't say _never_. It just has to be way, way better than it is now.

Currently, with an OVF you can sit there and watch a bird for 20 minutes, then take a series of 10 shots when it does somethign interesting, and effectively zero battery is used. Then you can sit and watch for another 20 minutes. I can spend hours observing one animal.

With an EVF, that only works if I take a bagful of batteries with me, which is just not acceptable. I mean, I should not have to feel like I can't look through the viewfinder if I want to conserve battery.

So, they would be equivalent, for example, if 1 battery plus spare would give me a day's worth of viewfinder time (and the ability to take sporadic, though not continuous, photos in there, of course). They would probably be acceptable for me, if 1 battery plus spare could power the viewfinder (and allow sporadic photos) for about 10-12 hours.

It's still a very far cry from an LPE6 on an OVF, where a battery is literally good for days and days if wait-and-shoot is the type of photography you do. But that would be good enough, for me, at least.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2018)

Hflm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What is *true* is that Thom would have gotten a very different trendline for MILCs if he'd included all of the available data (CIPA started separately tracking MILCs in 2012).
> ...



Yes, what I stated is true. As a scientist and full professor, I would think you'd have looked at copious amounts of data over the years. Maybe you just haven't seen or analyzed much data, or you lack the ability to visualize. Personally, I have no trouble looking at a column or scatter plot and mentally visualizing the trendline. Looking at the data I posted:






...I can easily visualize that the trendline is going to be essentially flat. The trendline will only be ascending if you exclude the 2012 data point. What would be the justification for doing so? (Aside from the obvious one – selecting only those data that support your pre-determined conclusion, and ignoring the data that don't fit your hypothesis.) Personally, I don't ignore data...much less intentionally omit them (Grubbs' test notwithstanding). 

In the case of the trendline, I am reminded of a remark made by a colleague (who was, admittedly, a bit cynical) after he sat in on one of my medical school lectures. After hearing their questions, he stated, "These kids don't want to just be spoon fed, they want to be fork-and-knife fed, too." But, I had a little time, so I decided to humor you. Below is the same graph as above, with the trendline for the full dataset shown in green, and the trendline for the dataset excluding 2012 shipments shown in purple. Hey - maybe I could omit the 2017 shipments, and then I could say that the MILC market is declining! No, I don't think I'll do that.  

Incidentally, Hogan's conclusions may be correct. The major driver for the intersection of the two trendlines is the decreasing shipments of dSLRs, not the MILC shipments, which are essentially flat (or mildly trending upward, if you ignore 2012, or more strongly trending upward, if you make some assumptions which the existing data do not support). So, if the ILC market continues to contract and dSLRs continue to drop, 2019-2020 may be correct. But it's also worth noting that, looking at 2016-2017, the formerly plummeting compact camera market appears to be bottoming out (and by unit numbers, compact cameras still outsell ILCs). What if dSLRs show a similar trend, and shipments of them start leveling off?



Hflm said:


> Calling him a poor scientist is a cheap shot which is not backed up by you. But getting personal against others is something I often see in your contributions, here. Nothing new.



I didn't call him a poor scientist, please go back and read what I wrote before you put words in my mouth. He's not a scientist at all, actually (his academic background is in telecommunications, BA, MA and started but did not complete his doctorate, all in that field). As such, I would not necessarily expect him to be an expert on data analysis. 

As for 'getting personal', well, the Internet is a dangerous place. If it bothers you, try picking up a good book or journal to read. They don't talk back.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



But way way better means* better battery capacity/technology, which will also benefit SLR. The only way they’ll become indistinguishable is if they start dumping more power into SLR OVF overlays, effectively making them worse (from that perspective) rather than making EVF better. I think technique will ultimately make the biggest difference. When I used an A7Rii frequently I had a button mapped to turn off the rear display, and the EVF only powered when my eye was in place (prox sensor). That mitigates power draw in extended intervals between shots. However while shooting, the display which requires 0W will always hold a power advantage over one which requires even very little wattage.

*It’s possible they could begin converging with lower power displays, but I won’t hold my breath for parity any time soon. I expect that rather EVF will become more power hungry in pursuit of responsiveness.


----------



## Talys (Feb 3, 2018)

@3kramd5 - There is a point where it doesn't matter much. If I don't have to take more spare batteries and watch the blinking low battery indicator, that's what really matters. _Sure_ it's nice to be able to go several days without a battery swap, but for me anyways, that wouldn't drive a decision between EVF and OVF. 

The real benefit, on OVF, I guess, would be that you could have smaller batteries that lasted a full day.

@neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a _one year_ spike. 2017 could be an anomaly; if you took out 2016 and 2017, which, incidentally are the highest and lowest numbers, MILC trendline would not be looking good. Or 2018 could be a gigantic leap for MILC. Nobody will know until we are done the year (because there are seasonal factors).

I accept the explanation that in 2016, MILC shipments were a little down because many manufacturers couldn't get sensors, and that in 2017, there were more MILC shipments because of that. So most likely, 2017 and 2016 are both exaggerated, and in my opinion, the trend line is upwards, but not sharply so. By 2020, we should have a much clearer picture, absent some major event influencing sales, but of course, the doomsayers think that DSLR will be irrelevant by then anyways.

In any case, no reasonable statistician would extrapolate an exponential curve (one that rises sharply upwards) based on 2017 alone, especially since it's so flat until then.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 3, 2018)

That’s fair. I spent a few days backpacking with a buddy who brought an A7Riii with the battery grip, and he only changed batteries when we set up camp, same as me with a 1Dx. So maybe with that A9 battery the point has been reached.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> @neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a _one year_ spike.



Sure you can, just like you can claim the world is flat. But doing either leaves you looking rather foolish, to put it politely. 

As I stated earlier...



neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > If those trends continue...
> ...


----------



## Talys (Feb 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > @neuro & hflm - You can't make a trend line with a _one year_ spike.
> ...



Heresy. Of course the world is flat! Why else would it need elephants to hold up the corners? ???

But yeah, I saw your post. It's just totally pointless to argue how that trend line is going to look after 2019, 2020, 2021. For all we know, MILCs will be on fire, or when Canon makes one it will revolutionize photography like the iPhone did to cell phones (I really doubt this, but what do I know). Or, the world will collectively yawn and the line will creep up, or it will plateau, or it will dribble downwards, or plummet downwards.

It's entirely possible that a lot of people are buying mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras not they think they're superior, _but simply because they don't already own one_. At some point, I might buy an MILC like an M5 or some Canon FF MILC, if it's affordable, even if I don't really need or will use it a whole ton, just... because. If I don't end up using a whole lot though, it could be years before I buy another one.

On the other hand, DSLRs have really matured. For a lot of purposes, 5D3 produces photos that are as good as the shooter needs. If you don't have GAS and don't need more DR or more megapixels or more FPS for your type of photography, and aren't wowed by a touchscreen... In other words, if you're a viewfinder shooter who is perfectly happy with their photos... all the new stuff that's come out is just great marketing, and is surely a bonus if you HAVE to buy a new unit (like you break something), but doesn't make a compelling case as an upgrade/replacement.

It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology, and can only tinker around the edges and make the camera more usable ergonomically, better weather sealed, and that sort of thing. In some other post, someone was saying that Sony's APSC sensor is as good as we're get for a long time. If all that's the case, we could see that market for MILC drying up too, because the motivation for spending $1000 - $3000 for a MILC camera body may be low if you're happy with what you've got.


----------



## bwud (Feb 4, 2018)

Talys said:


> It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology



Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor, while A9 demonstrates that significant advances in sensor technology are available.


----------



## Talys (Feb 4, 2018)

bwud said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > It's also entirely possible that since Sony so quickly multi-upgraded its way to A7R3 -- which, really doesn't have many sensor differences to A7R2 -- that they're getting close to the end of the line of what they can do given today's technology
> ...



I certainly agree that A7R3 is a much better camera than A7R2. I don't own one, but I spent some time playing with one, and I could plainly see that it was a better camera. Are you saying that A7R3 has a much superior sensor to A7R2, though? I didn't think so, but I don't own one, and the sensor tests didn't seem to indicate that. 

Certainly, I think if someone loves the A7R2, the A7R3 is going to be a big improvement (like you said, there's far more to a camera than just a sensor).

What I was getting at, is that once we get to the limits of what we can do with sensors, and then clean up all the ergonomics/usability, the number of people upgrading cameras will decline (not zero out -- just plateau or dribble down), much like with the PC industry. It's not that people don't use PCs anymore; it's just that they don't really need a new PC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2018)

bwud said:


> Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor...



I agree. But try telling that to the CR crowd who lambasted the 5DIII and 6DII.


----------



## bwud (Feb 4, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Having owned both, I can not agree with that conclusion. Rather, A7Riii as compared with A7Rii demonstrates quite well that there is far more to a camera than its sensor...
> ...



hah, I owned a 5D2, I own a 5D3. Same story, although the improvement between the A7R's is far more noteworthy IMO.



Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I didn't get that from the post since I didn't isolate it from the larger context of an alleged MILC sales trend. It seemed like you might be saying mirrorless cameras can only get marginally better, but I don't think industry is at that point of maturation yet.

No, I don't claim the sensor is much superior, but rather that the camera as a whole is. It's as if A7R was alpha, A7Rii was beta, and A7Riii is finally ready for prime time as a complete, cohesive, usable camera. It's sensor is good, perhaps a little better than in the predecessor, but whether that comes down the the sensor or other electronics I haven't a guess.

That being said, A9 on the other hand has a sensor architecture which is remarkably better (similar IMO to the DPAF development at Canon).


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 4, 2018)

bwud said:


> It's as if A7R was alpha, A7Rii was beta, and A7Riii is finally ready for prime time as a complete, cohesive, usable camera. It's sensor is good, perhaps a little better than in the predecessor, but whether that comes down the the sensor or other electronics I haven't a guess.
> 
> That being said, A9 on the other hand has a sensor architecture which is remarkably better (similar IMO to the DPAF development at Canon).



And as I see that is part of the problem in comparing brands. In general, Sony seems to release incremental improvements and people talk about their 'innovation' and 'development' based on little else than the rate at which they release new models. Canon tend to release models when there are significant improvements and people talk about 'slow development' and 'no innovation' but anyone who actually buy their cameras almost always talk about how how much better the new model is to use as a camera.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




The thing is, that using the _existing_ data and calculating trend lines over this period is _not_ what Thom Hogan did. He didn't estimate the 2020 data based on a trend of _only_ the old data.

_Instead_ he _first_ estimated, based on a simple reasonable assumption, the unit volume for 2018, 2019 and 2020, _assuming that MILCs grow in Volume by 10% each year from now on, as well as DSLRs decline by 10% each year._ Then he calculated trend lines from 2013 to 2020 based on the model to estimate a cross-over-point.
I find that a very reasonable model. One can certainly argue about it, but it is not something I would dismiss as unrealistic. The reasoning is as follows: From the point of view of DSLRs, sales in unit volume decrease now for quite some time. 10% decay is conservative. Although, as you rightly say, mirrorless growth using several past years can be seen as quite steady, depending on the period used (although 25% growth occurred over 2017 according to his data), Canon and Nikon are releasing several MILC models this and next year, some before Photokina, with more to follow. These will be APSC models as well as full frame models (not to count recent successes from Panasonic, Olympus and Sony. And don't forget Canon!). Sony will add an A7s3 and A73 and new APSC models within the next two years, an A9ii before the Olympics.
It is __very likely__, that this will lead to stronger mirrorless growth than over the previous years. In a shrinking market, it is very likely, too, that the growth will be at the cost of DSLR sales, don't you think? A 10% increase each year is reasonable.

Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...


Thom Hogan didn't do a trend based on one data point increase. Just read my reply to Neuro...

I wouldn't call the sensor update huge, but substantial. DR at low isos improved further. https://www.dpreview.com/news/4302149407/sony-a7r-iii-dynamic-range-improved-nearly-matches-chart-topping-nikon-d850
It almost matches D850 iso64 DR. Sensor readout is a bit faster, too, as is PD-AF, which improved drastically.
It is difficult to say how much is sensor dependent and how much is due to algorithmic improvements. Sensitivity increased by 1 stop, too. Noise grain is improved at high isos, but this is usually due to better software algorithms.
The shutter is excellently damped, making it one of the quietest cameras with mechanical shutter I used, IBIS is improved as well as customisability. I think it became a great camera, now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2018)

Hflm said:


> Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.



Yes, I read Hogan's assumptions and his description of how he generated the plots. If you indeed read his blog post (and you certainly imply that you have done so), it's apparent that you cannot properly comprehend what you read. There's no need to assume what you don't know, when you demonstrate what you don't know right here in this thread and succeed in making yourself look foolish in the process. 

Let's review:



Hflm said:


> The thing is, that using the _existing_ data and calculating trend lines over this period is _not_ what Thom Hogan did. He didn't estimate the 2020 data based on a trend of _only_ the old data.
> 
> _Instead_ he _first_ estimated, based on a simple reasonable assumption, the unit volume for 2018, 2019 and 2020, _assuming that MILCs grow in Volume by 10% each year from now on, as well as DSLRs decline by 10% each year._ Then he calculated trend lines from 2013 to 2020 based on the model to estimate a cross-over-point.
> I find that a very reasonable model.



[quote author=Thom Hogan]
*The straight linear trend looks like this (hashed lines; the solid lines are actual through 2017, linear estimates through 2020).*

Note that 2016 was a problem for mirrorless due to sensor shortages due to the earthquake. 






Implied in this graph is about a 10% drop in DSLR unit volume a year and a 10% gain in mirrorless unit volume (the 2017 gain for mirrorless was 25% [current trailing year numbers], but it was also a recovery year from sensor shortages). 

But a linear trend is not necessarily what we'll see. In fact, it's highly unlikely that sales would progress linearly. As more mirrorless choices become available and it becomes clear that Canon and Nikon are endorsing such models, we're likely to see a higher mirrorless adaptation rate. Change the growth rate in mirrorless and the contraction rate in DSLRs by a factor of one point five to two and you get something like this:





[/quote]

He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the _existing_ data and calculating trend lines over this period is *_exactly_* what Thom Hogan did (as he stated and I highlighted in red above). There is no 'assumption of a 10% decline/growth' _prior_ to calculating the trendlines, as you erroneously suggest. The 10% decline/growth _are based on_ the trendlines generated from the 2013-2017 actual data. In that scenario, the trendlines would cross in 2020.

He _then_ made an assumption that the 10% growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively) was an underestimate (based on new MILCs from Canon and Nikon), and modeled what would happen if those rates increased 1.5- to 2-fold, i.e. a 15-20% y/y growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively). With that assumption, the steeper trendlines would cross in 2019.

But...my original point still stands. He based his straight linear trends on actual data from *2013*-2017, and for MILCs over that period, the data show the trendline increasing ~10% y/y. That ~10% y/y change is the basis for his MILC projections. Yet, data on MILC shipments are available starting from 2012, and he ignored the 2012 data point – a data point which, had it been included, would have resulted in a *flat* trendline for MILCs from 2012-2017...and of course, a 15-20% increase to a flat trendline is...a flat trendline. (But as I also stated, that doesn't apply to the decrease in dSLR shipments from 2012-2017; based on that rate of decline and a logical assumption of MILC growth if Canon continues growing their MILC lines and Nikon enters the fray, a crossover point of 2019-2020 remains a reasonable possibility, even if Hogan arrived at that conclusion through flawed methods.)

If your failure to fully grasp and correctly describe Thom Hogan's analysis is representative of your overall scientific acumen, I feel sorry for your students and for anyone relying on your data analysis.


----------



## Hflm (Feb 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the job, I do a lot of data analysis (big data, huge simulations (exascale), etc.), so I think you don't need to assume what I know or don't know. You didn't even bother to read about the assumptions of Hogans analysis and boast about others looking foolish etc.
> ...



He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines. In other words, using the _existing_ data and calculating trend lines over this period is *_exactly_* what Thom Hogan did (as he stated and I highlighted in red above). There is no 'assumption of a 10% decline/growth' _prior_ to calculating the trendlines, as you erroneously suggest. The 10% decline/growth _are based on_ the trendlines generated from the 2013-2017 actual data. In that scenario, the trendlines would cross in 2020.

He _then_ made an assumption that the 10% growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively) was an underestimate (based on new MILCs from Canon and Nikon), and modeled what would happen if those rates increased 1.5- to 2-fold, i.e. a 15-20% y/y growth/decline in MILCs/dSLRs (respectively). With that assumption, the steeper trendlines would cross in 2019.

But...my original point still stands. He based his straight linear trends on actual data from *2013*-2017, and for MILCs over that period, the data show the trendline increasing ~10% y/y. That ~10% y/y change is the basis for his MILC projections. Yet, data on MILC shipments are available starting from 2012, and he ignored the 2012 data point – a data point which, had it been included, would have resulted in a *flat* trendline for MILCs from 2012-2017...and of course, a 15-20% increase to a flat trendline is...a flat trendline. (But as I also stated, that doesn't apply to the decrease in dSLR shipments from 2012-2017; based on that rate of decline and a logical assumption of MILC growth if Canon continues growing their MILC lines and Nikon enters the fray, a crossover point of 2019-2020 remains a reasonable possibility, even if Hogan arrived at that conclusion through flawed methods.)

If your failure to fully grasp and correctly describe Thom Hogan's analysis is representative of your overall scientific acumen, I feel sorry for your students and for anyone relying on your data analysis.
[/quote]


You say "He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), *which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines.* In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did" 

No. 

It makes a difference whether it is 6% or 10%. The data is _not_ extrapolated to 2020 based on the trend line from the data from 2013 to 2017. The attached image reproduces the data and trend lines, based on your numbers given in a previous thread, just to get a quick dataset at hand. 

As you can see, when calculating a trend for the data assuming a 10% increase per year for the subsequent 3 years (equivalent to a linear trend from 2017 to 2020, which is what he meant and highlighted in your red bold text), I can almost exactly reproduce Thom Hogan's trend line. So our datasets are very similar.

Given, too, is the trend line based on the 2013-2017 data alone. A clear difference in slope. The data values from 2018 to 2020 would have been much lower, had I estimated them given the 2013-2017 trend.

You can see that by comparing the slope of the trend line and data, that they are different for that region, too.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 6, 2018)

As a long-time mirrorless user, having extensively used m4/3, APS-C and FF mirrorless as well as FF DSLRs, by far the biggest difference in the system size and weight is in the lenses for each format, because physics dictates larger sensors will need larger lenses. The depth of the camera being a few mm thicker when FF glass is going on the end of it anyway, is truly negligible overall.

Sony/Zeiss seem to have proved this fairly quickly with the various lenses for FE mount. For a given FL and aperture, the lens sizes/weights are pretty much identical to their FF DSLR counterparts (e.g. Sony FE 35mm f/1.4, 78.5x112.0mm, 630g ≈ Canon 35mm f/1.4 L II, 80.4x105.5, 760g. Sony FE 24-70 f/2.8 GM, 87.6x136 mm, 886g ≈ Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, 88.5 x 113mm, 805g). A few g here or there, but in a bag with a few lenses, probably it will equal out. That leaves the body. The couple hundred grams difference will probably be largely the mirror mech and OVF and OVF related AF, etc. Remove that, and Canon will probably be within 50g or so of Sony right off the bat (I'm guessing a little heavier as they are likely going slightly more robust and better weather sealed, etc., which will add weight).

So the difference ends up being a few mm in the depth of the body, which overall doesn't matter because of grip depth - (on Canon DSLRs the grip depth is almost equal to the body depth, wheras in, e.g., the Sony A7Riii, the grip just sticks out more, and the EVF sticks out the back). Have a look here http://j.mp/2scJ4Oe and change the view to top or side view; the difference in body depth in real terms is around 2mm. Height is the real bulk difference, but again, remove the OVF and replace with EVF and you're nearly there.

Therefore in my mind, for FF mirrorless there is very, very little, to zero gain in Canon to abandoning a huge, and largely very fine, EF lens lineup just to change the mount. For sure, they could start designing new lenses to make the most of the benefits of mirrorless, but I doubt that will be about size, more likely to do with more silent, smoother lenses which are designed from the ground up with DPAF in mind, smoother motors for video, etc.

For EF-M with APS-C, well possibly slightly different, as Canon don't have a great APS-C lens lineup anyway, especially primes, etc., so that could be fleshed out for sure.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 6, 2018)

As an addendum to my previous post, I got playing with the Camera Size website on my coffee break. Even I hadn't quite realised just how ridiculous the FF DSLR/Mirrorless size/weight comparison was until I did so. A couple of examples, just to provide food for thought (this is cameras with lenses, so to see what I'm on about you have to click on the little 'body plus lens' icon next to the scale slider):

5D Mark IV + Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II vs Sony A7riii+Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM
http://j.mp/2yc91ej
Note that the overall size of the combination is near exactly the same, again, only the height of the mirror box makes the Canon taller. Weight is similar.


5D Mark IV + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Sony A7riii+Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
http://j.mp/2sjiC5J
Here the Canon combo is smaller, despite being a stop faster. Weight is similar again.

There are other advantages to mirrorless other than size/weight, of course, but I'm now extremely unconvinced that the mount makes much difference at all in the overall equation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> 5D Mark IV + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L vs Sony A7riii+Sony 50mm f/1.4 ZA
> http://j.mp/2sjiC5J
> Here the Canon combo is smaller, despite being a stop faster. Weight is similar again.



F1.2 to f1.4 is 1/3rd of a stop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2018)

Hflm said:


> You say "He plotted actual data from 2013-2017, generated linear trendlines based on those data which yield a ~10% y/y decrease in dSLRs and a ~10% y/y increase in MILC shipments (actually, the latter closer to ~6% per year), *which he then extrapolated to 2018-2020 based on those linear trendlines.* In other words, using the existing data and calculating trend lines over this period is _exactly_ what Thom Hogan did"
> 
> No.
> 
> ...



Interesting, thanks for the re-analysis and taking the high road. Partial mea culpa, I was paying attention to what he said, not what he did. What Hogan actually did with the MILC shipments is different from what he said he did. He said, "Straight line linear trend and linear estimates through 2020," and then, "Implied in the graph is a 10% drop in dSLR and a 10% gain in MILC," but based on your analysis he didn't _imply_ it, he explicitly showed it...instead of the straight linear trend and linear estimates he claimed he was plotting. Or maybe I'm just over interpreting – I would take 'linear estimate' in the context of a graph to mean a linear extrapolation of the data...but I suppose he just means he plotted some actual data, then arbitratily made up some other data, and drew a straight line through the real and the fake data...thus, a 'linear estimate'. 

But that's not the whole story. Below, I replotted the actual 2013 - 2017 datasets for both MILCs and dSLRs, added linear trendlines (orange for dSLRs, purple for MILCs) and superimposed (in Photoshop) that plot with Hogan's first plot (the one he called 'straight linear trend'). [Side note: the data points for 2016 do not exactly line up, Hogan's green point is lower than my orange one and his blue point is very slightly lower than my purple one – I suspect he accidentally used the CIPA number for production that year, instead of shipments like all the other years; 2016 dSLR production was ~175,000 units lower than shipments, and MILC production was ~21,000 units lower.]

So, it seems he arbitrarily assigned a 10% y/y drop in dSLRs (shallower than the data suggest) and a 10% increase in MILCs (steeper than the data suggest) and came up with an intersection in 2020. To me, that is not necessarily a reasonable model – an greater increase in MILCs makes sense based on introduction of new models, but does a slower decline in dSLRs make sense in that context? Put another way, he states that, "It's not hard to imagine that the factors are truly lined up this time for mirrorless growth at the expense of DSLR sales," but what he graphically assumes (in the top graph) is that dSLR sales are stronger than the trend would predict, consistent with a reduced rate of decline for the ILC market as a whole. 

He then generated the bottom graph by arbitrarily setting the growth/decline to '15-20%' and came up with an intesection in 2019. Of course, if he'd just done what he said he'd do – use actual data and simple linear extrapolation – in the first place, he'd have seen the lines cross in 2019 without any 'implied' assumptions. So, why didn't he just do that? I suspect the answer is in the opening lines of his post:

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
It seems a post I made on an Internet forum last week rattled a few cages. Basically I predicted that mirrorless sales would equal DSLR sales in 2020.
[/quote]

He'd previously said 2020, he analyzed the data with a simple linear model and came up with 2019. So, he had to come up with a rather convoluted way of making the data fit a 2020 intersection to support his previous statement, then further modify that convoluted method with yet another (non-linear) convolution to arrive at a 2019 intersection.

I still think he may have reached a reasonable conclusion, but his way of getting there was even more wrong than I had initially thought.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2018)

What I find interesting, other than people being way more versed in analytics than me, is that the total sales are dropping so much. We all assumed the P&S collapse was due to the ubiquity and improvements in phone cameras, I suppose the best assumption for the drops in ILC's is the maturity of the DSLR form factor and the fact that relatively few people want to sell their DSLR's to replace them with MILC's.

Camera sales are still historically above average so the manufacturers shouldn't be hurting too much, but it is an interesting side show to see how it all develops.


----------



## bwud (Feb 6, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> What I find interesting, other than people being way more versed in analytics than me, is that the total sales are dropping so much. We all assumed the P&S collapse was due to the ubiquity and improvements in phone cameras, I suppose the best assumption for the drops in ILC's is the maturity of the DSLR form factor and the fact that relatively few people want to sell their DSLR's to replace them with MILC's.
> 
> Camera sales are still historically above average so the manufacturers shouldn't be hurting too much, but it is an interesting side show to see how it all develops.



I agree product maturity has something to do with it, but sales should regardless be sustained by new customers entering the market even if cameras have peaked with current technology. Either photography is declining (clearly not true, more photos are being taken than ever before), new customers are opting to purchase used equipment (unlikely on a scale large enough to affect trends in a meaningful way), or there is an alternative product (such as smart device based cameras).

It would be interesting to see these trends overlaid with sales of camera phones (but not enough that I’m moved to do it myself ).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2018)

bwud said:


> It would be interesting to see these trends overlaid with sales of camera phones (but not enough that I’m moved to do it myself ).



With apologies for the Y-axis, I trust this makes the point...


----------



## bwud (Feb 6, 2018)

Thanks you. It does. Quite. One could show orders of magnitude on that y axis!

Granted most people don’t buy a phone because it has a camera, at least not in the early days of those devices, whereas people buy cameras because they are cameras. In other words, bundling skews the numbers; it would probably be even more lopsided if charted for, oh... calculators, which also come with most phones - you probably wouldn’t even see the standalone calculators on a linear scale.

Nevertheless, for those who both want a camera and want a phone, it can be a compelling product and sway buying decisions away from dedicated devices, as is likely evidenced largely in the marketing trends. I’d guess that is a greater effect by far than maturity.


----------



## Sarpedon (Feb 6, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> As an addendum to my previous post, I got playing with the Camera Size website on my coffee break. Even I hadn't quite realised just how ridiculous the FF DSLR/Mirrorless size/weight comparison was until I did so. A couple of examples, just to provide food for thought (this is cameras with lenses, so to see what I'm on about you have to click on the little 'body plus lens' icon next to the scale slider):
> 
> 5D Mark IV + Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L II vs Sony A7riii+Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM
> http://j.mp/2yc91ej
> ...



This is an important point that the more extreme Sony partisans avoid. But both sides are half right and half wrong here.

I think it's healthier to think of something like the A7 series as a modular system: big and heavy with the typical "pro" lenses, just like a DSLR, and furthermore, necessitating an additional grip (and therefore additional money) for good ergonomics with those lenses. 

But configured a different way there is a real size advantage: use a small lens like the 35 2.8 on an A7R III and you've got a significantly less bulky and somewhat lighter kit than even the smallest full frame DSLR/lens combo (a 6D with a 40mm STM). There are also weight and size savings to be found with an ultra-wide and high-quality zoom like the 12-24. That's a real advantage, it's just not the clear-cut advantage the fanboys claim.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 7, 2018)

Hflm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



MILC adoption will accelerate going forward, it is a simple case of demographics and where the market growth potential is. Younger people are going to favor cameras with integrate computing power into their basic operation, and those will mostly be MILCs. Most of the growth potential for cameras outside of body replacement will be in third world countries, places that don't have attachments to the DSLR concept. There will be a number of major releases in the MILC market, while in DSLRs the only major release we might expect is the 7D3, a line that does not have a huge following to start with. Lastly, the last bastion of DSLRs is North America, and there we are seeing very strong upticks in MILC adoption.

Taking all of those things into account, we can expect to see accelerated MILC growth in 2018 and 2019. As soon as the bigger holdouts such as Canon and Nikon start moving over to the MILC market, expect to see DSLRs being routed. Like I said, 2019 will be the turning point, DSLRs will fade away pretty quickly after that.


----------



## Talys (Feb 7, 2018)

Tugela said:


> MILC adoption will accelerate going forward, it is a simple case of demographics and where the market growth potential is. Younger people are going to favor cameras with integrate computing power into their basic operation, and those will mostly be MILCs. Most of the growth potential for cameras outside of body replacement will be in third world countries, places that don't have attachments to the DSLR concept. There will be a number of major releases in the MILC market, while in DSLRs the only major release we might expect is the 7D3, a line that does not have a huge following to start with. Lastly, the last bastion of DSLRs is North America, and there we are seeing very strong upticks in MILC adoption.
> 
> Taking all of those things into account, we can expect to see accelerated MILC growth in 2018 and 2019. As soon as the bigger holdouts such as Canon and Nikon start moving over to the MILC market, expect to see DSLRs being routed. Like I said, 2019 will be the turning point, DSLRs will fade away pretty quickly after that.



Wow. Your hypothesis is loaded with so many assumptions that I don't even know where to begin.

Where does all of this market data come from? How do you know younger people don't proportionately use more smartphones? Or that a slightly, or much older, crowd has more disposable income to spend, potentially, tens of thousands on camera stuff? How do you know that some younger people prefer an OVF? Why on earth do you think 3rd world countries would have the highest growth, when water and food and war can be more pressing problems? And with what money do they buy these super-expensive cameras?

I'll stop there, but just because typing this made me sleepy


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2018)

Tugela said:


> There will be a number of major releases in the MILC market, while in DSLRs the only major release we might expect is the 7D3, a line that does not have a huge following to start with.



Two new Rebel/xxx(x)D bodies are coming for CP+. Those lines outsell high end APS-C and FF, but that's not 'major', right?




Tugela said:


> As soon as the bigger holdouts such as Canon and Nikon start moving over to the MILC market, expect to see DSLRs being routed.



Because Canon isn't already #2 in the MILC segment, right? Or by 'moving over' do you mean stop selling dSLRs, which still outsell MILCs by a 2:1 margin? Because that's a smart, short term move, right?




Tugela said:


> Like I said, 2019 will be the turning point, DSLRs will fade away pretty quickly after that.



Like you said, every Canon camera with Digic 7 will have 4K video. Remind me, how'd that work out for you?


----------



## Talys (Feb 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > As soon as the bigger holdouts such as Canon and Nikon start moving over to the MILC market, expect to see DSLRs being routed.
> ...



EF-M mount cameras don't count, because they're missing the 2 most important aspects that define *M*irrorless *I*nterchangeable *L*ens *C*ameras: full frame, and 4k video. 

People who like to say that Canon is #2 in the MILC segment like to conveniently omit that M-series cameras are just DSLRs that are missing mirrors.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> EF-M mount cameras don't count, because they're missing the 2 most important aspects that define *M*irrorless *I*nterchangeable *L*ens *C*ameras: full frame, and 4k video.
> 
> People who like to say that Canon is #2 in the MILC segment like to conveniently omit that M-series cameras are just DSLRs that are missing mirrors.



Ha! +1.

I find these debates are principally about someone wanting to win an argument *that it's all about FF mirrorless* and Canon still doesn't play there. Until that happens, any data we throw their way...

Tops in FF
Tops in APS-C
Tops globally in overall sales
#2 in mirrorless (in some markets -- I don't know the global situation)

...is dismissed as Canon being the lonely polar bear on a melting iceberg, _totally *******._

And the funny thing is, the second Canon does come good with an FF mirrorless platform, it will get picked to pieces like a Thanksgiving turkey for the decisions Canon made with it (full EF mount?! no IBIS?! Only 326 AF points?!). There's no pleasing some folks.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2018)

i think the situation with Canon is not aptly described by "you can't please all folks". Quite the opposite. It is amazing, how stupidly patient many/most Canon customers are, given Canon's multiple failures on each and every front of camera system development.  :

"Mirrorless in general", "FF mirrorless" in particular, not fully competitive sensor tech over the last 10 years, no 4k, or something less often mentioned: why no Eye-controlled AF system in any of their digital cameras ... and and and ? 

All we are and were getting from stupid Canon over the last 10 years - ever since they fell behind tech leaders -
was an endless stream of always the same, marginally changed mirrorslappers and a bunch of Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV sh*it ... instead of some really groundbreaking, innovative gear.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2018)

Is it more likely that the millions of people who buy cameras that meet their needs are stupidly patient, or that a few individuals who think their personal views represent those of the majority are stupid(ly egotistic)?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> All we are and were getting from stupid Canon over the last 10 years - ever since they fell behind tech leaders -
> was an endless stream of always the same, marginally changed mirrorslappers and a bunch of Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV sh*it ... instead of some really groundbreaking, innovative gear.



Because we -- and, in this case, you and your expectations -- are. not. the. market. I can't say this enough. 

If a smaller camera, Eye AF, 4K, oodles of DR, etc. are what the market wanted, Sony would be stealing Canon market share left and right. That's not happening. (I'm not saying those features aren't desirable, but they are not enough to unseat some large advantages Canon has (lenses, quality, ergonomics, branding, trust, etc.)).

AvTvM, you almost take on the mentality of a climate change denier with this: all the data in the world will not convince you. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Feb 9, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i think the situation with Canon is not aptly described by "you can't please all folks". Quite the opposite. It is amazing, how stupidly patient many/most Canon customers are, given Canon's multiple failures on each and every front of camera system development.  :
> 
> "Mirrorless in general", "FF mirrorless" in particular, not fully competitive sensor tech over the last 10 years, no 4k, or something less often mentioned: why no Eye-controlled AF system in any of their digital cameras ... and and and ?
> 
> ...



Speaking for only myself:

1. I still don't really like EVFs for my 4 types of photography I do most: birding, backyard wildlife, cat photos (because I use off camera flash), studio photography.

2. I think the 80D/6D2/5D3 sensors are wondrous things that have more DR than I can use - at least, on properly exposed shots.

3. I haven't yet seen a mirrorless with ergonomics I like (meaning, comfortable to use for long shooting periods). That includes Canon's.

4. 4k, 1080p, 720p, the entire video and all audio features can be deleted, for all I care. I would trade it for another custom setting spot on the dial.

5. I would like Eye AF. But if I must choose between OVF and Eye-AF, I will choose OVF every time. I suppose, being able to choose OVF with no Eye AF or LiveView Eye AF would be the ideal compromise for me.

6. I don't like my cameras to change very much from generation to generation. I like them to improve, but being comfortable and controls being reflex actions are an important part of good photography for me. Plus, I will often carry two bodies, with one of them being older. I like that I can use a 5 year old Canon body and a brand new one at the same time with all the important stuff in the same places.

Finally: I really do feel that the DSLR market is pretty mature. For every amazing photo that I see and admire, - largely, what I need to achieve something like that is not more DR or eye AF or whatever. If I were a better photographer, I'd be able to take most of them with a 5D2 or 5D3. Until then, whether I have a 6D2 or A7R3 doesn't really matter.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 9, 2018)

FWIW he didn’t say “EyeAF” as in the tracking algorithm Sony uses, but eye controlled AF as in the selection mode in canon elan 7ne and some other film SLRs.



AvTvM said:


> not fully competitive sensor tech over the last 10 years



What even does that mean, “not fully competitive?”

Canon is the market leader in spatial resolution (notwithstanding medium formats), sensor-level autofocus (widest coverage and PDAF enabled locations), and close to the top in ISO speeds and (again notwithstanding medium format) color depth. They’re somewhat behind in dynamic range. 

Where are they not fully competitive? The sensor market itself in which they don’t participate? The only way to judge canon’s sensor competitiveness is through camera sales. Sony wins because Sony provides vastly most camera sensors (to the smart device makers in particular). Who else does canon trail?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 9, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> FWIW he didn’t say “EyeAF” as in the tracking algorithm Sony uses, but eye controlled AF as in the selection mode in canon elan 7ne and some other film SLRs.



Ah, my bad. 

So his dream car may have laser cannons, a dorsal shark fin and flame job on it... _but the base car is still a 1999 Honda Insight_. 

Thank you. My AvTvM log has been updated.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 10, 2018)

i find it very funny that folks who claim they greatly prefer optical viewfinders (OVFs) sing the praise of Canon's DP-AF, which is not active at all in OVF operation, and of limited use in Live-View mode only [DSLRs] and EVF-mirrorless cams. 

To me, Canon DP-AF is massively overhyped and overrated. No Canon DP-AF equipped camera - DSLRs and mirrorless alike - delivers "best-in class AF performance" ... despite all those DP-AF shenanigans. 

Sony A6500 AF dances circles around EOS M5/M6, Olympus EF-M1 dito, higher end Panasonics as well, [decent] Fuji models are not better but not worse either. 

To me ... I would happily trade DP-AF for 2 more stops DR at base ISO and a "regular" combo AF [on-sensor Phase-AF for speed followed by CD-AF for accuracy].


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i find it very funny that folks who claim they greatly prefer optical viewfinders (OVFs) sing the praise of Canon's DP-AF, which is not active at all in OVF operation, and of limited use in Live-View mode only [DSLRs] and EVF-mirrorless cams.
> 
> To me, Canon DP-AF is massively overhyped and overrated. No Canon DP-AF equipped camera - DSLRs and mirrorless alike - delivers "best-in class AF performance" ... despite all those DP-AF shenanigans.
> 
> ...



There is less than 1/2 stop of DR difference between all those cameras at base ISO...

Get the camera that suits you best with the features you value most, Canon make what they make, they don't care about you or me so get over it.


----------



## Talys (Feb 11, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i find it very funny that folks who claim they greatly prefer optical viewfinders (OVFs) sing the praise of Canon's DP-AF, which is not active at all in OVF operation, and of limited use in Live-View mode only [DSLRs] and EVF-mirrorless cams.
> 
> To me, Canon DP-AF is massively overhyped and overrated. No Canon DP-AF equipped camera - DSLRs and mirrorless alike - delivers "best-in class AF performance" ... despite all those DP-AF shenanigans.
> 
> ...



I vastly prefer OVF and I am a DP booster, so I guess you mean peeps like me.

I'll keep it simple: use a Nikon, go to live view, and try to take some photos. It is freaking unusable. Even for stills, it is painful.

Just because 95%+ of my photography is with OVF doesn't mean that I don't appreciate live view and DP the other 5% of the time. One use is tripod, high up, with screen tilted down. Instead of climbing a ladder, I AF with a remote trigger and take the shots.

Or, I might be at an event in a crowd where I have to reach up to take a shot. DP just WORKS the way live view autofocus should.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> i think the situation with Canon is not aptly described by "you can't please all folks". Quite the opposite. It is amazing, how stupidly patient many/most Canon customers are, given Canon's multiple failures on each and every front of camera system development.  :
> 
> "Mirrorless in general", "FF mirrorless" in particular, not fully competitive sensor tech over the last 10 years, no 4k, or something less often mentioned: why no Eye-controlled AF system in any of their digital cameras ... and and and ?
> 
> ...



DPAF is groundbreaking, everyone else in the industry must be kicking themselves every day over Canon getting full Phase Detect autofocus across the entire sensor when that feature is undoubtedly more valuable than anything that anyone else in the mirrorless space has come up with yet.
If it were their tech Sony would be advertising DPAF as tens of millions of autofocus points trying to use big numbers to inflate their ego, but Sony can’t do that because they aren’t as innovative as Canon.
Canon is industry leading in everything they want to be, they’re the best in the business at making stuff that the most people want to buy.

The failure of Nikon over the last 10 year is twice as noteworthy as any shortcomings Canon has, for the oldest player in the business to be running themselves into the ground over and over (Nikon 1, SnapBridge, KeyMission) has got to be the biggest slice of industry news this century.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 11, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> All we are and were getting from stupid Canon over the last 10 years - ever since they fell behind tech leaders -
> was an endless stream of always the same, marginally changed mirrorslappers and a bunch of Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV sh*it ... instead of some really groundbreaking, innovative gear.



10 years....10 YEARS...??
Canon has been making uncompetitive cameras for 10 YEARS (!!!) and Sony and Nikon have still not replaced them as #1? Jeez, their products must be shite once you look at everything but the sensor. What on earth have Sony/Nikon been doing to not be able to pick up all those gazillion of new users (you know, the ones with no legacy lenses to hold them back) to fail so miserably to not be number one!!!! AFTER....10....WHOLE....YEARS....!!!

Outside the sensor the rest of their cameras must be complete cack to blow their obvious and clear superiority.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 11, 2018)

as written before: stupid Canon was and is extremely fortunate to have even more stupid competition. 
Sony obviously wants to repeat their Betamax experience one more time. And stupid mirrorslapping Nikon hopefully will falter soon. Olympus .. dwarf sensors. Fuji: APS-C and "pseudo"-MF only instead of launching a killer FF mirrorless system... all of it helps Canon to survive despite all their fails and stupidity.


----------



## Talys (Feb 11, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> as written before: stupid Canon was and is extremely fortunate to have even more stupid competition.
> Sony obviously wants to repeat their Betamax experience one more time. And stupid mirrorslapping Nikon hopefully will falter soon. Olympus .. dwarf sensors. Fuji: APS-C and "pseudo"-MF only instead of launching a killer FF mirrorless system... all of it helps Canon to survive despite all their fails and stupidity.



With your brilliance, you should apply for an executive position at one of the camera manufacturers. Surely then, you could cure them of their stupidity and they would sweep the market. 8)


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > as written before: stupid Canon was and is extremely fortunate to have even more stupid competition.
> ...



it would not be difficult to manage all of them better than they are ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Perhaps, but doubtful.

FYI, “produce specifically the camera and lenses I want” is neither a business strategy, nor a management strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> it would not be difficult to manage all of them better than they are ...



"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Perhaps, but doubtful.
> 
> FYI, “produce specifically the camera and lenses I want” is neither a business strategy, nor a management strategy.



well, i dont think Fuji's strategy to Only offer APS-C mirrorless sized and priced like FF gear might be even dumber than producing gear i would be happy with. i am rather convinced the camera system i would like to see (FF, mirrorless, mechanics- free, solid state, very compact, very capable, with excellent UI and reasonably priced) would reach more than the 3% marketshare all of the Fuji retro cr*p is getting. 

i also am convinced that Canon would have sold more, not less, had they combatted Sony A7 series from the very start with a capable FF mirrorless system. and all those mirrorslapping rebels could easily have been replaced with EOS M gear by now - with better sales revenue and margin.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> well, i dont think Fuji's strategy to Only offer APS-C mirrorless sized and priced like FF gear might be even dumber than producing gear i would be happy with. i am rather convinced the camera system i would like to see (FF, mirrorless, mechanics- free, solid state, very compact, very capable, with excellent UI and reasonably priced) would reach more than the 3% marketshare all of the Fuji retro cr*p is getting.
> 
> i also am convinced...



At least in your case, there was no doubt left to remove. 

Fuji's 'APS-C only' strategy also includes the medium format GFX 50S. Fuji's 'retro crap' has seen a 40% y/y revenue growth, which isn't 'crap' by any means. But we know you never let facts and reality impinge on your opinion. :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, but doubtful.
> ...



Let’s roleplay. I’ll be general manager. You be the marketing executive charged with developing a product strategy.

What are the TAM and SAM for MILC? Is it big enough and profitable enough to interest us?
Who are the main customers? Are they also the main consumers?
My objective is to maximize profit. What is the appropriate final price (including a demand estimate, cost estimate, competitive analysis, and pricing method)?
My boss (Mr CEO) wants to increase market share rather than focus on margin. What is the appropriate final price? Help me convince Mr CEO that my profit strategy is more aligned to the addressable market.
Is the demand elastic?

These are some of the types of questions you’ll be responsible for in your effort to manage products better than the firms you noted. Solid state this, compatible that. Doesn’t matter.
TAM, SAM, COGS/pricing analysis.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 12, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, but doubtful.
> ...



Is that like the Olympus and Panasonic dumb decision to offer only microfour-thirds and outselling Sony by multiples? Selling cameras that offer true weight savings yet a quality that satisfies many professionals?


How does mirroless have higher margins when people like you expect the price of the camera to be lower because they are not going to the expense of manufacturing a mirror box/assembly?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> How does mirrorless have higher margins when people like you expect the price of the camera to be lower because they are not going to the expense of manufacturing a mirror box/assembly?



very simple: camera makers dont and wont hand out 100% of cost savings to customers. Not even I expect to get 100% of cost savings associated with mirrorless cameras. But I do expect a "decent cut" on them ... a 50/50 split would sound fair to me. What i will definitely not accept is "LOWER cost for maker combined with HIGHER prices for customers". But i am aware that many of the "apologist" folks around here are much more lenient with their gear supplier/s ... but that is not my problem, it's theirs.


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > How does mirrorless have higher margins when people like you expect the price of the camera to be lower because they are not going to the expense of manufacturing a mirror box/assembly?
> ...



Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings 

This is something that the neighbourhood pub do when they get a pallet of wings real cheap -- but not a camera manufacturer. I guarantee you that every camera manufacturer performs a profit analysis, and evaluates at what price their product would maximize immediate and long-term profits, taking into consideration factors like buying market share and potential sales of related products (like lens and other accessories).

The goal of a camera manufacturer is maximize products, not to give you better prices.

If lower cost for manufacturer combined with higher prices for customers is not your gig, you should avoid Sony -- because as they iterate products through generations, they try to increase profitability, often to the point of exceeding the last generation's price (in the name of inflation, for example). Not just with cameras, with everything they make. 

Personally, I don't hold it against them. Frankly, I don't care what the profit margin of a camera is. If Canon can make a 6DII for $100 wow, awesome and good for them. If they lose money to selling it to me, tough luck for them. I just kind of figure that the price tag they stick on it is one they can live with, and if it's a price I can also live with, for something I want, they can have my money.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2018)

Talys said:


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



That’s how the entire electronics industry has operated for the last 50 years, otherwise you would be paying trillions of dollars for anything more than a basic calculator.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 13, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Er....have you studied, or been involved with business finance? You could charge a trillion dollars and make massive profits but you would get 0% of a massive mark-up. 

The reason prices dropped is because of competition. And Sony have a unique series of products so they charge what they can and they get away with it because of the unique set of features. It will be interesting to see what happens to Sony prices a year after Canon and Nikon enter the FF mirrorless market.


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



ding ding ding... give the man a medal 

That's precisely it. In many consumer electronics industries, products are sold in a highly competitive marketplace, and the price (profit) optimization curve lands you at a low profit margin. The price is highly elastic, meaning that as you increase price, the profit plummets. 

The only thing that cost savings do is determine the price floor (the lowest possible selling price), because a company generally doesn't sell items at a loss.

Never, ever, does Samsung or Apple go, "the next phone/laptop/tv will cost 20% less, so we'll mark down the price by 10% to pass it on to the customers". Any pricing manager who suggested that would be laughed out the front door.

If anything, it is the opposite: with each successive generation, the goal is to reduce costs _in order to increase profits_. So the first generation of a product (like an Xbox or PlayStation) will set a benchmark price. Then, as time passes, the production cost will drop, without any change in the selling price. At some point, the selling price will drop (because of competitive forces and price attrition), but by then, the manufacturing cost has dramatically fallen.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > well, i dont think Fuji's strategy to Only offer APS-C mirrorless sized and priced like FF gear might be even dumber than producing gear i would be happy with. i am rather convinced the camera system i would like to see (FF, mirrorless, mechanics- free, solid state, very compact, very capable, with excellent UI and reasonably priced) would reach more than the 3% marketshare all of the Fuji retro cr*p is getting.
> ...



A Pulitzer-prize winning photographer came to my institution for a photoshoot armed with a Fuji XT2 and a Sony RX1R. Lovely kit.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 13, 2018)

AlanF said:


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



The problem with gearheads and spec-sheet warriors is that they lose sight of the question 'what do I need to do the job to an acceptable level' and everything...absolutely everything...is a compromise. Companies like Canon and Sony spend millions on consumer research to determine the set of compromises that will make them stand out and sell cameras. Sony are very, very lucky to have their sensors because without it they would have had virtually no hook on which to which to even start their mirrorless cameras and Sony would probably be a footnote in camera history by now. Almost every review of Sony concentrates on their superiority of dynamic range - take that away and everything else is 'that's interesting'. If you don't believe me, replace the Sony sensor with the 5D3 sensor and tell me how well it would sell.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 14, 2018)

More evidence of that poor management at canon

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-u-s-a-inc-named-one-of-the-2018-worlds-most-ethical-companies-by-the-ethisphere-institute/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> More evidence of that poor management at canon
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-u-s-a-inc-named-one-of-the-2018-worlds-most-ethical-companies-by-the-ethisphere-institute/



Well, if you define ethics as 'giving me the product(s) I personally want', that's a big fail for Canon. I bet there's at least one modedialish person on these forums who holds that opinion.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 14, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



These concepts aren’t complicated. The market analyses may be, but it’s easily understood by the lay person. But here’s the problem: I get the feeling a resident marketing expert might not even have familiarity with basic concepts like elasticity, channels, etc. In fact the general feel I get is that most people conflate marketing and promotion. Promotion is in actuality a part of marketing.


----------

