# Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?



## StoicalEtcher (May 17, 2018)

I read the following within this month's CPS Newsletter (UK version at any rate) from an interview with one of its ambassadors, Jasper Doest:

*Is there anything that you feel Canon could add to its repertoire, to make a positive difference to your photography?*:
"I'm still hoping for a full-frame mirrorless system. Canon's DSLRs are doing an amazing job for me. However, when working with people I notice a Canon EOS-1D X Mark II or even a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens can be intrusive. People don't respond as much to smaller camera systems, which makes it much easier to become a fly on the wall when working on documentary shots."

Article is at : https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/jasper-doest-documentary-wildlife/?utm_source=mc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=0103-201805N_11052018&utm_content=hq_pro-en_a_1_image1_M1A&utm_id=0103-201805n 

I could be too cynical or, alternately, naive, but I always assume Canon writes up articles and posts them to give some aid to its marketing direction. So, given the comment, do we think the full frame mirrorless is bound to be smaller? Not looking to re-open debate on what you want, rather: does this point us in the actual direction?

Stoical


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2018)

Not by much if the Sony G master lenses are any indication. Those lenses are similar in size/weight to their EF counterparts. If you want less intrusive, use a smaller format (i.e. EOS M) with smaller-apertured lenses.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> ...given the comment, do we think the full frame mirrorless is bound to be smaller?...



Given the comment, I think Canon's full frame mirrorless is bound to be *marketed* as smaller.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 17, 2018)

The Canon CEO has mentioned numerous times that the consumer market wants smaller cameras, while pros are happy with or even want large camera.

Since lenses do not get much smaller if at all with FF bodies (they can be a few mm shorter), I'm surprised that their Ambassador is not aware of that. It really makes me wonder, he seems to think a 24-70 f/2.8L for mirrorless would be compact. 


The M series with its smaller sensor allows for APS-C sized lenses and a smaller system as long as you stick to smaller apertures.


----------



## Don Haines (May 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> StoicalEtcher said:
> 
> 
> > ...given the comment, do we think the full frame mirrorless is bound to be smaller?...
> ...



It would be child's play for Canon to make one sized like the SL-1.... In fact, this is what I expect Canon's first foray into FF mirrorless to look like.... and, given some field experience, a 5D sized body with the same ergonomics to follow.....


----------



## BillB (May 17, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I read the following within this month's CPS Newsletter (UK version at any rate) from an interview with one of its ambassadors, Jasper Doest:
> 
> *Is there anything that you feel Canon could add to its repertoire, to make a positive difference to your photography?*:
> "I'm still hoping for a full-frame mirrorless system. Canon's DSLRs are doing an amazing job for me. However, when working with people I notice a Canon EOS-1D X Mark II or even a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens can be intrusive. People don't respond as much to smaller camera systems, which makes it much easier to become a fly on the wall when working on documentary shots."
> ...



You may be giving Canon too much credit for the left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. Canon seems to be holding information on its fullframe mirrorless developmentpretty close, so the people involved in producing the article you read may not know any more than you do.


----------



## pwp (May 18, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Canon CEO has mentioned numerous times that the consumer market wants smaller cameras, while pros are happy with or even want large camera.


For personal use, smaller is generally going to be most useful. A Panasonic G9 is my current compact option. For professional use, especially if you're in a position to be reassuringly expensive, clients like to perceive bang for their buck. Sometimes big is better. Perception is a weird thing. There are a lot of jobs that would be perfectly serviced by my G9, but a gripped 5D Mk4 or 1DX is usually the first choice. I can't tell you how often I get the super dumb comment like "oh wow that's a big camera". Sigh... 

Same to a degree with lighting. Plenty of jobs can be perfectly lit with a Speedlight setup, but perception requires the Einsteins and 86 inch PLM's. It's a lot of nonsense of course, but understanding those client perceptions is part of running a successful business.

I'm so old I used to shoot film. Gasp! I knew I'd get an entirely different response from some portrait clients depending whether I pulled out the relatively compact EOS 1n or the seriously oversized Mamiya RZ67. What a brick!

I'm a 100% likely buyer of the FF mirrorless regardless of its size. Small is fine. I'd just add a grip anyway.

-pw


----------



## edoorn (May 18, 2018)

I know Jasper Doest as quite an honest photographer so I do believe it's really his words, not from the marketing department. However, they might not have asked the question if they didn't want him anything saying about this subject right?


----------



## StoicalEtcher (May 18, 2018)

edoorn said:


> I know Jasper Doest as quite an honest photographer so I do believe it's really his words, not from the marketing department. However, they might not have asked the question if they didn't want him anything saying about this subject right?


I tend to agree with you - the photographer gives an honest opinion, but the question is either loaded, or perhaps the answer is particularly likely to make it through to final print if it is "on message". Mind you, I'm also inclined to agree with BIIIB that we can't assume the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

I remain interested, in any event, to see what Canon produces next.

Stoical 8)


----------



## snappy604 (May 19, 2018)

I hope it is smaller than existing SLRs and something better than the new sony a7 III ;-)

I think it would be a big gain to be able to switch from existing canon EF glass and more discreet compact glass as needed. Essentially switch between a pro camera when you need it, to a general purpose compact when you just want something small/light to carry. Carrying my 80D even with a prime is bulky.

Interestingly I just tried the A7 III for an hour with a friend and with the sigma adapter all my canon and sigma glass was quite usable. It answered my concerns about my investment in the glass of an ecosystem and it seems you don't need to ditch to switch. The EVF responsiveness was also quite good, I think enough to give up optical. 

It really hammered home the possibilities of a mirrorless and I hope to see something comparable soon from Canon.


----------



## Tugela (May 19, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The Canon CEO has mentioned numerous times that the consumer market wants smaller cameras, while pros are happy with or even want large camera.
> 
> Since lenses do not get much smaller if at all with FF bodies (they can be a few mm shorter), I'm surprised that their Ambassador is not aware of that. It really makes me wonder, he seems to think a 24-70 f/2.8L for mirrorless would be compact.
> 
> ...




You mean like the 40mm? That thing on a 1D makes the camera look ridiculous. 

Something like the 1D is immediately obvious because of it's size, irrespective of what lens is attached to it. A smaller camera is less intimidating to people in your scene.

Lenses can be pretty small if they are fixed focal length and aperture is in a more normal range. You don't need fast glass for most situations.


----------



## BillB (May 19, 2018)

If you are photographing people who might notice, you might want a wide aperture zoom, and there aren't many small wide aperture zooms around. So, there would seem to be a limit on how much less obstrusive a mirrorless design would be, unless you are willing to shoot with a prime or a slower zoom.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 19, 2018)

Canon seems to be fairly well in control. They would not publish the comments unless they were relevant. Given that they have patented a converter for a new FF lens mount to EF, they are, at very least strongly considering a new lens for a FF mirrorless. The body can indeed be made smaller, none of the claptrap for the mirror is needed. But, cooling of the sensor gets difficult, and light falloff at the edges of the sensor for a short flange back lens is a problem to be solved. They have multiple patents for that as well, but they seem expensive to implement, and just how well they would work with a adapted EF lens is not mentioned in the patents.

In spite of my desire to see a EF mount mirrorless, I do believe that we will see a entirely new mount. Its unlikely that this would have been published unless that were happening.


----------



## Durf (May 20, 2018)

At this point it really doesn't matter what Canon does.....just as long as they come out with a strong 4K with a decent file size camera that has a Sony Badge duct-taped to the front of it. (it doesn't even need to take pictures!) lol

The camera tech "this camera is better than that camera" arguments and ridiculous hupla now a days is like watching political bickering on CNN etc....

I'll shoot Canon DSLR's till the day I die and I don't even have any desire to ever own a tiny toy like mirrorless camera that's so small it feels like a little point and shoot in my big hands regardless of how much better of a camera it may be. 

Soon people will be complaining that their camera can't tie their shoes for them too....

When I go out and shoot I totally prefer a full size DSLR rather than something I can only hold on to with just a few finger tips only.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (May 21, 2018)

I'd like to see a full frame mirrorless camera the size of the AE1 or A1 even if it means a new mount. The M series is too small, the rebels about the right size (if not with the right features). If there is a new mount, I hope that someone makes an adapter for both EF and FD lenses.


----------



## Talys (May 21, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Not by much if the Sony G master lenses are any indication. Those lenses are similar in size/weight to their EF counterparts. If you want less intrusive, use a smaller format (i.e. EOS M) with smaller-apertured lenses.



Most people who shoot long hours with the A7/A9 also use a grip. A Sony with a grip and a 2.8 zoom is the same size as a DSLR.

If you want to be unobtrusive, but have an ILC, there's already some perfect solutions -- go buy a Canon M5 or Sony A6500.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Not by much if the Sony G master lenses are any indication. Those lenses are similar in size/weight to their EF counterparts. If you want less intrusive, use a smaller format (i.e. EOS M) with smaller-apertured lenses.
> ...



Hmm... isn't that what I was implying?


----------



## fullstop (May 21, 2018)

canon undestands the size/weight issue very well. that's why they made the EOS M system compact, light, decent and good bang for the buck. 

that's why they will also make *most of* the upcoming FF mirrorless system very compact. For the rather small minority/market niche of users who prefer large bodies, Canon will also haüpily sell 1 expensive big "flagship brick" and fat battery grips for every milc body, just as they do for DSLRs of almost any size from rebel to 5d series. canon will also continue to make and sell all EF lenses that would not profit sizewise from a shorter FFD mirrorless mount. however, the FF mirrorless cameras will all come with new, "slim mount" plus a simple adapter for full backwards compatibility with EF glass ...FD adapters will likely not be made by canon, but come from 3rd party makers. 

mirrorless allows for both: smaller, yet fully competent gear desirable to most users as well as large bricks for the few who prefer it that way. Canon will happily cater to both groups. myself i am looking forward to very compact FF sensored cameras and fully FF capable, moderately fast compact primes and f/4 zooms in the most frequently used focal length range. that way i only need to carry along big, heavy gear when i really need it and when it does not matter much (planned shootings, studio, tripod-based work, eg). 90% of the time i can go small and light. oh yes!


----------



## ahsanford (May 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Most people who shoot long hours with the A7/A9 also use a grip. A Sony with a grip and a 2.8 zoom is the same size as a DSLR.


Yes on the lens but not on the body size -- not at all. The Sony vert grip doesn't make the standard integral grip any chunkier or further from the mount. It just gives you room for your pinkie finger in the front and the base of your thumb / CMC joint. It's still a tiny body.

So: no. The A7/A9 is not the same size as any FF DSLR that Canon or Nikon currently sell. It is smaller in a bad way (IMHO) that leaves no room for your fingers against the barrel of a pro lens. I will always cite the A7 pic from Bryan Carnathan (below), which highlights the problem. 

Sony might make very small finger recess changes in the grips over time, but the basic grip size and spacing from the mount remains terribly problematic for the person slinging f/2.8 zooms all day.

- A


----------



## Tugela (May 22, 2018)

I think it is almost certain that their first FF camera will be spun as an enthusiast camera, not as a professional camera. It is just not going to be competitive enough with the Sony cameras for anything else.

It is probably going to be in D6 territory on their first attemp and they will see how things go from there.


----------



## BillB (May 22, 2018)

Tugela said:


> I think it is almost certain that their first FF camera will be spun as an enthusiast camera, not as a professional camera. It is just not going to be competitive enough with the Sony cameras for anything else.
> 
> It is probably going to be in D6 territory on their first attemp and they will see how things go from there.



At the pro level, a Canon mirrorless would have to compete with some pretty good Canon DSLR's as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2018)

Tugela said:


> I think it is almost certain that their first FF camera will be spun as an enthusiast camera, not as a professional camera. It is just not going to be competitive enough with the Sony cameras for anything else.
> 
> It is probably going to be in D6 territory on their first attemp and they will see how things go from there.



It will likely be aimed at enthusiasts because that's a very profitable segment. 

Since Canon FF ILCs continue to outsell Sony FF ILCs, and Canon APS-C MILCs outsell Sony APS-C MILCs, the idea that Canon can't compete with Sony in any market segment they choose to enter is not supported by the available facts. But then, making statements unsupported by facts is the _one_ area in which you've amply demonstrated your expertise.


----------



## ahsanford (May 22, 2018)

Tugela said:


> I think it is almost certain that their first FF camera will be spun as an enthusiast camera, not as a professional camera. It is just not going to be competitive enough with the Sony cameras for anything else.



Enthusiast, pro, whatever: _at whatever level they choose to come in, they will be underspec'd to Sony_. That's a near certainty.

But they aren't trying to sell this to the general market. The first 2-3 years of this thing being out (in whatever models/sizes/specs they sell) will be aimed squarely at existing Canon users.

So I think it just needs to roughly match the specs of the SLR segment it is 'claimed' to be. It doesn't have to have IBIS, eye AF, etc. It just needs to be a Canon mirrorless setup that natively uses Canon glass, speedlites, and accessories and has familiar Canon controls. As EOS M has shown, this approach will sell just fine.

- A


----------



## Talys (May 22, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I hope so... I was agreeing with you


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is almost certain that their first FF camera will be spun as an enthusiast camera, not as a professional camera. It is just not going to be competitive enough with the Sony cameras for anything else.
> ...



Yep. All they need to do is release a mirrorless to bring FF mirrorless to Canon World. As long as it quietens criticism of Canon and secondly make people think a bit harder about ditching in favour of Sony. The latest M series have been fairly well received, so the M series with a larger sensor (body size and mount is not really relevant here) would, I think, be a very good start. 
But of course all the complainers will do is move the goal posts so they can continue complain about Canon's lack of development.


----------



## Talys (May 22, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



There's autofocus speed. If you compare current Canon mirrorless vs Sony, AF speed is far superior, with it being particularly noticeable in lower light and at longer telephoto ranges. And, it's much smoother, too.


----------



## ahsanford (May 22, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Yep. All they need to do is release a mirrorless to bring FF mirrorless to Canon World. As long as it quietens criticism of Canon and secondly make people think a bit harder about ditching in favour of Sony. The latest M series have been fairly well received, so the M series with a larger sensor (body size and mount is not really relevant here) would, I think, be a very good start.
> But of course all the complainers will do is move the goal posts so they can continue complain about Canon's lack of development.



Yeah. The naysayers will continue to (fairly) point out all the tech-per-dollar Sony is offering, but Sony _has_ to commit to offering more than Canon in each body offering because (a) they lack the platform scale/benefits/upsides of EF and (b) they are chasing the market leader.

There will come a day where Sony's built up supporting ecosystem of stuff, ergonomics, reliability, service rivals Canon. I'm guessing that's when Canon might start to sweat losing business and might move to market-parity body-spec-wise. But that's going to be a while.

- A


----------



## BillB (May 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's not that hard to come out ahead in the spec fights if your get to cherry pick your specs. If you get to make up the rules and to keep score, it's pretty easy to win. Especially if you get to use imaginary magic numbers.


----------



## Talys (May 22, 2018)

BillB said:


> It's not that hard to come out ahead in the spec fights if your get to cherry pick your specs. If you get to make up the rules and to keep score, it's pretty easy to win. Especially if you get to use imaginary magic numbers.



lol... so true. What a weird world we live in, now. It's like the photography version of "Fake News". Someone will surely give you numbers that you like!




ahsanford said:


> Yeah. The naysayers will continue to (fairly) point out all the tech-per-dollar Sony is offering...



I have regretted almost every major purchase that I've ever made mostly on the basis of specs-per-dollar.

Usually, specs-per-dollar ends up being a way for me to justify spending less money; and usually, I end up getting what I pay for!


----------



## dak723 (May 23, 2018)

If you offer a high quality, reliable product, you don't need to impress with lots of specs. This is what Canon does.

If you offer a lower quality product, you need to impress with more specs. This is what Sony does.

In my opinion, of course. But it is funny how many suckers fall for the specs. ;D


----------



## fullstop (May 23, 2018)

there are specs and there are other specs. Some materialize in every image captured, some don't ever. some i don't care for (eg "4k" or any form of video capture), others i do care for quite a bit: 
stills image quality, AF performance, responsiveness, straightforwardness of user interface, reliability, pricing ... 
some specs are "paper relevant only", many others count in real life and with every single capture. 

While Sony does not lead in all "specs dimensions", Canon has allowed them to do so in some and get darn close in many others. Canon (and Nikon) sat pretty much helplessly like lane ducks, iterated their mirrorslappers, made half-assed attempts at mirrorless (Nikon 1 anybody?) and let Sony become a true and formidable challenger on the way to take #2 spot in the stills imaging market. Had Canon acted just a bit more proactively it would not have happened. 

Sony's foray into stills imaging gear could have ended with their ill-devised and deservedly ill-fated SLT/A-mount series of "mirrored bricks". All it would have taken from Canon would have been a "halfway decent", compact mirroless FF system 5 years ago when Sony launched the original A7 triplet (A7/R/S). Sony would have been dead in their tracks from day 1. Now Canon (and even more so Nikon) face a much bigger challenge to come up with an (overall) really winning mirrorless FF system. Not impossible by any means, but much harder than 5 years ago.

Same for APS-C systems: Fuji would not have gotten a leg on the ground, had Canon launched their APS-C mirrorless system with an EOS M50 as a start - specs and features. plus two more EF-M lenses. But no, Canon "held back on specs" and tried to charge outlandish prices for their underspecced 1st gen EOS M. as a result they had to give it away in a big firesale and Fuji has successfully established a small foothold in the market. Almost all Fuji mirrorless sales could easily have been Canon sales. Almost all Sony A7/A9 sales could easily have been Canon sales.

no amount of "smoke and mirrorslapping" can hide the serious mistakes Canon and Nikon management made. no speculation needed, looking at the facts is sufficient to understand the picture. Canon's relative success in a shrinking market is mostly "inert mass still in motion" - large customer base, strong brand name - like a large oil tanker, it won't stop on a dime. but it can run aground quicker than Sony may decide to end selling stills image gear.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 23, 2018)

To be fair Canon did have a poor start with the EOS M range, but they are now selling very well. Don't underestimate the power of the Canon brand, especially at the lower end.


----------



## BillB (May 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there are specs and there are other specs. Some materialize in every image captured, some don't ever. some i don't care for (eg "4k" or any form of video capture), others i do care for quite a bit:
> stills image quality, AF performance, responsiveness, straightforwardness of user interface, reliability, pricing ...
> some specs are "paper relevant only", many others count in real life and with every single capture.
> 
> ...



My take on this is a little different than yours. I think that Canon's "serious mistake" was to take the time to develop dual pixel sensor technology as the foundation technology for its mirrorless effort. The decision was made quite a a while ago now, and it meant that it didn't take a "first to market" path in dealing with Sony or Fuji. You may be right about Nikon, and Canon may have missed the boat by waiting on dual pixel technology to make a a big mirrorless push, but I don't think the dual pixel technology reflects "inert mass in motion".


----------



## fullstop (May 23, 2018)

while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems. Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology. 

5 years ago a decent hybrid AF system [on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF] as in Sony's first gen A7/R/S) would have been "more than good enough" in Canon FF MILCs to stop Sony in their tracks. Canon would have sold a boatload of FF bodies and then more boatloads of Mk. II and Mk. - "with vastly superior, pure magic, Canon exclusive DP technology".


----------



## BillB (May 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems. Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology.
> 
> 5 years ago a decent hybrid AF system [on-sensor PD-AF + CD-AF] as in Sony's first gen A7/R/S) would have been "more than good enough" in Canon FF MILCs to stop Sony in their tracks. Canon would have sold a boatload of FF bodies and then more boatloads of Mk. II and Mk. - "with vastly superior, pure magic, Canon exclusive DP technology".



Dual pixel is not just a high end AF solution. It is now being used all the way down the food chain to the M-50. Anyway, my point wasn't that Canon was right with its dual pixel choice. My point was that Canon wasn't as sleepy and stupid as you make them out to be.


----------



## fullstop (May 23, 2018)

of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.



Every comparison I read is that in low light, DP is superior. Do you have experience//knowledge to the contrary?


----------



## Durf (May 23, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > of yes, very nice. With dual pixel sensor EOS M50 now focusses about as good/fast/precise as a Sony A6300 did ... already 3 years ago. Without DP.
> ...



Many don't realize that Canon (and Nikon for that matter) have for many years now established themselves for the pro and semi-pro photographer community as heavy duty workhorse camera systems with a proven dependability and reliability tract record. Many pros and semi-pros are still happily using the older 5D mark iii's and getting great results etc.

Sony has only just recently resolved their over-heating problems and issues with photographers having to carry pockets full of batteries, not to mention their lack of a wide variety of lenses to choose from.

Sony is still in their "beta testing" phase so to speak for pro's in my opinion and haven't proven themselves as reliable and dependable as Canon or Nikon yet. 

Several of their camera's (IN MY OPINION) I'm sure are great camera's and will get the job done, but for the most part they are mostly popular and sensationalized through marketing tactics only, specifically through the internet and not through long term proven reliability and dependability years of usage by pro's and semi-pros.

Just my 2 cents worth!


----------



## Sharlin (May 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> while certainly "highly useful", i personally consider DP quite a bit overrated and overhyped. It is not the "magic trick" that trounces all other sensor tech and AF systems. Looking for example at Sony A9 as well as A7 III, excellent AF performance can obviously also be achieved without DP technology.



DPAF is a "magic trick" when you consider the bigger picture that includes _both_ still and video. For stills only it's great but not ultra-revolutionary compared to the AF tech of Sony etc. But as far as I know for video it's easily superior to anything else out there. Not to mention that yes, Canon's only _real_ competitor in terms of total ILC marketshare is still Nikon, and Nikon's sensor-based AF story is... not great.


----------



## fullstop (May 24, 2018)

re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:

"If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8) ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon). ;D

Remember Canon EOS 300D ... first digital SLR priced at 999? And how it changed the marketplace and gave Canon dominance over Nikon in the huge non-pro market? In one fell swoop! Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999 

Basically an FF equivalent of the EOS M50 - complete with 5D4 sensor, inclduing "nominal, but useless 4k". ofc with new slim mount, along with a small starting lens line-up of similarly cost-effective and optically decent lenses - "FF equivalents" to how EF-M lenses are positioned. Full compatibility with all EF glass ever made - little adapter will be sent to all registered purchasers of MILC Rebel who request one. Free of charge, courtesy Canon. Little gifts go a long way with customers. 

Higher end products? Yes of course! All sorts of them, including super chunky, fully sealed, fully pro beasts - will follow after the first couple millions of the "MILC Rebel" have been sold.


----------



## Talys (May 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:
> 
> "If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8) ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon). ;D
> 
> ...



Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?

If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?
> 
> If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?



Because 'everything they want' varies from shooter to shooter and not everyone is a one-issue voter so to speak. (If size really was _everything_ m43 and Nikon 1 would have ruled the world.) Some folks may want more subject isolation for a given aperture, some may want better quality high ISO files, and some may have grown up in film and just hate crop factors.

The notion that "mirrorless must be small" people should get APS-C, while pros/grown-ups get a huge FF mirrorless setup misses the mark. As Sony has shown, Nikon likely will show (strongly rumored to go thin) and Canon possibly will show (mount TBD), a system that allows folks to build a smaller system that can reel in the same images as a bigger one is attractive to the market -- even if that smallness requires making lens choice compromises.

- A


----------



## BillB (May 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> re. Canon's step into FF mirrorless:
> 
> "If I were Canon CEO for a day" 8) ;D I'd pull a "digital Rebel" on Sony (and Nikon). ;D
> 
> ...



Canon may well start with a FF equivalent of the M50, or maybe a digital equivalent of a 6DII. Of course, whether such a camera would have a 5DIV sensor or cost $999 is something we can only speculate about, if that is something we want to do.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Today I'd hammer Sony with *the most compact* and "first ever FF MILC at USD/€ 999



Wow, how did I miss that bit above?

Canon's goal is not to put Sony out of business -- it's to be the #1 brand and make a profit, which they are doing very effectively right now.

So to set their financials on fire and start a price war to 'win' in a market they already currently enjoy the largest margins in is to tell all investors/shareholders "Profits, schmofits. We just took it to Sony _good_ last quarter." And then they'll wonder why price can't ever be elevated again.

Canon has carefully cultivated an impressive value proposition and marketing approach that allows their products to be charged the prices they are. Why abandon that? 

I understand the narrative that Sony is some near-term existential threat to Canon dominance, I do. But until Sony actually starts stealing share/profits/etc. from Canon, it's a non-issue. This whole argument of 'Canon blew it and they can't catch up now' is giggleworthy. If Sony steals a few points of Canon share one year, Canon will change their pipeline and start offering more tech-per-dollar. But to do so now -- in absence of any evidence that this existential crisis is upon them -- is just setting profits on fire, IMHO.

- A


----------



## fullstop (May 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?
> 
> If you want a small, light camera, why not buy an APSC, where you can also have small, light lenses as well as the body?



Why would someone? Because an FF sensor gets you 1 full stop more opportunity. And thanks to equivalence, a cheap and compact f/2.8 prime on FF gets the same images as a much bigger and more expensive f/1.4 lens on APS-C or an f/4.0 zoom on FF vs. f/2.8 for APS-C. To me it is simply "most bang/IQ for the buck" and "having to carry along only a small package most of the time and a large setup only if & when needed" = for planned shoots. And i am convinced, there are many other potential buyers seeing it that way. 

Things may look different from perspective of working pros (depending on genre) or for folks shooting long teles most of the time. But in terms of market segments, both are tiny niches compared to the huge segment of "more universalist enthusiasts / "prosumers" - with limited (amateur) budgets. 

That's why Canon sold the Digital Rebel / 300D for only 999 in 2003 although they were already market-leading (Nikon) back then. That's why it would make sense to repeat the manouvre - especially as they are latecomers at the FF MILC starting block. And to show some flexibility here: yes, even 1499 would be a very attractive price! ;D


----------



## BillB (May 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Why would someone buy a cheap(er) full frame mirrorless to achieve some of what they want, when they could buy a cheap APSC mirrorless, and achieve everything that they want?
> ...



In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.


----------



## moreorless (May 28, 2018)

BillB said:


> In 2003 digital cameras were replacing film cameras. Digital files replaced film negatives. Today mirrorless cameras are competing with OVF cameras. Digital file output remains the same. Not the same motivation to switch, so the potential market isn't as large. Lower prices won't generate the same volume.



Yes I'v never really felt we were looking at a similar kind of situation there however much certain people try and talk it up.

Personally I think both Canon and Nikon would do well to look at the formers APSC mirrorless success. For me a sizeble part of that was in effectively targeting users lens needs rather than trying to maximise profit, Sony for me seem to consistently offer poorly performing or under speced cheaper lenses and then demand large sums for high spec large upgrades.

The FE system might have quite a large lens lineup now but still I think if Canon or Nikon launched their system with a good 35mm F/2 and 24-60mmish variable aperture zoom they could target a clear hole in Sony's lineup.


----------



## dak723 (May 29, 2018)

BillB said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I would disagree with the idea that mirrorless is competing with DSLRs. They are merely two alternatives in the ILC camera market. There is no reason one will replace the other at all. They may happily coexist for many years.


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

"they will happily co-exist for many years."

it may take a few years until the last new DSLR is produced. just like Canon and Nikon still produced their kast (top tier model) analog SLRs for some more years. Just like Leica ending production/sales of their last film-M camera (M7) only now. 

Forcall practical means and purposes, mirrorless is completely replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. maybe already in 2018, at the latest next year, more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs. i expects DSLRs to pretty much vanish from online and offline stores within 4-5 years. there will be 1, maybe even 2 more generations of marginally improved DSLR iterations, depending on model/product development cycles cycles. after that DSLRs will only happily exist in collector's cupboards or - hopefully - in dust-proof pelicases. thats where my 5D3 already spends most of its time today. not so "happily", i guess.


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.



Do you have any numbers to support that (or link to another source with numbers?).
'Mirrorless' is such a broad term because, strictly, a mobile phone is 'mirrorless camera' as is any bridge camera or compact.


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs.
> ...



Yes, by "mirrorless" I mean digital *interchangeable lens cameras*. 
No, I don't have specific numbers. 

Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely. 

While not "representative of the gloabl market" from my personal observations it is clear. There are very few amateur/enthusiasts i know [don't know many pro's personally] buying new DSLRs these days. A few Nikonians are getting D850 and a few Canon users got a 5D 4. Nobody interested in 6D 2 or D610 DSLR class. More than those have already switched to Sony [FF] or Fuji [when priority is on smaller/lighter setup]. And largest group is like myself: sitting tight, waiting if/when Canon or Nikon are finally launching their FF mirrorless systems. System decisions for next few years to be made once all specifics and pricing is known and reviews are out.  

Other than "general inertia", biggest impediment for switch to Sony are FE lenses. More specifically: no selection of decent, affordable glass and generally very high prices [typically 30-50% more than comparable Canon/Nikon glass]. Plus no/not enough size/weight reduction with Sony FE mirrorless. 

"Rebel class DSLR + kitlens or double-zoom kit" purchases by (younger) first time purchasers, "soccer moms", snapshooters in my vicinity have almost completely ended. 90% go smartphone only, 10% go 1" sensor compact [mainly Sony RX100 versions or lower end Canon Powershot G's] or crop mirrorless [Canon EOS M, Fuji, Sony]. If video-centric, Panasonic may be an option. 

Yes, this is "anecdotal only" and certainly not representative for the global picture, but at least for Europe I think it is "quite indicative" for current situation.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...


This is very true and I know several people who have bought a mirrorless camera but they have also kept their DSLRs. They use the DSLR in some situations and the mirrorless camera in others. If this tiny sample is representative then I think that at least some mirrorless camera sales are to people who already own a DSLR and who are happy with it. The mirrorless camera offers more flexibility where size and weight are important factors but in other situations the DSLR is a better option. 
I really hope that those of us who prefer to use a DSLR are not going to be forced down the mirrorless route and that there will continue to be a wide range of DLSR bodies and lenses for many years to come.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...


Well my anecdotal evidence is somewhat different from yours. The two people I know who have purchased cameras in the last 6 months, both of them bought DSLRs - Nikon D3400s in fact. I asked one of them why he chose the D3400 rather than a mirrorless camera and his answer was "what is a mirrorless camera?" 
Most people just want a camera that is easy to use and which produces good results. They don't really care about what's inside.


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Am trying to find a recent Thom Hogan article where he specifically mentions this, but can't find it on the quick. Will supply link when i do. In addition to CIPA numbers Thom apparently has more specific sales/unit data that is not publicly accessible and he certainly follows the matter closely.



If that is Thom's article I think it is, he conveniently ignores the 2012 sales which would change the slope of uptake quite significantly. I would treat is with significant caution.


----------



## Ozarker (May 29, 2018)

The idea that a camera and lens could be intimidating is just weird to me. Sometimes I think we give ourselves too much credit.


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

i know that Thom article, it's not the one i am after, looking for another one.


----------



## BillB (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> "they will happily co-exist for many years."
> 
> it may take a few years until the last new DSLR is produced. just like Canon and Nikon still produced their kast (top tier model) analog SLRs for some more years. Just like Leica ending production/sales of their last film-M camera (M7) only now.
> 
> Forcall practical means and purposes, mirrorless is completely replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. maybe already in 2018, at the latest next year, more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs. i expects DSLRs to pretty much vanish from online and offline stores within 4-5 years. there will be 1, maybe even 2 more generations of marginally improved DSLR iterations, depending on model/product development cycles cycles. after that DSLRs will only happily exist in collector's cupboards or - hopefully - in dust-proof pelicases. thats where my 5D3 already spends most of its time today. not so "happily", i guess.



That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

BillB said:


> That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.



it is often a mistake to assume new tech could not rapidly replace older one. If there are still new DSLRs made and sold 5 years from now, i expect their share to be smaller than that of Vinyl LPs. Or the one for horse-drawn carts. Or typewriters. ;D


----------



## BillB (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.
> ...



Exactly right. There are examples of new technologies having overwhelming advantages over the technologies they replaced. The question is whether mirrorless cameras have such overwhelming advantages. That's clearer to some than it is to others.


----------



## Durf (May 29, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I know 5 people who bought new cameras in the last year and they were all DSLR's; 4 of them were actually Canon's, 1 was a Nikon. 2 of these people are actually paid photographers and 1 bought the 5Ds and the other bought the Nikon D850. 1 friend bought the 5D Mark IV and two other friends actually both bought 80D's.

...and I myself also bought a DSLR in the last year; a Canon 6D2.....

I personally don't think DSLR's are going away anytime soon nor do I think mirrorless cameras are dominating the market right now.


----------



## stevelee (May 29, 2018)

100% of my sample bought a 6D2 last year. I don't know anybody else who bought a new camera.


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2018)

I the last three years, everyone I know who has bought a camera has bought a DSLR or MFT. And those who bought DSLR did so despite me telling them why I though MFT was better for them.


----------



## Talys (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.
> ...



Then again, life's full of disappointments.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.
> ...


The comparison with vinyl LPs is very interesting, because in the early 1990s I can remember people laughing at me because I had kept all my vinyl records instead of replacing them with CDs. I was warned that the vinyl record was about to become obsolete and I had better replace my collection quickly or I would be left behind. There were plenty of articles in the music magazines forecasting the demise of vinyl, just as we see today with the predictions that DLSRs will soon be replaced by mirrorless cameras. Yet, vinyl sales have recovered dramatically in recent years and some of the records that I refused to dispose of 30 years ago are now worth 50 times what I paid for them.
Fortunately, there have always been choices about which type of camera to use, or at least there have since I started taking photos and I hope this will always be the case. Photography will lose much of its interest if those choices are removed and all we are left with is mirrorless cameras for enthusiasts or professionals and mobile phones for everyone else.


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > That's one scenario. Another scenario might be that there will be an equilibrium with both DSLR's and Mirrorless being produced at lower levels than at present, where marginally improved versions of both types of cameras are produced. It is often a mistake to assume that rapid improvements in a new design concept will continue.
> ...



It is often a mistake to assume new technology will take over more rapidly than it does. Or overplay its importance. Film to digital was a paradigm shift. As was vinyl to digital. 

When I was a kid I was told that by now we would all be wearing shiny suits, main meals would consist of a few protein pills and we would be having holidays on the moon. Well actually it should all have happened 20 years ago. 
Ever noticed how a cure for a disease is always '10 years away'?


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

I hope innovative Canon puts a decent hi-rez, fast refresh EVF into its upcoming FF MILCs. If they are not innovative enough to build one, they can buy them from Sony ... at only 50000 Yen a piece. Lol. 

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201805/18-049E/index.html

UXGA 1600x1200, up to 240 fps. Although clearly state of the art for EVFs today, I would really like to get a MILC with a 4k EVF instead of 4k video capture. ;D


----------



## Talys (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I hope innovative Canon puts a decent hi-rez, fast refresh EVF into its upcoming FF MILCs. If they are not innovative enough to build one, they can buy them from Sony ... at only 50000 Yen a piece. Lol.
> 
> https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201805/18-049E/index.html
> 
> UXGA 1600x1200, up to 240 fps. Although clearly state of the art for EVFs today, I would really like to get a MILC with a 4k EVF instead of 4k video capture. ;D



The $750 M50 has a 2.36 million pixel OLED EVF. That's exactly the spec of the EVF in the $2,000 Sony A7III. Nobody is going to put in a 240fps EVF in a 2018 camera.

I don't really care if the dot pitch on the EVF is so tight that it makes it 4k. I would just like the EVF to always be on when the camera is on, and not consume very much power doing so. If 1 battery could run the EVF and shutter continuously for 8 hours (ie 2 batteries in a gripped camera for full work day of shooting with the EVF never turning off), I'd be excited.

One of my biggest gripes with using an EVF is that it's blacked out unless I have my eye to it (in order to save battery). But screw the battery; the blackout costs me shots.


----------



## dak723 (May 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> "they will happily co-exist for many years."
> 
> it may take a few years until the last new DSLR is produced. just like Canon and Nikon still produced their kast (top tier model) analog SLRs for some more years. Just like Leica ending production/sales of their last film-M camera (M7) only now.
> 
> Forcall practical means and purposes, mirrorless is completely replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. maybe already in 2018, at the latest next year, more new mirrorless cameras are expected to be sold than DSLRs. i expects DSLRs to pretty much vanish from online and offline stores within 4-5 years. there will be 1, maybe even 2 more generations of marginally improved DSLR iterations, depending on model/product development cycles cycles. after that DSLRs will only happily exist in collector's cupboards or - hopefully - in dust-proof pelicases. thats where my 5D3 already spends most of its time today. not so "happily", i guess.


You are just one of many who have been predicting the downfall of the DSLR with absolutely no data to back up your claims. Mirrorless has been gaining slightly on DSLR sales worldwide and will no doubt continue, but this is not a question of a newer, superior tech replacing an inferior tech. DSLRs still have many advantages than mirrorless offerings. It appears that as each year goes by, the tech gets closer to being similar. Any great advantage to mirrorless is so far not apparent.

Mirrorless cameras are not replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace. No one actually following the sales data is expecting mirrorless to outsell DSLRs this year or next. In 2017, the worldwide percentages were about 65% DSLR, 35% mirrorless. In 2016, it was 73% DSLR, 27% mirrorless.

Here are some charts, so you don't just have to make up arguments based on no data in the future. ;D

https://www.google.com/search?q=camera+industry+facts+2017&client=firefox-b-1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrh8zEyqvbAhUN2lMKHWZoAt8QsAQIhAE&biw=1536&bih=839#imgrc=Lrja89cp1hr0eM:


----------



## Talys (May 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Here are some charts, so you don't just have to make up arguments based on no data in the future. ;D



But... but... it's so much more fun to live in the world of alternative facts ;D

You know, the one where mirrorless has been exploding with exponential growth year over year and DSLR sales are crashing, propped up by Canon and Nikon giving away their top-end models in fire sales!


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

dak723 said:


> ...
> Any great advantage to mirrorless is so far not apparent.
> ..
> Mirrorless cameras are not replacing DSLRs at a rapid pace.
> ...



"640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" ;D


How about - for example: no vibrations, no noise, viewfinder showing scene as camera will capture the image, no possibility for front- or back-focused images? But of course in the world of yesteryears alternative facts DSLR lovers, these are all worthless. Mere conjecture. Speculation. Phew ... ;D


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> Nobody is going to put in a 240fps EVF in a 2018 camera.



Don't bet on it. Sony A7S Mk. III may be just around the corner. With this very UXGA 240 fps electronic viewfinder built in. In 2018. 

;D ;D ;D


And maybe - pure speculation of course - just maybe, Canon manages to move their ass and finally launch an FF MILC in 2018. With this very Sony EVF or even one of their own *innovative* EVFs with 4k and 240fps refresh rate built into it. I might buy it then.


----------



## Talys (May 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is going to put in a 240fps EVF in a 2018 camera.
> ...



The A7R3 has a 3.69 million pixel 120fps OLED EVF. There is no chance an A7S3 (if there is even an A7S3) goes to a 1.92 million pixel 240fps OLED EVF.

That's lower resolution than the A7R2, at 2.36 million pixels (same resolution as A73 and M50). As anyone who looks at the A9/A7R3 vs A73 can see immediately, there is a visible difference in the viewfinders. That extra 1.5 million pixels is a big plus. Nobody would be happy with a 2018 Sony camera about the same price as the A7R3 with a EVF that resolution.


----------



## dak723 (May 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


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



Since you are addressing a person who owns two mirrorless cameras and no DSLRs, you have no argument from me that their are advantages to mirrorless. So I am not sure why you are implying that I see no advantages to mirrorless unless - as you seem to be doing over and over again - that you are intentionally trolling.

However, if you believe that there are no vibrations with mirrorless, you are wrong. Shutter shock has been an issue, although some models do address the issue. Silent shutter is another spec that is not totally workable either. Not yet anyway. But WYSIWIG exposure is a a big advantage, in my opinion.

Of course, their are advantages to DSLR's as well including much better battery life, being able to view a scene without much (if any) battery drain, and there are still some advantages to an OVF, especially for wildlife and sports shooters.

Since their are advantages to each system, it seems that there is no reason that mirrorless will replace DSLRs in the near future and they will both be sold for many years. I think this seems fairly obvious to most folks. Only those looking for an argument seem to be vocally opposed to the obvious.


----------



## fullstop (May 30, 2018)

there are no advantages to mirrorslappers. Vibration issue is solved as soon as the last 19th century mechanical component in cameras [mech shutter] is replaced by solid state electronics. Global shutter in every MILC, hopefully VERY soon now. Fuji and other mirrorless cameras have fully electronic shutters (in addition to mech). innovative Canon was not able to implement it (yet). unfortunately.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there are no advantages to mirrorslappers. Vibration issue is solved as soon as the last 19th century mechanical component in cameras [mech shutter] is replaced by solid state electronics. Global shutter in every MILC, hopefully VERY soon now. Fuji and other mirrorless cameras have fully electronic shutters (in addition to mech). innovative Canon was not able to implement it (yet). unfortunately.



Until mirrorless cameras violate the law of conservation of energy, SLR will carry at least one advantage. 

Back in the real world, other than form factor, which a subjective advantage, there is nothing that a mirrorless camera can do that a reflex cannot (aside from operating mirror free without the slight power draw associated with holding the mirror up). The opposite is not also true.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2018)

Once mirrorless technology can match DSLR's, the cost is the next issue. Why does a M5 cost $829 when a SL2 costs $549? The SL2 is more capable, has EOS firmware rather than powershot firmware.

I'd bet it costs more to make as well.

Right now, Mirrorless cameras are a big profit item, and if people pay such a big price differential for one, then we will see more.


----------



## sanj (May 30, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Once mirrorless technology can match DSLR's, the cost is the next issue. Why does a M5 cost $829 when a SL2 costs $549? The SL2 is more capable, has EOS firmware rather than powershot firmware.
> 
> I'd bet it costs more to make as well.
> 
> Right now, Mirrorless cameras are a big profit item, and if people pay such a big price differential for one, then we will see more.



Curious to know why you feel mirrorless technology is less than DSLR? I was under different impression...


----------



## fullstop (May 30, 2018)

EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some, eg more advanced AF system (no front-/backfocus - no AFMA needed, face/eye recognition + tracking AF mode) and (hobbled) 4k video capture. ;D


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 30, 2018)

sanj said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Once mirrorless technology can match DSLR's, the cost is the next issue. Why does a M5 cost $829 when a SL2 costs $549? The SL2 is more capable, has EOS firmware rather than powershot firmware.
> ...


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some, eg more advanced AF system (no front-/backfocus - no AFMA needed, face/eye recognition + tracking AF mode) and (hobbled) 4k video capture. ;D


I don't think this is a fair comparison. The 80D is one of the more advanced Canon APSC DSLRs whereas the M50 is in the middle of canon's mirrorless range. It is difficult to find an exact match but in my opinion the M50 is more like an 800D than an 80D.
The basic point though was that one of the advantages of mirrorless cameras was supposed to be that they used a simpler mechanism and therefore they would be cheaper to make. However we don't see that and mirrorless cameras are often more expensive than the equivalent DSLR - eg in the UK the entry level mirrorless (the M100) costs around £320. The entry level DSLR (the 1300D) costs £280.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 30, 2018)

sanj said:


> I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.
> 
> Curious to know why you feel mirrorless technology is less than DSLR? I was under different impression...



Seems like an odd way to do business. I would expect someone would employ you due to the quality of your portfolio, and the equipment you use to do this is something you are the expert on, not them.

I never had a problem first time I took my M3 on a professional shoot. Mind you, did help that I was, at least for part of the time, using the EF 100mm f/2.8L on it.

And I have never, ever, felt inferior shooting with my Sony A7RII vs my Canon 5DSR.

I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.


----------



## fullstop (May 30, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > EOS M50 has significantly lower MSRP 599 than EOS 80D 1199? - although M50 offers everything an 80D can do and then some, eg more advanced AF system (no front-/backfocus - no AFMA needed, face/eye recognition + tracking AF mode) and (hobbled) 4k video capture. ;D
> ...



while I agree that prices for many mirrorless cameras are at an (unwarranted) premium over similarly capable DSLRs, in case M50/80D I find it a fair comparison. Same sensor, same IQ. Nothing the 80D can do the M50 cannot. A few more hardware control points on 80D. More advanced AF system [face/eye tracking] on M50, etc. Neither one is wheathersealed or more "pro" than the other. 

Personally I don't care whether a camera is marketing-positioned as "middle of range, hi-end or entry level". I only look at functionality and price/value relative to my needs.


----------



## unfocused (May 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



One could argue that the SL2 offers comparable features at less than the M50 and does it in a very compact package.


----------



## jayphotoworks (May 30, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.
> ...



I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.

Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?

Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)

Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?

Do you have redundant back-up equipment if you are on location?

Do you have insurance?

If you got sick, do you have a network of people you trust that can fill in for you?

Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people?

Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply or you would try to mitigate whatever risks that may possibly come up. That is what defines you as a pro.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I disagree. The only characteristic defining one as a pro photographer is whether photography is one’s main profession. Those things merely talk to how successful one may be.


----------



## fullstop (May 30, 2018)

unfocused said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D


----------



## [email protected] (May 31, 2018)

This focus on video is really confusing, I'm thinking something like the Blackmagic pocket cinema camera.

What I'm waiting for is the day I can replace my 6D with something smaller. I don't use the video function at all. I'd also be happy with moving to a smaller and lighter lens form factor than my current EF L series lens. The key features I'm after are: geotagging, zoom lenses and great image quality. The quality of smartphone photos (even my iphone X) is not good enough for me. If it was I would have ditched my weighty camera long ago.


----------



## Don Haines (May 31, 2018)

sanj said:


> I think mirrorless cameras have an image problem. If I turned up to a shoot with an entry level mirrorless camera such as a Canon M100 most people would think it was a point and shoot camera. They are then likely to ask why are they paying for a professional photographer when he just uses the same camera as any amateur. However if I used an entry level DSLR such as a Canon 1300D, it looks more like a professional camera and I would be more likely to get away with it, even though it actually costs less than the M100.



I agree.... the image that you present is a very important part of the package.... People expect to see big tripods, flashes, multiple lenses, and a second camera is icing on the cake..... A full sized DSLR looks professional, while a P/S camera or M sized camera (even if it is the right tool for the particular job) does not



jolyonralph said:


> I use the right tool for the job, not what looks biggest.



Agreed! A pro uses the right (and affordable) tool for the job. Yes, I shoot 5 and 7 series bodies with L glass, but I have also used GoPro cameras and even bolted waterproof P/S cameras to the "package".... and then there are inspection cameras and thermal imaging.... You have to be ready for whatever the job entails. Not all of us shoot weddings and fashion models  some of us ply our craft in a research institute. 



jayphotoworks said:


> I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.
> 
> Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?
> *"let me go back to my desk and get the right gear"*
> ...



and finally, for those who still think that gear defines us, remember that the enthusiasts usually have better gear than the working pros....


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.
> 
> Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different...Are you presentable, relatively articulate, and can gain rapport with people...Even if a client wanted a dirt cheap shoot with smartphones and gopros, the above would still apply... That is what defines you as a pro.



I dislike posts like this. They are condescending, take the discussion out of context and simply repeat points that are plainly obvious to anyone.


----------



## jayphotoworks (May 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.
> ...



While my post was intended for customer service oriented pros, I felt that the overall thought process of a pro contributes a large part to why one might call themselves a pro. Some of these points may seem obvious to you, but to someone starting out, they might have a different view. When I started out, this industry had a much higher barrier for entry than it does today. It is possible today to get legitimately great images without the same passion or drive because the tech today can allow you "wing it." As I got more experience and got into larger projects and larger clients, I realized they were interested in my time and project management skills and workflow over and above just what I was delivering to them at the end of the day. What I wrote encapsulates some of what I was trying to convey.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2018)

fullstop said:


> not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D



Curious statement. How is the SL2 sensor inferior to the M50? What about the articulated display of the M50 is superior to the articulated display of the SL2? Also, the SL2 has an optical viewfinder, which is superior to a electronic viewfinder. ;D


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



I was unnecessarily harsh and I apologize for the tone. My criticism was not specific but more broad-based, focused on this general class of posts that can take on the tone of lecturing others about what constitutes professionalism. 

In fact, the post equates professional and professionalism, which are two different things. One can be one without being the other. 

The exchange which prompted your post involved the observation by others that customers can be influenced by how "professional" an individual's equipment may look. Right or wrong, that is often the case in any field. 

The character traits you refer to can be desirable and can contribute to one's professionalism. But, they are not universal, are not exhaustive and they do not in and of themselves define a professional.

I felt your post seemed to be almost self-congratulatory, in effect stating "Look at me. I'm more professional than others because I do these things." Anyone who has had a reasonable amount of success in any career could produce a similar list of what they believe constitutes professionalism. And, in my experience, the underlying personality traits that foster professionalism can't be easily taught to others.


----------



## ahsanford (May 31, 2018)

I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.

(I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?) 

- A


----------



## zim (May 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.
> 
> (I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?)
> 
> - A




;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for the best laugh of the day


----------



## Durf (May 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I haven't been so thoroughly lifesplained in this forum in ages.
> 
> (I thought we all voted to keep the Pentax people out, didn't we?)
> 
> - A



....and to think I was beginning to see this thread start to spin off topic and going no where


----------



## zim (May 31, 2018)

unfocused said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D
> ...



I have no axe to grind here I like the look of the M5 and am very interested in the mk2 although for me lack of a battery grip and concerns over EVF blackout and EVF keeping up with fps are the show stoppers.
I doubt though that they will ever put a grip on the M5 series, saving that feature for a higher end APSC and FF even though they make them available for low end DSLRs that arguably don't need them for either battery life or ergonomics.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2018)

SavedPhotographer said:


> ...learn more about salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ. Please share this with your family, friends, and colleagues. May God bless and care for you all.



No interest in getting into a theological discussion. I'm sure you would be appalled at my personal beliefs. But, I would point out that this is an international forum and there are many people here who I am sure have sincere and genuine faith traditions that do not rely on belief in a resurrected man/god. Please respect the beliefs of others and refrain from proselytizing.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

unfocused said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > not really. SL-2 is inferior to M50 in about every possible way. Sensor, DIGIC, AF, Video, articulated display, ... etc. And it has an unnecessary flapping mirror inside and is considerably bulkier. ;D
> ...



M50 viewfinder: 100% coverage, WYSIWIG. 
SL-2: dim tunnel-vision cheapo pentamirror (no prism), only 95% coverage, no WYSIWIG

SL-2: no AF selector joystick, no use of touchscreen to select/move AF field. 
EOS M50: touchscreen AF field control (as in much more expensive M5)

SL-2: 5fps
M50: 10 fps (and 4k video, although personally not interested)

only real and significant advantage of SL-2 vs. M50 is battery charge. unfortunately Canon skimped on M50 battery - weak, old LP-E12/875mAh instead of current, better LP-E17/1040mAh. i would have gladly paid 20 € more for the (slightly) stronger battery or 50 € more for a new "LP-E18" with 1400mAh / 10Whrs charge. but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating", product-nerfing, stu... Canon!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2018)

fullstop said:


> but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!



You make it seem like marketing is a bad thing, when in reality it is how companies strategize products (I.E. survive).


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > but, this is oh so typical "marketing-differentiating",... Canon!
> ...



it is an entirely bad thing from customer's perspective. I am more focused on my wallet than having pity with poor Canon if they manage to make only 15% EBITDA instead of 25%. 

Nerfing a mirrorless camera in one of its most VITAL capacities - number of shots on a battery charge - is something I consider very bad and stupid marketing differentiation. It will not save Canon's M5 from "cannibalization". But it weaken's their brand image and sales potential when Canon mirrorless is associated with "whimpy battery life". 

Also, as I have indicated, I am willing to pay more for more functionality. I'd be happy to pay MORE for HIGHER capacity LiIon (rechargable) batteries. 

On a related topic - "power for cameras" - I also find it "unwanted marketing differentiation" that Sony does not include separate chargers with their cameras but only sells them at high price as accessories. Turning around, I find it equally ridiculous, that Canon still does not enable in-camera charging via the USB connector - in addition to providing separate chargers with each camera. 

From a consumer's rights and environmental protection perspective, I'm rallying for much more stringent, MANDATORY EU regulations on batteries for all CE products. Manufacturers should be allowed to sell only products with batteries in about 3 or 4 physical sizes and designs [external dimensions, connector layout/pin-out, charging procedure, etc.] to end the current consumer-unfriendly rip-off policies of 50-100 € different proprietary batteries for each and every single product. 

Also, from an environmental perspective, a "cradle to cradle" approach should be compulsory (at least) for consumer product rechargable batteries. Should also be compulsory for e-car batteries, before it really takes off. Maximum standardization. Innovation more than welcome, but not "marketing differentiation" at the expense [literally!] of consumers.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


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



tell me a manufacturer that does not 'nerf' their products to maintain product differentiation. Your comments are facile. 
Who said they are 'nerfing' the M50 regards battery life (deliberately putting in lower spec products when they could pout in higher spec at the same price). A smaller body means a smaller batter means a shorter time between charges. It is simple physics and you are starting to sound whiney.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


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



There is a difference between "nerfing" and trying to meet a price point. You act as if these things are all free. Free is great but it usually doesn't happen in the real world.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 3, 2018)

1.) no, I dont want everything for free. If you would care to read what i wrote: I'd pay MORE for better battery. 

2.) @mikehit: LP-E17 is virtually same size as LP-E12 - just 1mm "thicker". It would have easily fit into newly designed EOS M50 body. 
LP-E17: 1040mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 14 x 49mm, 45 grams
LP-E12: 875mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 13 x 49mm, 35 grams 

3.) LP-E12 is only a few dollars [7 $] less than LP-E17 when bought separately in retail. Where i live in Europe they are basically same price. 
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e17_battery_pack.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1116120-REG/canon_9967b002_lp_e12_battery_pack.html

Clear proof that use of old, seriously underpowered LP-E12 in EOS M50 is nothing but "Canon marketing nerfing". For less than 7 ridiculous dollars [cost to Canon < retail price], they *cheat their customers with an underpowered 2012 battery in a 599 USD 2018 camera*. Shameful, really. Lose-Lose for Canon and for their customers.


----------



## bwud (Jun 4, 2018)

My perspective from an electronics product design background: it’s almost inconceivable that anyone from Canon’s marketing organization dictated what battery be used in anything. It’s far more likely that marketing organization would have proposed a camera with some generic specifications and price point, and that the BOM cost trades undergone to facilitate the price led to the part selection.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 4, 2018)

bwud said:


> My perspective from an electronics product design background: it’s almost inconceivable that anyone from Canon’s marketing organization dictated what battery be used in anything. It’s far more likely that marketing organization would have proposed a camera with some generic specifications and price point, and that the BOM cost trades undergone to facilitate the price led to the part selection.



But, it's so much more fun for forum dwellers to blame marketing departments, even though they have no clue how marketing departments work.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

to me it sounds extremely unlikely that an engineering/ product development team would voluntarily use an old, whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera design. especially when there is no or hardly any cost difference between the 2 batteries. it just runs totally against "engineering / product develoment mindsets".

for Canon marketing ("its an entry level camera, stick any old battery in it, the buyer n00bs won't even notice it") and beancounting departments ("we have this warehouse full of them old design whimpy batteries, just stick them into some new camera, before we have to write them off, will ya!") however, brainless nerfing of products and withholding new tech "for future use" apparently is a regular routine exercise. 


all this said and despite being convinced tha M50 should have been powered by current LP-E17 battery, personally Canon's nerfing will save me some money this time: i do have a good supply of LP-E12 batteries (with my eos m 1st gen), whereas i would have had to buy a few spare LP-E17 batteries had the M50 used those. Canon's loss. they saved maybe 50 cent in cost per camera and lose ultra high margin spare battery sales of 150 €. Hehe ... a textbook example for "smart Canon business decisions".


----------



## bwud (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> to me it sounds extremely unlikely that an engineering/ product development team would voluntarily use an old, whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera design. especially when there is no or hardly any cost difference between the 2 batteries. it just runs totally against "engineering / product develoment mindsets".



Sure, if you have an engineering team operating in isolation, you might witness new batteries, sensors, bodies, motherboards, covers, buttons, toggles, screens, tripod mounts, file formats, etc engineered for every new model. And they likely wouldn’t make it out the door.

At a company like canon, engineering doesn’t work in isolation. There at inputs from many stakeholders, including supply chain and pricing. Product differentiation is certainly a real thing, but in this case I feel straws being grasped at.

Is it possible the markering team said to the engineering team: you shall use this specific battery or I won’t sell your widget? Sure, but it’s imminently more likely the marketing exec sat down with the cognizant product owner and said “if it does these high-level things for this much money, my predicted market is this. If it costs more, my predicted market is X-Y. Figure that into your budget and metrics.”


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

bwud said:


> Is it possible the markering team said to the engineering team: you shall use this specific battery or I won’t sell your widget? Sure, but it’s imminently more likely the marketing exec sat down with the cognizant product owner and said “if it does these high-level things for this much money, my predicted market is this. If it costs more, my predicted market is X-Y. Figure that into your budget and metrics.”



yes, sure, a few cents cost difference between LP-E12 and LP-E17 are what make a 599,- camera economically feasible or not.  

A much more realistic explanation for that battery decision is Canon "marketing-nerfing".


----------



## Talys (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 1.) no, I dont want everything for free. If you would care to read what i wrote: I'd pay MORE for better battery.
> 
> 2.) @mikehit: LP-E17 is virtually same size as LP-E12 - just 1mm "thicker". It would have easily fit into newly designed EOS M50 body.
> LP-E17: 1040mAh, W x H x D: 33 x 14 x 49mm, 45 grams
> ...



Market differentiation of products is an important tool for manufacturers, though. I agree with you that it would be great for consumers if every manufacturer put the optimal component in every instance based on cost, to make that each product to "be its best" at its price point.

The problem is, that's just not how life works. I'd wager that the M50 isn't really that much cheaper to build than an M5. But at the end of the day, it's good for consumers, that there's a $750 and $1,000 option, and Canon shouldn't be punished by making its $1,000 option irrelevant by offering a lower priced one.

It isn't just cameras; that's how everything from refrigerators to microwaves to cars are priced, and to wish the world to be different won't make it so -- it'll just leave you disappointed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Clear proof that use of old, seriously underpowered LP-E12 in EOS M50 is nothing but "Canon marketing nerfing". For less than 7 ridiculous dollars [cost to Canon < retail price], they *cheat their customers with an underpowered 2012 battery in a 599 USD 2018 camera*. Shameful, really. Lose-Lose for Canon and for their customers.



How many M50 buyers will be switching from a dSLR or upgrading from a MILC that uses an LP-E12? Neither of us knows, but Canon will have a good estimate of how many buyers would have a purchasing decision made easier by being able to use current batteries with a new camera. For those customers, it's a win. 

Not that you've ever demonstrated any cognizance of viewpoints other than your own...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

ofc products need to positioned in a "model and pricing hierarchy" via all sorts of "marketing" actions. (Even) i don't expect a camera like Canon EOS M50 to come with a 50MP FF sensor at USD 599. 

BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible. 

btw: M5 was always priced too high. No reason why that one should carry a higher price than say an EOS 77D. ofc I don't have numbers, but my gut tells me, M5 has and is not selling well. M6 is doing better, because of the big price differential and more compact size. Many first-time (younger) buyers also don't care for a viewfinder any longer. But they do care about price and size.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible.



They said the same thing about the 6D2 getting ancient sensor technology (i.e. it didn't get the on-chip ADC setup most every other camera is now getting). But Canon ran the numbers. They number of units they'd sell X the profit margin for each unit was simply greater if the camera _didn't_ get the new latest & greatest sensor architecture. Or, said differently, not enough people cared about on-chip ADC for it to command a higher market price or to stop a sale from happening if it wasn't there -- so we didn't get it. 

As far as the highlighted bit above, that applies to all companies -- *their job is to be profitable, not to delight us.* Sony gives wonderful specs and features, but you could also indict them for their body designs, ergonomics, controls, etc. Why did Sony withhold a comfortable grip from their III line of A7 cameras? So they could recycle components from their whimpy 2015 cameras. It's the same problem. Companies hedge in specific areas to keep production costs down, to maximize profits, etc.

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jun 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > BUT nerfing a 2018 camera with a whimpy 2012 battery is absolutely unnecessary and not justifiable. It stinks. And it shows, what kind of a "cheap" company Canon really is and how little they really care about their customers having as good a user experience with their cameras as possible.
> ...



When I buy a new camera, pretty much the first thing I do is buy a 2nd battery. When the first battery runs out, I have a 2nd to put in. So, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter much which battery is chosen.

When the M50 came out, I noticed that I still had an LP-12 battery from my old SL-1. So my reaction was, hey if I buy this camera, I already have my spare and I will save a few bucks. So not everyone will be unhappy!

All this forum proves is that some folks will whine about anything and everything. Are there really so many immature babies out there or would people grow up if they didn't have anonymous user names?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

dak723 said:


> When the M50 came out, I noticed that I still had an LP-12 battery from my old SL-1. So my reaction was, hey if I buy this camera, I already have my spare and I will save a few bucks. So not everyone will be unhappy!



as i wrote earlier: same her. I have 4x LP-E12 with my EOS M 1st gen. 

But i still consider a whimpy 2012 battery in a new 2018 camera unnecessary marketing nerfing. Especially when a same-size, much higher capacity battery (LP-E17) is also available at same or very similar cost. 


btw: fact based criticism is never whining.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 4, 2018)

So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

stevelee said:


> So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.



I consider people who bought the 6D2 basically n00bs who have little idea of what sensor and camera performance to expect in 2018.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.
> ...



Yes, I realize you would be shocked and appalled by my clumsy photos.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 4, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> I think being a pro means more than just the gear and sometimes more than the images.
> Did you consider that if the client decided to mid-stream ask you to shoot something different and you brought a lower end camera, would you be able to deliver?
> Can you handle ad hoc requests like same day edits, slideshows and other things that need assistants and staff (have you tested your workflows?)
> Did you consider backups? Is it important that your camera can shoot 2 cards simultaneously?
> ...



Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Yes!

A pro is somebody who gets paid for images. And the gear they use is "pro gear". 







;D


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.
> ...



Of course you would...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I consider people who bought the 6D2 basically n00bs who have little idea of what sensor and camera performance to expect in 2018.



Ah, so _all the forum folks here who got a 6D2_ were neophytes that had no idea what they were getting into, eh?

Or -- just a theory -- they saw the early tests, said 'shucks, we didn't get the 1DX2 / 5D4 / 80D sensor tech', *and they bought one anyway.*

1) Because its Canon's only tilty-flippy FF offering.
2) Because it's better than their 6D1 in areas other than the sensor (fps, resolution, RAW buffer, AF, etc.).
3) Because they are cash constrained and can't justify ponying up $3K+ for a 5-series camera.
4) Because the extra stop or two of base ISO DR would go wasted on their preferred form of photography, which requires an ISO level where on-chip ADC wouldn't do them much good.

You're right. They have no idea what they're doing. :

- A


----------



## Durf (Jun 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.
> ...



You've been trolling this forum and some of its members for a while now and it's posts like this that shows and proves your true character. 

Trolling is one thing, but insulting the intelligence of others because of the camera model they may own is beyond childish. 

Your presence here and your posts are getting rather stale and boring.


----------



## zim (Jun 4, 2018)

There seems to be an ever ending production line of AvTvMs


----------



## unfocused (Jun 5, 2018)

zim said:


> There seems to be an ever ending production line of AvTvMs



Fullstop and AvTvM are the same person. He's been regenerated in a new form.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> btw: fact based criticism is never whining.



True. Maybe you should considering actually offering *fact*-based criticism, instead of your typical posts based on your opinions and fabricated information.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> btw: fact based criticism is never whining.



At the risk of getting another warning, that is not what you are doing here. You're making assertions which aren't compatible with how product design works at big companies and then complaining about those assertions. 

What's fascinating is you offered up a reasonable theory about why they used the battery they did back in post 105:



fullstop said:


> "we have this warehouse full of them old design..."



but then seem to completely forget about it in post 107, coming back instead to the unlikely assertion:



fullstop said:


> yes, sure, a few cents cost difference between LP-E12 and LP-E17 are what make a 599,- camera economically feasible or not.
> 
> A much more realistic explanation for that battery decision is Canon "marketing-nerfing".



It's an entirely reasonable theory that they have existing inventory; they naturally build more batteries than bodies. If they do have inventory, a battery which is essentially free (already paid for and about to be written off) is a compelling option compared with one they have to manufacture. The difference isn't a few cents, it's perhaps tens of dollars, potentially a notable contributor to recurring costs (by way of the bill of materials).


----------



## dak723 (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > So far no one, upon seeing pictures I've made with my 6D2, has said to me how much better the picture would have been if I had had an on-chip ADC.
> ...



And I would consider people who don't understand that *an actual photo* from the 6D II will be virtually identical to any photo taken with any other FF camera on the market today to be complete idiots. Go read your spec sheets and ignore reality!


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 5, 2018)

dak723 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



Playing devils advocate here, but what does that mean for the Canon colour then? That it's actually virtually identical to the other brand colours?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Playing devils advocate here, but what did that mean for the Canon colour then? That it's actually virtually identical to the other brand colours?



Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that moving from off-chip to on-chip like the competition mangles the color rendition somehow?

(I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding you, b/c were that so, one might imagine we'd have a huge pile of complaints from 1DX2, 5D4, 80D, etc. owners, wouldn't we?)

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



With calibrated workflow, yes, output is pretty much indistinguishable. When I got my 1Dx and before I sold my a7r2, I took some shots using the same lenses in the same light on both bodies, including my color checker passport in the scene. After profiling, normalizing exposure, and printing at equal size, I can not tell you which is from which. I imagine most people would probably assume they’re two copies of the same print.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Playing devils advocate here, but what did that mean for the Canon colour then? That it's actually virtually identical to the other brand colours?
> ...



Ah, I didn't end up as clear as I hoped: I was meaning about all current ff cameras taking virtually identical photos; I've seen a number of comments stating they'd never go to brand x due to only liking colour from brand y. It wasn't about where the adcs are placed as such. 

A bit tongue in cheek really - I don't feel that all the current cameras are equal in output, but the differences are smaller than what most comparisons would imply, under most circumstances


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



This one I find quite interesting : I've seen a few comments around the web in which people have said they can always see a difference? I personally don't myself when comparing, at least not reliably one vs another but that's just me


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

there are visible differences in jpgs out of camera between different cameras, different brands and also in raw files. differences in raw files may not necessarily show after post-processing, unless parameters of capture and/or post-processing were rather extreme.


as to why i dont consider purchase of a 6D2 to be a very intelligent thing to do:
* if previously owner of a 6D (i) and ef glass - what kind of an ipgrade? certainly not in IQ or worth anywhere near 2k, why not just skip the 6d2 and hope for 6d3 or for decent canon mirrorless FF
* if newcomer to canon FF: better alternatives abailable. 5d4 significantly more expensive, but worth it. 5d3 arguable better choice if budget limited. sony A73 way better choice for not much more money. 
* or wait for canon mirrorless FF - maybe it will come in our liferimes and maybe it will be better than 6d2 and nit mire expensive. 

as to whining and fact-based criticism: LP-E12 instead of LP-E17 in EOS M5 is shorting its paying customers and criticism-worthy, no matter why Canon did it. "marketing nerfing" is my opinion, but given the circumstances the most likely cause for me. even when some people believe, marketing nerfing does not happen in reality and even less so at beloved Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as to why i dont consider purchase of a 6D2 to be a very intelligent thing to do:
> * if previously owner of a 6D (i) and ef glass - what kind of an ipgrade? certainly not in IQ or worth anywhere near 2k, why not just skip the 6d2 and hope for 6d3 or for decent canon mirrorless FF
> * if newcomer to canon FF: better alternatives abailable. 5d4 significantly more expensive, but worth it. 5d3 arguable better choice if budget limited. sony A73 way better choice for not much more money.
> * or wait for canon mirrorless FF - maybe it will come in our liferimes and maybe it will be better than 6d2 and nit mire expensive.



People who (unlike you) have owned both cameras say quite often that the 6D2 is a better camera, especially on the sensor. Unfortunately for people like you who merely look at the spec sheets, dynamic range is not everything. Whether the differences constitute an upgrade is a personal preference - if you don;t need a tilty flippy, maybe no. if you find a tilty flippy really useful then the 6D2 is an upgrade. 
Having said all that, a camera like the 6D2 is not designed to make people upgrade from 6D to 6D2. It is to offer 
a product to market that matches closer with what the market seems to want. Again, an area of product design to which you seem completely ignorant. 




fullstop said:


> even when some people believe, marketing nerfing does not happen in reality and even less so at beloved Canon.



Who believes that? Show me a quote of someone who denies Canon does it. Instead it just shows you up as a someone unable to comprehend someone else's POV and instead dismisses their comments out of hand by criticising them as someone who refuses to see 'he truth' that only you seem able to acknowledge. 
Show me one manufacturer who makes multiple products who does not 'market nerf'. It is a fact of life. If you do not want to buy into it, fine. But please stop showing your ignorance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as to whining and fact-based criticism: LP-E12 instead of LP-E17 in EOS M5 is shorting its paying customers and criticism-worthy, no matter why Canon did it. "marketing nerfing" is my opinion



Thanks for admitting that your criticism is not fact-based, but rather is merely more of your usual self-important whining.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

i find it very funny, when Canon defenders in this very thread (!) find it more plausible that Canon's choice of a sub-par battery for EOS M50 is a consequence of my jokingly suggested Canon "sitting on a warehouse full of old, whimpy LP-E12 batteries" rather than being "pure marketing nerfing". 

*Infallible Canon* with multi-million dollar market research, refined product planning, 6-sigma kaizen manufacturing processes and world-class, just-in-time supply chain management to "sit on a full warehouse of excess LP-E12 batteries". LOL. 8)

And then some people feel terribly offended and insulted, when I use the term n00bs. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i find it very funny, when Canon defenders in this very thread (!) find it more plausible that Canon's choice of a sub-par battery for EOS M50 is a consequence of my jokingly suggested Canon "sitting on a warehouse full of old, whimpy LP-E12 batteries" rather than being "pure marketing nerfing".
> 
> *Infallible Canon* with multi-million dollar market research, refined product planning, 6-sigma kaizen manufacturing processes and world-class, just-in-time supply chain management to "sit on a full warehouse of excess LP-E12 batteries". LOL. 8)
> 
> And then some people feel terribly offended and insulted, when I use the term n00bs. ;D ;D ;D



Are you really and genuinely incapable of differentiating between 'defending Canon' and 'challenging hypothetical assertions'? And that you are unable to accept that this world is no binary - that disagreeing with you does not mean they automatically agree with what Canon does? 

What is it that would make you happy - that everyone blindly accepts your claims and agrees with you no mater how flawed your claims?

I have to say that over the last few days I have been pleasantly surprised by the resonableness of your posts...but I guess the AvTvM archetype was bound to re-surface at some point.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

well just look at this thread. Starting with my statement that EOS M50 is marketing nerfed with regards to use of subpar battery. the usual "Canon fanbois" in this forum could not handle that. They could not argue with facts, because the facts I presented were clear. And every time they cannot challenge the facts i present, they go into a foaming thrashing frenzy of personal attacks ... what i write is "nothing but my self-important whining" and/or "all conjecture" and/or "Canon sells most cameras" and/or "Canon knows absolutely everything better than you", etc. etc. - 

Maybe i will put together a list of the 10 most frequently used braindead personal attack lines around here and label them like 
#1 "Canon sells most, Canon knows best" 
#2 "all conjecture and ASSumptions" 
#3 "your usual self-important whining" 
...
etc. 

just to make our forum bullies days a little easier and their postings with nothing but personal attacks shorter. ;D 8)


----------



## zim (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well just look at this thread. Starting with my statement that EOS M50 is marketing nerfed with regards to use of subpar battery. the usual "Canon fanbois" in this forum could not handle that. They could not argue with facts, because the facts I presented were clear. And every time they cannot challenge the facts i present, they go into a foaming thrashing frenzy of personal attacks ... what i write is "nothing but my self-important whining" and/or "all conjecture" and/or "Canon sells most cameras" and/or "Canon knows absolutely everything better than you", etc. etc. -
> 
> Maybe i will put together a list of the 10 most frequently used braindead personal attack lines around here and label them like
> #1 "Canon sells most, Canon knows best"
> ...




Or as others have suggested maybe Canon actually made a consumer friendly decision to share a disposable component so those considering upgrading would have one less reason not to. Or carry two cameras, same batteries for convenience. (and Canon have previous on doing this) That's actually a win win.

This and your scenario are both perfectly valid, we will never know and you certainly don't know.
Why insult and bait?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

The criticism herein has nothing do with allegiance to canon - the subject could have been Samsung or Nikon or Ford or LEGO - and everything to do with the ludicrousness of the claims made. Take out the “marketing nerfing” as the fundamental basis upon which you base your complaints, and it becomes reasonable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

zim said:


> Or as others have suggested maybe Canon actually made a consumer friendly decision to share a disposable component so those considering upgrading would have one less reason not to. Or carry two cameras, same batteries for convenience. (and Canon have previous on doing this) That's actually a win win.
> 
> This and your scenario are both perfectly valid, we will never know and you certainly don't know.
> Why insult and bait?



No, you see...those concepts don't fit into AvTvM's world view, therefore they do not exist in the AvTvM Universe. Disagreement with him constitutes bullying and personal attacks. Stating facts that contradict his opinion also constitute bullying and personal attacks.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

not even Ford would equip a 2018 model with a 2012 engine. And Samsung will not stick a 2012 battery into a 2018 smartphone. Especially not, when a significantly better unit is available at same or only marginally higher cost. 

Had Canon NOT developed the much better LP-E17 battery in the meantime, and all EOS M models would still only use LP-E12, i would state that "it is sub-par in 2018 compared to competitors" - and would likely get attacked in this forum for it, because maybe there is 1 competitive MILC out there with as weak a battery.  ;D

But I would not flog Canon for glaring, evident marketing nerfing. The way it is, 2018, new camera model in a newly designed shell, using a sub-par 2012 part for one of the most critical components in a mirrorless camera. Well, I find no "reasonable, acceptable" excuse for it. 

Look, how Fuji has handled battery on their competetive USD 599 "entry level mirrorless camera" X-T100. 
1260 mAH, 430 shots [CIPA] 
https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery

Fuji is using the same battery type NP-W126S in all its X cameras since introduction in 2016. From lowest "entry level" all the way up to flagship X-T2. And speaking of customer-friendly, the preceding battery type remains usable in new cameras as well. But the newer battery type holds charge better, allowing for more shots. [As Canon commendably did with LP-E6 and LP-E6N.] 

"The Fujifilm NP-W126S was preceded as a battery pack for digital cameras by the NP-W126. Both types operate at a similar voltage and are fully interchangeable, so that the NP-W126 can also be used with the Fujifilm X-T2."


Canon? EOS M50: LP-E12, 875mAh, 230 shots [CIPA] 

My opinion (which I am fully entitled to express): Shame on you, Canon!


PS: not to be accused of "one-sided blindness": Fuji (like Sony) has in-cam charging of batteries. External chargers are available, but only as an extra at additional cost. I don't consider that totally user-friendly either. But it is transparent, not hidden and not "marketing nerfing".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> My opinion: shame on you, Canon!



My opinion: if I was interested in an M50, having three compatible LP-E12 batteries would make that purchase more likely. 

Personal fact: when my original EOS M died and the repair cost was equivalent to replacing it with a newer model, one of the reasons I chose the M2 over the M3 was that I already had two LP-E12 batteries compatible with the M2.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

personally I take the 4 units LP-E12 I already have as "consolation prize". Would still very much prefer and pay for it(!) if M50 had come with LP-E17. 

Ideally, Canon would have handled batteries for EOS M line as they did on (higher level) DLSR side with LP-E6 and LP-E6N. Batteries, chargers, cameras interchangeable. No marketing nerfing on that one.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion: shame on you, Canon!
> ...



The LP-E12 were also of the lower intelligence battery, and not the current generation battery. I would imagine the electronics in both the battery, charger and camera make it a less expensive option, and then there's who they expect to use the camera and what they may be upgrading from or to.

It would be good if Canon moved up the entire line to LP-E17's or even a higher capacity battery such as what Sony did with theirs, however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No marketing nerfing on that one.



you have zero information at hand to say this is simply a marketing "nerf".

you've gotten push back from your responses, and then cried about it, and yet you continue.

It is what it is - you complaining isn't going to change the fact that the lowest tier M's get the E12's and have done so since the M10 in 2015.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> ...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.



Indeed, the LP-E12 is a logical choice (even if some people are unable comprehend logic).


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> personally I take the 4 units LP-E12 I already have as "consolation prize". Would still very much prefer and pay for it(!) if M50 had come with LP-E17.
> 
> Ideally, Canon would have handled batteries for EOS M line as they did on (higher level) DLSR side with LP-E6 and LP-E6N. Batteries, chargers, cameras interchangeable. No marketing nerfing on that one.



I don't always agree with Canon's decisions, but I don't think I can fault their battery system decisions. I find for the most part, Canon is one of the most consistent with battery systems. 

The M10, M50 and M100 all use the LP-E12 battery. These are Canon's entry level mirrorless bodies. People upgrading within this line can keep their existing batteries. From there, the M3-M6 which are Canon's higher specced mirrorless bodies have all used the LP-E17 battery. This same battery allows people shooting with an M3-M6 an easy upgrade path to move to a DSLR in the Rebel series without a new battery.

Outside of that the LP-E6/E6N have been in play for 10 years now since the 5D2. Equally so is the LP-E19 used in the current 1DX2. That battery still works in a 1D3 body from the same era as the 5D2.

That's pretty consistent.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...however, the M1, M2, M10, M100, M50 all use LP-E12's so it's not as if the M50 stands alone.
> ...



logic would be to upgrade them all to E17's. but only Canon knows that if a wholesale battery switch causes upgrade adaptation problems, or increases the cost, or slightly increases the size of the camera,etc. I haven't the foggiest clue.

since CIPA battery ratings aren't even real life, it's not as if that's used for a marketing nerf on it's own. the 235 shots per charge that the M50 gets greatly exceeds that of the M1 and M2's 200-230 shots per charge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> And then some people feel terribly offended and insulted, when I use the term n00bs. ;D ;D ;D



I wonder why...

[quote author=dictionary.com]
*noob* or n00b [noob] _noun Slang: Usually Disparaging_
a newbie, especially a person who is new to an online community and whose online participation and interactions display a lack of skill or knowledge
[/quote]

But then, you've previously and unapologetically displayed discriminatory behavior, so this comes as no surprise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Why?

Being able to buy a new camera and use currently-owned batteries is logical (to customers). A lower production cost is logical (to Canon). A lower shots-per-battery rating resulting in a perceived need for customers to buy extra (possibly high margin) batteries is logical (to Canon).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The criticism herein has nothing do with allegiance to canon - the subject could have been Samsung or Nikon or Ford or LEGO - and everything to do with the ludicrousness of the claims made. Take out the “marketing nerfing” as the fundamental basis upon which you base your complaints, and it becomes reasonable.



The term of nerfing is a dog whistle to some folks, in fairness. Goodness knows I've gotten dinged on that here. 

I've learned it's easier to extol the virtues of 'production cost control by feature omission' / more clearly segmenting the portfolio, etc. : than bemoan any deliberate attempts by Canon to save a buck, protect the pricier item above it, etc. 

Also, it's really only nerfing when there's zero reason they didn't include something in the design for the same price. As others have said in this instance, keeping the battery the same allows folks to keep using their older batteries and chargers.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



because the rest of canon's lineup has migrated from the E12's including the rebels. The SL1 was the only EOS camera to use the E12's and that was replaced by the SL2 that uses the E17.

a beginner user is going to feel the pain sooner or later, but you also chopped off the rest of my sentence which is important. I don't know what engineering either cost, heat, size or human engineering plays a role in canon's decision, and they know better than I or anyone here knows.

I can logically assume that the E17's are more complex and/or expensive to produce because it took ages for after market E17's to appear in the market.

with the M10/M100 and I imagine the m50 follows suit, cost even in the pennies is important.

Canon Japan gets around half the value of these cameras, that's what they have to use to recoup R&D, legal, patent, manufacturing, tooling, assembly,etc with. That's not alot of money to go around every single dime makes a difference.

I used to work at IBM, and they used to award the first year's savings to plant improvement suggestions. Someone was awarded 100,000 that way simply by suggesting the removal of a sticker from a motherboard. Yes I'm dating myself here, but the fact remains, sometimes even what we think is simply a few cents worth can make a huge difference over time to a company's bottom line when producing an item.


----------



## BillB (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well just look at this thread. Starting with my statement that EOS M50 is marketing nerfed with regards to use of subpar battery. the usual "Canon fanbois" in this forum could not handle that. They could not argue with facts, because the facts I presented were clear. And every time they cannot challenge the facts i present, they go into a foaming thrashing frenzy of personal attacks ... what i write is "nothing but my self-important whining" and/or "all conjecture" and/or "Canon sells most cameras" and/or "Canon knows absolutely everything better than you", etc. etc. -
> 
> Maybe i will put together a list of the 10 most frequently used braindead personal attack lines around here and label them like
> #1 "Canon sells most, Canon knows best"
> ...



Thank you for your efforts to streamline your response to what you call braindead personal attacks. As near as I can tell, your main point seems to be to express your disappointment with Canon's decision to stick with a battery with about 15% less capacity than the one that you think they should have used. You regard the practical effect of using this lower capacity battery as a serious deficiency worthy of repeated comment, especially since Canon's obvious reason for using the lower capacity battery was to save an inconsequential amount of money in making the M50. 

The practical importance of Canon's using the lower capacity battery would seem to be a matter of opinion and individual preference, while Canon's reason for doing so would seem to rest on speculation and conjecture.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



If you have to let the camera dictate the end colors (jpeg and or unable to profile), there are often visible differences. Canon tends to favor red, Sony tends to favor green, etc.

I can’t go stick a color calibration reference on some bird’s back, or some singer’s head, however I have a library of profiles which allow me to correct in most instances.

If you have the ability to profile raws, the camera engine becomes irrelevant as it pertains to color.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > The criticism herein has nothing do with allegiance to canon - the subject could have been Samsung or Nikon or Ford or LEGO - and everything to do with the ludicrousness of the claims made. Take out the “marketing nerfing” as the fundamental basis upon which you base your complaints, and it becomes reasonable.
> ...



Also, poor NERF, man. The trademark has become an insult.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

Customer-friendly and logical is LOGIC is what Fujifilm does:

1 type of battery in all X cameras from entry level to flagship until 2016. Then switch to new, improved version battery for all X-models onwards. They did NOT stick the old, wekaer battery in entry level X-T100.

Both battery types are interchangeable. So any batteries existing users may have in their possession already can also be used in newer cameras. Charging is also interchangeable - in-camera (USB) and in optional external charger. 

Totally transparent. Totally logical. Clean cut. No nerfing. No cheating buyers of 2018 entry level cameras with whimpy, outdated 2012 batteries. Fuji customers get best available power source at a time with any camera. 

430 shots, instead of puny 230. CIPA vs. CIPA standard test, logically. Real-life use will give varying number of shots, in many situations / usage patterns more shots are possible - but Fuji battery will always be massively ahead. 

To be not nerfing and as customer-friendly as Fuji in this regard, Canon would - logically! - have had to put LP-E17 batteries in all EOS models from 2015 on wards - starting with M3. 

And IF Canon is considered to be at least as innovative and technically capable as Fujifilm is - then they should have sourced an LP-E17 with 1275mAh instead of only 1040mAh. 

How about that for logic?


----------



## Talys (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Customer-friendly and logical is LOGIC ....



The most logical battery system is the LPE6. The format has been around for a long time, and some pros have dozens of those things. 

By the way, modern batteries don't have much black magic voodoo in them. They're limited by physical size; and the battery type constrains the voltage provided (not physically, but practically, because you wouldn't want to supply the wrong voltage). Other than that, manufacturers can cram more maH into them as the size permits. So unless a manufacturer needs more or wants less voltage for a new camera, or has an physical requirement due to a new camera body, they don't NEED to change the battery format, right?

I realize the practice is common, simply to re-chip them and prevent knockoffs from siphoning revenue.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).



LP-E17 would be the sole choice since February 2015 when it first appeared. Not only implied. Real logic. Instead of marketing nerfing and "Canon aopologist's attempts at logic". 


Canon has cut a corner here they definitely should not have cut. Nerfing power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera, when a much better solution is available. It is so OBVIOUSLY "marketing differentiation" in an attempt to somehow justify EOS M5 significantly higher price.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2018)

Wow, even I would have given up a '7 fps on the 5D4 was a disastrous call for 6D2 / future 5DS2 segmentation reasons' by now.

This is some epic ranty staying power, folks. I'm slow-clapping not for the train wreck that this has become, but for the fact that the train still hasn't ground to a halt yet. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But as you point out, the majority of M-series bodies use the LP-E12. So, the LP-E17 is not the exclusively logical choice (you implied that it is).
> ...



Evidently you think you are the only one capable of logical reasoning. I'm sure that's true in the AvTvM Universe. I'm damn glad I don't live there.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> The most logical battery system is the LPE6. The format has been around for a long time, and some pros have dozens of those things.
> 
> By the way, modern batteries don't have much black magic voodoo in them. They're limited by physical size; and the battery type constrains the voltage provided (not physically, but practically, because you wouldn't want to supply the wrong voltage). Other than that, manufacturers can cram more maH into them as the size permits. So unless a manufacturer needs more or wants less voltage for a new camera, or has an physical requirement due to a new camera body, they don't NEED to change the battery format, right?



not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that. 



> The Fujifilm NP-W126S was preceded as a battery pack for digital cameras by the NP-W126. Both types operate at a similar voltage and are fully interchangeable, so that the NP-W126 can also be used with the Fujifilm X-T100. The main difference between the two packs is their internal circuit design. The newer battery pack has less internal resistance and, thus, less energy loss from internal heating. It will therefore last longer on a single charge and be less prone to overheating.



actually both types have the same voltage -> 7.2V, same as Canon. 

https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery
very good source of information, btw.


PS: i do agree with you re. LP-E6 and appreciate/commend Canon's approach with LP-E6 / LP-E6N. But methinks, an LP-E6 would be physically too large for most/all EOS M models. And i do like them compact. But with the juiciest batteries they can fit.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



No, I am not the only one with logical thinking. And in the EOS M50 / LP-E17 battery case logic is on my side.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> [not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.



So technical reasons are the only factors that logically matter? The only thing that benefits users? I guess that's how logic works in the AvTvM Universe. :




fullstop said:


> Canon has cut a corner here they definitely should not have cut. Nerfing power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera, when a much better solution is available.



Where is your evidence that their decision has had any negative impact* on M50 sales or profits? Without facts, your criticism remains a personal opinion. 

*Note: your incessant whining on the Internet does not constitute a negative impact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...logic is on my side.



Yes, when you ignore any facts that contradict your opinion, it's easy to win arguments...at least in your own head.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

ah, and to return to thread topic, what to expect from Canon with full frame mirrorless ... the M50 battery nerfing further lowers my expectations for Canon's upcoming mirrorless FF system. 

As many of you will know already ;D - my "wish-list" FF MILC would be something like a Sony RX-1R II size and form factor, with Sony sensor, Canon lens mount, Canon lenses, Canon RAWs, Canon touchscreen, Canon user interface, Canon menu system. 

Now looking at that tiny Sony FF camera, it has a super tiny, light LiIon power pack, running on 3.6 V only, dates back to June 2012, but yet it packs 1240mAh. So from a pure logics point of view, in an LP-E17 sized battery there should be more charge possible in 2018 than merely 1040mAh. 

Yes, i know the price Sony is charging for the RX1R II, but I don't think the power pack accounts for half of it. 


---------------
Sony NP-BX1 Specifications
Battery type:	Rechargeable Lithium-Ion power pack
Compatibility:	Sony RX1R II & other selected Sony cameras
Voltage:	3.6V DC
Capacity:	1240mAh or 220 shots (CIPA) with the Sony RX1R II
Dimensions (W x H x D):	29 x 9 x 42mm
Weight:	25g


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > [not correct. There are technical reasons to move to newer, better batteries even when rated voltage stays the same. Users get various benefits from that.
> ...



Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users. Even more so, when that battery is not really larger or more expensive than a technically inferior one. 

But, YLMV ... YOUR logic may vary. ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users.



actually the smaller charge batteries are less of an overheating problem.

there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here.

Only canon knows what the impact of moving to the E17 in the lower scale bodies is. Since they aren't sharing, it's anyone's guess, and here's a tidbit. you may be wrong in your assumptions.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



you again, quote me out of context.

Stop doing that.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Well in my logic a battery that holds more charge and is less prone to overheat are pretty compelling benefits to digital camera users.
> ...



I have not seen any stats to that effect, but maybe you have a statistic/link showing Fujifilm's 1425mAh power packs cause more overheating problems than Canons 1040mAh only power pack (LP-E17) or the whimpy-charge LP-E12 (875mAh)? Or that Canon LP-E6 power packs with 1865mAh overheat even m ore frequently? 


Just face it: there is no valid case for Canon to stick LP-E12 power packs into EOS M50. It is pure and utter marketing differentiation/nerfing. Which may well be a valid case in Canon's eyes and in Canon apologists' eyes. But only in theirs. 


btw: here's a link to the CIPA battery testing standards, in case anyone is interested. 
http://www.cipa.jp/std/documents/e/DC-002_e.pdf


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> power supply, a component so vital in any mirrorless camera



Why is a power supply so vital to a mirrorless camera? Doesn’t that violate the first law of MILC, i.e.:



fullstop said:


> there are no advantages to mirrorslappers.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



it stands to reason. it takes a higher charge current for higher capacity batteries.

and you conveniently missed the point, so i'll repeat "there are cases to be made to move to an LP-E17 or to stick with an LP-E12. You are looking at it through your own personal bias if you think there is only one clear cut choice here."

you have no idea what you are talking about or what canon looked at the difference in between the two batteries and made a decision on. You have zero (and I don't either) engineering knowledge, either manufacturing, cost, heat, complexity,etc to know why canon made the choice they did.

CIPA battery standard testing is meaningless for the majority of cameras as there are too many environmental variables to take into account that no one ever does and the majority of the variation is around the GN of the internal flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



I see. So logic from _your_ viewpoint of what _you_ would want defines 'compelling benefits to digital camera users'. The *fact* that many potential M50 buyers already own one or more LP-E12 batteries is irrelevant. 

Which would give you more total shots: the one LP-E 17 that comes with a camera you buy, or one LP-E12 battery that comes with a camera you buy _plus_ ≥1 LP-E12 that you already own? 

Regardless, the *facts*: 1) Canon included the LP-E 12 battery with the EOS M50 for reasons that are logical to them, and 2) your expectations of and wish list for the upcoming Canon FF MILC are completely irrelevant to Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> As many of you will know already ;D - my "wish-list" FF MILC would be something like a Sony RX-1R II size and form factor, with Sony sensor, Canon lens mount, Canon lenses, Canon RAWs, Canon touchscreen, Canon user interface, Canon menu system.



Ah, you want an ILC form factor from a fixed lens design that tucks the lens into the body for minimum possible footprint. So it's a _proper_ dreamland, then. Gotcha.  

Also, the form factor of the RX1R bodies is like the original EOS-M = smallest possible, no grip to be found. Ever try putting a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 2.8 on the original EOS M? Because a subset of Canon's users will 100% do that on the first day they get it. And to do that with zero grip is cruel and unusual punishment for the wrist.

Don't get me wrong, Canon may 'go super tiny' with the first of (presumably) many different FF mirrorless form factors. But I don't think they'll go full crazy thin and gripless with an ILC, because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ... because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.



Unless you live in a universe where the thin lens approximation is more than just a mathematical/conceptual model, it describes actual production lenses. You know, the world where a 'really right lens mount' allows lenses to defy the laws of physics.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ... because even the most ordinary lens you'd put on this thing will be taller than the grip would be.
> ...



Yeah. We can do this all day. 

I appreciate the desire for a small over aggregate size of body + lens. And, yes, Canon may very well offer multiple bodies with different form factors and grip sizes. But to not put _at least_ an A7 sized grip on an FF ILC would be unconscionable.

You'd be saving no space with a lens attached, you'd limit the battery size, you'd terrorize wrists, and you'd eliminate the chance for top LCD and 'grip-adjacent' controls of any substance.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

Agree, a bit of a grip should be added to RX1R II form factor. And if body were a bit bigger, like Sony A7 1st gen, fine with me as well. I will use compact f/4 zooms on my small mirrorless FF body, not f/2.8 zooms. And small, moderately fast primes. Large(r) lenses in rare occasions - and then on tripod. 

My 24-70, 70-200 2.8 and 5D3 are spending most of their time at home. Too heavy, too clunky, too "conspicous". 

In essence I am after something like a modern day, digital version of the Minolta CLE system, ideally with full access to Canon lens universe (EF of course via adapter, no problem here).


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see. So logic from _your_ viewpoint of what _you_ would want defines 'compelling benefits to digital camera users'. The *fact* that many potential M50 buyers already own one or more LP-E12 batteries is irrelevant.



I thought it is general consensus here and in the real world, that EOS M50 is a Canon "ENTRY level" mirrorless camera. You may also call it a fact. 

Now, who do you think is Canon primarily targetting its ENTRY level EOS M50 at? 

A) New ENTRants to Canon EOS M mirrorless system, "upgraders from smartphones, point & shoots, and maybe 1" compacts" who want an APS-C sensored system camera that is small and affordable? 

B) existing Canon EOS M model owners who still have LP-E12 batteries around the house?

C) existing Canon M owners with LP-E17 battery packs at hand?

What will be the proportion of EOS M50 sales to the 3 groups you reckon? Which group will likely be largest? Who would benefit most from having a battery which lasts 430+ shots = a full day of shooting for most EOS M50 users? Which new user purchasing EOS M50 + kit lens will profit from a having whimpy LP-E12 in it with 230+ shots = no way to go around with out at least 1 charged spare battery. 

The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5. 

"Gosh, that little M50 has the same sensor, better DIGIC, better video, much better AF [face/eye-tracking is very important to smartphone upgraders!] than EOS M5? Now wait a minute, why is M50 599 and M5 over a grand? [MSRP] ... ?" 

Skimping on a MILC battery is a disadvantage for Canon's customers, not helpful for Canon's competitive position [some people do look at spreadsheets and will notice the Fuji X-T100 has more than twice the shots per charge for the same money. Plus 15-45 Fuji kit lens is better than the Canon one too ...] and it is not good for Canon's brand recognition ["corner cutters"] either. 

But feel free to believe in other, much less likely explanations for the whimpy "battery" in the M50. "Power pack" really would be the wrong word for it. LOL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5.



How is that illogical? Why would it only be logical to use the LP-E17 in the M50?


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> The most simple explanation is usually the correct one: conscious nerfing by Canon's to create "marketing differentiation" towards much higher priced EOS M5.



Problem is, the idea of nerfing based on the battery (the battery, fer Christ's sake!) is actually the more complex one.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Problem is, the idea of nerfing based on the battery (the battery, fer Christ's sake!) is actually the more complex one.



wow, you guys are a real piece of work ... 

Battery life (charge) is a critical dimension in every mobile electronic product. be it smartphone, be it iWatch, be it GPS tracker, be it digital camera. no juice, no fun, right ? 

Not only in real life use - Canon evidently does not care much about that - but also in marketing materials and in spec sheet comparisons. Canon marketing has learned about it by spending millions of dollars on market research, right?

Now look at all those internet sites comparing competing products' specs. Especially not so well-informed potential buyers of entry level products (see how i avoid the word "n00b") love to read those internet spec sheet comparisons, right? And their purchasing decisions might at least be influenced by them, if not outright based on them, right? 

Now lets have a look how many and which important specs differentiate Canon EOS M5 and EOS M50 in those spec sheet comparisons, shall we?



> eview summary: Canon M5 vs Canon M50
> So what is the bottom line? Is the Canon M5 better than the Canon M50 or vice versa? Below is a summary of the relative strengths of each of the two contestants.
> 
> 
> ...


Source: https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-m5-vs-canon-m50

Had Canon marketing not nerfed EOS M50 by sticking an old, puny, whimpy battery into it, many of those internet spec-sheet comparisons match-ups would have ended in favor of EOS M50 over EOS M5. Canon marketing would not like that to happen, right? 

So what did they do? So simple, stupid: they just "marketing differentiated" M50 by denying it the readily available, current power pack. Or in other words, they nerfed it. As I said from the start and all along. Not more, not less. quod erat demonstrandum. Case closed.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Who would benefit most from having a battery which lasts 430+ shots = a full day of shooting for most EOS M50 users



the current LP-E12 will do that easily. because CIPA is using flash for 50% of your shots and turning off the camera and turning it back on for each 10 pictures, and also racking focus to it's extremes, each picture.

I easily got over 500 shots on my EOS-M without even trying, the M50 is far more eco friendly than the original M was.

so basically you are admitting that the LP-E12 is good enough for most users, and this conversation is entirely pointless.

Thanks for coming out .. /thread.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 5, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Who would benefit most from having a battery which lasts 430+ shots = a full day of shooting for most EOS M50 users
> ...



may i point out, that Canon EOS M /1st gen) does NOT have a built-in flash? On mine i get anywhere between 100 and 300 shots from a fully charged LP-E12. Depending on a number of parameters, eg temperature [not only in freezing cold], how frequently i turn it on/off, how much i chimp or not, what AF mode is activated, etc. 

So before you try to lecture me, please read up on the facts, thanks.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 5, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



I didn't realize that the EOS-M and M2 are currently available and in production cameras.

Trying to move the goalposts when your argument obviously fails since we were talking about the M50 which has nothing to do with the battery usage on the M and M2, and MY usage was obviously better than yours. The fact of the M and M2 were simply illustrative points. did you not get that?

or did you miss the "M50 is far more eco friendly than the original M was."

The M and M2 are nowhere near as battery efficient as the M50. You *DID* know that... didn't you?
or did you just waste everyone's time with a completely nonsense 3+ pages of postings over nothing? That's fact if you knew or read anything at all about the CIPA battery testing cycle.

Getting 450+ shots on the M50 will be of no problem to the average user. You just admitted that is your criteria. Hell I could do that with the original M with no problems, just because you couldn't isn't my problem.

So you can get out of the basement, get off your dad's computer and find something better to do with your time now.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ah, and to return to thread topic, what to expect from Canon with full frame mirrorless ... the M50 battery nerfing further lowers my expectations for Canon's upcoming mirrorless FF system.
> 
> As many of you will know already ;D - my "wish-list" FF MILC would be something like a Sony RX-1R II size and form factor, with Sony sensor, Canon lens mount, Canon lenses, Canon RAWs, Canon touchscreen, Canon user interface, Canon menu system.
> 
> ...



I think you should go to a Sony forum and lament that Sony doesn't produce cameras with an EF mount. That's what you should do. :

Your return makes me further doubt the benefits of reincarnation.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> the current LP-E12 will do that easily. because CIPA is using flash for 50% of your shots ...
> ...
> I easily got over 500 shots on my EOS-M without even trying,



that's what you wrote. Obviously not having a clue. 

LP-E12 is a whimpy, old battery in a 2018 camera. LP-E17 would probably have yielded close to 500 shots in real life. Not LP-E12. Sole reason why that weak old battery was stuck into M50 is marketing nerfing by Canon.


----------



## Durf (Jun 6, 2018)

Well, it's actually a bit refreshing to see someone bitchin about the M50's battery more than the cameras lacking 4k capabilities.

Regardless, the M50 is what it is, which is basically; A lower end and lower cost starter level run and gun 1080p vlogging camera that can also take pretty decent snapshots too. Canon never claimed this camera would change the world of mirrorless cameras nor have they claimed it had outstanding battery life.

It's a starter camera with some cool features but lacking all the better things the more expensive cameras in Canon's line up (or other brands) have....want a better camera with a better battery???? go buy a friggin Sony A7iii for 2 grand, sheesh!

Want a half way decent little run and gun starter camera for 700 bucks or so with a flip out screen and pretty good 1080p video and something you can take decent snapshots with? Consider getting the M50....

Almost ever camera that's made now a days is better than what everyone was using 10 years ago, even this M50.

Most of the complaints about todays camera's are a bit ridiculous when you look at the bigger picture. 

Many pros bought the original 5D mark 1 about 15 years ago and got great results with it and many made a living with it.....the cameras today may do more and be higher tech but that doesn't mean the 5D1 now takes worse pictures than it did a decade ago.....

But then again, what do I know? I'm just a 6D2 owner.......


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2018)

My guess is that people who tend to take many hundreds of pictures a day likely know who they are, and are more inclined to spend $50 on a spare battery, just in case.

I bought a spare battery for my first Rebel. I take a lot of pictures sometimes, but I never used that battery. I've never felt the need to buy an extra battery since. If I did a lot of camping away from electricity, so that I couldn't recharge things by night, then I'd likely get spare batteries.

And I'd get a new phone that will do wireless charging.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

Canon apologists' last stand: "well, it easily beats cameras from 10 years ago". Well, it better. 

Other than the meak battery itself, what irks me "in general" is the displayed willingness by some, to put up with any sub-par stuff from Canon without even criticizing it. Or even worse, constantly apologizing and condoning it. Even in cases of blatant, conscious nerfing of products.


----------



## Durf (Jun 6, 2018)

stevelee said:


> My guess is that people who tend to take many hundreds of pictures a day likely know who they are, and are more inclined to spend $50 on a spare battery, just in case.
> 
> I bought a spare battery for my first Rebel. I take a lot of pictures sometimes, but I never used that battery. I've never felt the need to buy an extra battery since. If I did a lot of camping away from electricity, so that I couldn't recharge things by night, then I'd likely get spare batteries.
> 
> And I'd get a new phone that will do wireless charging.



I always carry a spare "just in case". There's only been a couple times I've actually had to change a battery out in the field (with the 80D or 6D2) and one time was only after a very long day of macro shooting with live view on most of the day. Another time was walking out the door not realizing I had an almost a dead battery already in the camera.

If I did happen to buy the M50 I would buy an extra battery "just in case" because I know how I shoot and I'm often out in the middle of no where for long periods of time. (but I'd never buy a M50, it's too damn small!) lol


----------



## Durf (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon apologists' last stand: "well, it easily beats cameras from 10 years ago". Well, it better.
> 
> Other than the meak battery itself, what irks me "in general" is the displayed willingness by some, to put up with any sub-par stuff from Canon without even criticizing it. Or even worse, constantly apologizing and condoning it. Even in cases of blatant, conscious nerfing of products.



You have every right to voice your opinions and criticisms; but you are sounding like a broken record.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 6, 2018)

Durf said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon apologists' last stand: "well, it easily beats cameras from 10 years ago". Well, it better.
> ...



He's done this for years. There's a constant cloud of gloom over his head. Nothing makes him happy. He constantly extolls the the virtues of Sony, yet he keeps hanging around. This is his second incarnation on this forum. Strange, really. It's like listening to a metronome all day.


----------



## Durf (Jun 6, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



.... he should of chosen the handle "FullThrottle" instead of "FullStop" lol


----------



## bwud (Jun 6, 2018)

unfocused said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > My perspective from an electronics product design background: it’s almost inconceivable that anyone from Canon’s marketing organization dictated what battery be used in anything. It’s far more likely that marketing organization would have proposed a camera with some generic specifications and price point, and that the BOM cost trades undergone to facilitate the price led to the part selection.
> ...



Here’s a real world way non-engineering influence can make its way into a product. In my area, we have business development people who are largely former engineers with wide knowledge of the systems we design/produce. They use that knowledge to dream up derivative products (take one of these, hook it to one of those, and you can do this much capability for that much cost) to our main offerings, and then they come to engineering with BD budget to design and fab prototypes. Then they show those prototypes to potential customers and, if one bites, the design is all but locked down, and the remaining funding goes to make it production worthy.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > the current LP-E12 will do that easily. because CIPA is using flash for 50% of your shots ...
> ...



oh so now it's 500+

I'm curious how you know, considering that 235 shots with 875mAh is only 279 shots at 1040 mAh.

so it's a measly 44 freaking shots different. but it will get over 500 now with the LP-E17.

Got it.

Unless you are using my non CIPA M1/M2 numbers which then you are trying to fudge your own values .. once AGAIN.

and here's a news flash you can get after market LP-E12's around 1200 mAh in capacity. you can actually Get LP-E12's with LARGER capacity than you can aftermarket LP-E17's.

Which makes your entire posting in this thread absolutely pointless.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon apologists' last stand: "well, it easily beats cameras from 10 years ago". Well, it better.
> 
> Other than the meak battery itself, what irks me "in general" is the displayed willingness by some, to put up with any sub-par stuff from Canon without even criticizing it. Or even worse, constantly apologizing and condoning it. Even in cases of blatant, conscious nerfing of products.



So it bothers you that some folks are using their cameras and are satisfied or even very happy? That's pretty sad.
So you think we should all criticize products that don't do what - or work as well as - we think they should? To what purpose exactly? What does the criticizing accomplish? 

Nothing, except showing how immature you are. Mature adults accept that companies make products based on what the company deems most appropriate to make a profit. Mature adults understand that companies do not make a product based on my particular needs and wants. If you don't like the product, every company understands that you may buy from another company. 

Whiners don't seem to get the fact that when they whine, they say very little about Canon (or whatever company) they are whining about. They say A LOT about what type of person they are.

Don't know about you, but I would rather converse or interact with positive people. With people who share a common interest and enjoy talking and participating in that interest. So you can choose to be positive and happy - or you can choose to be a negative whiner.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 6, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Don't know about you, but I would rather converse or interact with positive people. With people who share a common interest and enjoy talking and participating in that interest. So you can choose to be positive and happy - or you can choose to be a negative whiner.



Agree with everything you said. 

Unless it's about spot metering at an off-center AF point. That's a legit beef we all need to complain about. 

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

no. we want to compare apples to apples. Canon OEM batteries to Canon batteries. CIPA numbers vs. CIPA numbers. 

actual usage max shot numbers are not comparable, as they vary with usage scenario. they can be higher than CIPA, they can be lower than CIPA. As stated before. the difference betwen LP-E12 abd LP-E17 in the same camera will always be significant. possibly even more significant in a camera with better energy management, but i do not want to speculate.

on a side note: as to thirdparty batteries, well to each there own. personally, i trust the canon brand name and the specs they claim, a quite bit more than some anonymous aftermarket makers, who often write any funny numbers on their product. unless you can point me to serious reviews that tested various makes of Canon-compatible batteries and clearly show some to be superior to "original" canon branded ones, i personally will not consider them. all reports i have seen and my own experience are to the opposite. at best, thirdparty was only slightly weaker at purchase and lost charge capacity only somewhat faster than " original" canon. in one instance i had a thirdparty liion pack (not LP-E12 type) overheat and melt during first time charging. so buyer beware.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 6, 2018)

dak723 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Canon apologists' last stand: "well, it easily beats cameras from 10 years ago". Well, it better.
> ...


Those of us who are happy with the camera we own usually don't have any need to comment in forums such as this one, so it can sometimes appear that most people are unhappy with Canon products.
About a year ago I upgraded from a 5D mk3 to a 5D mk4 and I am absolutely delighted with it. The mk4 is a significant improvement over the mk3 and I don't feel as if the technology is 10 years old.
However, from time to time I do look around to see what else is available and there is no doubt that there are some excellent full frame cameras that are as good or even slightly better than 5D mk 4. Examples of this would be the Nikon D850, Sony A7 iii and Sony A9. Of these the only one I would seriously consider is the Nikon D850 but that is because I prefer the size and weight of a DSLR and I prefer to use an optical viewfinder. However, I have often asked myself whether the Nikon is so much better than the Canon 5D mk4 that it is time to change brands and the decision I always make is to stay with what I have. I don't think that the Nikon or either of the Sonys would allow me to improve the standard of my photography, even if they do have some features that the Canon lacks. If I could change my brain so it could somehow spot the photo opportunities that I always miss or allow me to change the composition to produce more effective and exciting results then that would be a far more worthwhile upgrade.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Unless it's about spot metering at an off-center AF point. That's a legit beef we all need to complain about.



to you, not to me and not to many others.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...but i do not want to speculate.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > ...but i do not want to speculate.



yes, we know, reading comprehension and understanding context is not your forte. ;D


----------



## BillB (Jun 6, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know about you, but I would rather converse or interact with positive people. With people who share a common interest and enjoy talking and participating in that interest. So you can choose to be positive and happy - or you can choose to be a negative whiner.
> ...



My first SLR didn't even have an exposure meter (or autofocus either for that matter). Since then I have tended to see elaborate camera metering technology as a solution in search of a problem (evaluative metering is pretty cool though). I need a shutter speed and an fstop and as long as I am not blocking the shadows or blowing out the highlights, life is good. Shoot RAW and use Lightroom for local adjustments.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Just as comprehension of facts and a grasp of reality are not _your_ forte. ;D


----------



## stevelee (Jun 6, 2018)

BillB said:


> My first SLR didn't even have an exposure meter (or autofocus either for that matter). Since then I have tended to see elaborate camera metering technology as a solution in search of a problem (evaluative metering is pretty cool though). I need a shutter speed and an fstop and as long as I am not blocking the shadows or blowing out the highlights, life is good. Shoot RAW and use Lightroom for local adjustments.



Given the small margin of error in shooting color slides, it's a wonder that any of us produced a decent picture in a given month, much less the 36 gems that I sometimes got out of a roll of film.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. we want to compare apples to apples. Canon OEM batteries to Canon batteries. CIPA numbers vs. CIPA numbers.



No YOU want to. no one else really cares. Don't talk in the "we" because your views are held by .. no one else.

Also CIPA numbers aren't apples to apples, that has been explained to you multiple times but like a child, you cover your ears and scream loud enough not to hear or listen to anyone else around you.



fullstop said:


> the difference betwen LP-E12 abd LP-E17 in the same camera will always be significant.



actually it won't be. it would be a difference of 44 shots using CIPA benchmarks. that's not significant. 235 versus 279. For all your whining you'd think you'd get a 1000 shots out of the LP-E17.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> it would be a difference of 44 shots using CIPA benchmarks. that's not significant. 235 versus 279. For all your whining you'd think you'd get a 1000 shots out of the LP-E17.



235 for LP-E12 in EOS M50, yes. How exactly do you arrive at 279 shots for LP-E17 in same camera (M 50) ? 
And no, i don't think 1000 shots would be possible with LP-E17 in EOS M50, even under the best of circumstances.


----------



## Talys (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > it would be a difference of 44 shots using CIPA benchmarks. that's not significant. 235 versus 279. For all your whining you'd think you'd get a 1000 shots out of the LP-E17.
> ...



The point is, you're arguing bout something that is unlikely to be a difference maker to someone who genuinely wants an M50. Neither is anything to write home about, but both are probably fine for the camera and market that their respective cameras are targeted. I mean, obviously, it's not an impediment to sales, since the Canon APSC mirrorless series is a great seller.

Could the M50 get more than 279 shots with an LPE17? Who knows? Maybe it would be more, and maybe less. The thing is... not many people care. I don't 

Also, just to reiterate - CIPA numbers are crap, especially in mirrorless. Period. Because, unlike DSLRs, how you use the camera, the ratio between time looking through the viewfinder or screen and the number of photos taken is critical, and may be wildly different from 230-something one way or the other. The real test is, "how many batteries do I need to carry with me to make sure I don't run out of juice?" I suspect, for most enthusiasts on the Eos M system, the answer would be 1-2 spares.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

Canon apologists will apologize anything. Even nerfed battery, one of the more crucial components in mirrorless cameras. And try to argue that it is 1. no nerfing and 2. even when, it does not matter. I find it extremely amusing. 

I have not tested it myself, but fully expect Fujifilm X-T 100 - direct USD 599 competitor to EOS M50 - to typically yield more than 500 shots on a charge. In real life. It has a POWER pack, not a 2012 whimpy old battery. But of course, to Canapolgists it does not matter. They prefer to carry lots of spare ... batteries.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon apologists will apologize anything. Even nerfed battery, one of the more crucial components in mirrorless cameras. And try to argue that it is 1. no nerfing and 2. even when, it does not matter. I find it extremely amusing.
> 
> I have not tested it myself, but fully expect Fujifilm X-T 100 - direct USD 599 competitor to EOS M50 - to typically yield more than 500 shots on a charge. In real life. It has a POWER pack, not a 2012 whimpy old battery. But of course, to Canapolgists it does not matter. They prefer to carry lots of spare ... batteries.



On what basis do you 'expect' the X-T100 to "typically yield more than 500 shots on a charge"?
And would you go out on a day's shoot without a back up battery? It sounds like you would not and would rather trust in CIPA ratings to take you though the day.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

on basis of CIPA rating 473 shots for X-T100 I think it is safe to say that in many (most?) real life use scenarios one will get 500+ shots on a charge. Fujifilm puts a decent 1470 mAH power pack into all its X-cameras. And presumably also works to continuosly improve energy management. 

With my EOS M (1st gen no onboard flash) i never leave home with less than 2 spare LP-E12, often 3. 
If I knew, I'd likely get 500+ shots from a charge in my typical usage, i would still carry a spare - but normally only 1 then.  

Will be interesting, how EOS M50 does in real life when using a lot of continuous AF with Face/Eye tracking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon apologists will apologize anything.



Canon bashers will criticize anything. Even a relatively minor difference in battery life. If we were talking about the difference between needing to buy/carry a spare battery and not, that would be significant. But we're not.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> on basis of CIPA rating 473 shots for X-T100 I think it is safe to say that in many (most?) real life use scenarios one will get 500+ shots on a charge. Fujifilm puts a decent 1470 mAH power pack into all its X-cameras. And presumably also works to continuosly improve energy management.
> 
> With my EOS M (1st gen no onboard flash) i never leave home with less than 2 spare LP-E12, often 3.
> If I knew, I'd likely get 500+ shots from a charge in my typical usage, i would still carry a spare - but normally only 1 then.
> ...



Regardless of battery size, these days batteries are cheap on Amazon. You can get a wasabi kit with a dual charger and two aftermarket batteries for less than the cost of an OEM battery. In addition, these chargers are USB and don't need mains power. Before I upgraded to Sony bodies that used the much better FZ batteries, I had two always charging connected to a 15000mah USB power bank and shot all day long while charging in my shoulder bag. This was during faster paced weddings as well...


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 6, 2018)

fullstop said:


> on basis of CIPA rating 473 shots for X-T100 I think it is safe to say that in many (most?) real life use scenarios one will get 500+ shots on a charge. Fujifilm puts a decent 1470 mAH power pack into all its X-cameras. And presumably also works to continuosly improve energy management.



So in other words, little more than guesswork...and a benefit of doubt you decide not to offer to Canon.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 6, 2018)

nope. mAh are hard facts. CIPA test # of shots are facts. Having to carry zero, 1, 2 or 3 spare batteries for a day of shootin in the mountains or on a city trip or at a family re-union makes a dfifference. Not an insurmountable one, oh no. But a real difference, and one WE Canon customers would not have to shoulder if Canon would not nerf their products. And they would be less inclined to nerf their products if they would get similar flak from 50% of their customers, not only from a few. 

And .. .whether or not you believe it or not is ... "irrelevant". To Canon. And to me. 

EOD.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

Canon doesn’t care about anonymous flak from people very openly not buying their products. Nor should they. As long as they offer a value proposition compelling enough to a sufficient market to make their numbers, they’re happy. If you want to get their attention, you need to convince people not to buy; complaining about the unlikely scenario in which the wicked witch of the marketing department contrived a design configuration that isn’t to your liking is a whole lot of nothingness to Canon.


----------



## Talys (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> on basis of CIPA rating 473 shots for X-T100 I think it is safe to say that in many (most?) real life use scenarios one will get 500+ shots on a charge. Fujifilm puts a decent 1470 mAH power pack into all its X-cameras. And presumably also works to continuosly improve energy management.
> 
> With my EOS M (1st gen no onboard flash) i never leave home with less than 2 spare LP-E12, often 3.
> If I knew, I'd likely get 500+ shots from a charge in my typical usage, i would still carry a spare - but normally only 1 then.
> ...



Why not just get the number off the brochure, instead of making it up? It's approximately 430 frames in "Normal Mode when XF35mmF1.4 R is set" -- in quotes, because I have no idea what the caveat means.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t100/pdf/index/x_t100_catalogue_01.pdf

If you love Fuji cameras, you should support them, and buy one.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOD.



that would be a relief. 

you lose your argument with the LP-E17 because you realize you look like an idiot, and decide to switch it up and compare it to the XT100.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > it would be a difference of 44 shots using CIPA benchmarks. that's not significant. 235 versus 279. For all your whining you'd think you'd get a 1000 shots out of the LP-E17.
> ...



Simple math. does it escape you?

235/875 = x/1040 ?
(235 * 1040)/875 = x
x=279

Math. it's hard


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

@rrc - thanks for explanation. Yes, I can follow your "advanced math" ;D 
So you go by the assumption that number of shots would be directly proportional to mAh only. Possible. But there can also be other advantages to more recent power packs compared to older ones, beyond just more Watthours. That's one of the reasons why I also included comparison to what Fujifilm is doing. 



> The main difference between the two packs is their internal circuit design. The newer battery pack has *less internal resistance *and, thus, less energy loss from internal heating. It will therefore last longer on a single charge and be less prone to overheating.


https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery

Have not seen any claims by Canon as to whether or not they implemented similar improvements going from LP-12 [2012] to LP-E17 [2015] type. 

Innovative Fuji and/or their battery supplier manage to get 430 shots on their entry level X-T100 out of a 1260 mAh power pack, which is - mathematically and real life  - a way better ratio than what you would assume for Canon [430 vs. 338].

But even if your assumed direct relation for LP-E12 vs. LP-E17 for EOS M50 were correct, I'd still prefer 18% more shots per charge from LP-E17. And I'd even more prefer 430 shots per charge. If your preferences are for lower shot yield and more spare batteries, its your problem. 

@3kramd5 Canon has "marketing nerfed" their M50 customers by (at least) 18% battery reach. It was not done by the evil witch you may believe in, but by Canon corporation in a conscious decision to "marketing differentiate" EOS M50 in one of its most important characteristics [sensor, IQ, AF, power, EVF/LCD] compared to EOS M5. And that decision is based on disregard and disrespect for their "entry level" customers. 


PS: what would you guys think of a car maker that would just re-use an old, small fuel tank, in a new, small car with little reach - although a newer, larger fuel tank were also readily available that would give customers (at least) 18% more reach per gas stop? 

Yeah, I know, some of you would probably say it is "only to the benefit of customers", because in case of an accident with fire there will be less fuel in the tank to burn the car's driver and passengers.  ;D


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

@Talys: I am really impressed that Fujifilm manages to get a much higher number of shots per charge and like their transparent, consistent and *fair to customers* use of standardized power packs across all their X cameras from "entry level" to hi-end. Overall however, I much prefer the Canon EOS M system, mainly for the user interface and the EF-M lens lineup. As opposed to Fuji and Sony, Canon offers very compact, optically very decent, very inexpensive lenses that cover almost everything I'd ever want in a crop system. And on top of it native tie-in to the EF lens world. Even if I would not own Canon EOS DSLRs and EF glass, I'd probably still select Canon EOS M as my "non FF" camera system. 

Unlike the whiners who constantly whine about the "oh so limited, poor selection of EF-M lenses" and clamor for f/1.4 or 1.2 EF-M primes and then turn around to say, that mirrorless "holds no size advantage when fast and/or longer lenses come into play"  - I commend Canon for their EF-M lens line-up. For me and for the target audience - both people looking for a smaller setup to supplement their DSLR systems as well as for "smartphone/P&S upgraders", Canon EF-M lens assortment is right on the mark. Addition of a compact, decent, moderately fast tele prime would be the last element to make it "really excellent".  8) 

And no, I don't "whine" and i am no blind "Canon basher" I am paying Canon customer and criticize Canon for real, factual shortcomings of their products and even more so for "marketing nerfs" and other questionable business practices and decisions. Rest assured, that this forum is closely followed by Canon. There are not so many Canon-focused internet fora of this size and influence. Canon marketing / market research is smart enough to collect all feedback and "sense the waters", not only in the form of surveys of pro users or "ambassadors of light". No matter what some folks here incessantly claim and seem to believe: it is by no means "totally irrelevant" to Canon, if and how we CR forum dwellers discuss, commend and criticize Canon products here and compare them to competitive products. Based on "specsheet specs" and on "real use experiences". 8)


----------



## BillB (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> @Talys: I am really impressed that Fujifilm manages to get a much higher number of shots per charge and like their transparent, consistent and *fair to customers* use of standardized power packs across all their X cameras from "entry level" to hi-end. Overall however, I much prefer the Canon EOS M system, mainly for the user interface and the EF-M lens lineup. As opposed to Fuji and Sony, Canon offers very compact, optically very decent, very inexpensive lenses that cover almost everything I'd ever want in a crop system. And on top of it native tie-in to the EF lens world. Even if I would not own Canon EOS DSLRs and EF glass, I'd probably still select Canon EOS M as my "non FF" camera system.
> 
> Unlike the whiners who constantly whine about the "oh so limited, poor selection of EF-M lenses" and clamor for f/1.4 or 1.2 EF-M primes and then turn around to say, that mirrorless "holds no size advantage when fast and/or longer lenses come into play"  - I commend Canon for their EF-M lens line-up. For me and for the target audience - both people looking for a smaller setup to supplement their DSLR systems as well as for "smartphone/P&S upgraders", Canon EF-M lens assortment is right on the mark. Addition of a compact, decent, moderately fast tele prime would be the last element to make it "really excellent".  8)
> 
> And no, I don't "whine" and i am no blind "Canon basher" I am paying Canon customer and criticize Canon for real, factual shortcomings of their products and even more so for "marketing nerfs" and other questionable business practices and decisions. Rest assured, that this forum is closely followed by Canon. There are not so many Canon-focused internet fora of this size and influence. Canon marketing / market research is smart enough to collect all feedback and "sense the waters", not only in the form of surveys of pro users or "ambassadors of light". No matter what some folks here incessantly claim and seem to believe: it is by no means "totally irrelevant" to Canon, if and how we CR forum dwellers discuss, commend and criticize Canon products here and compare them to competitive products. Based on "specsheet specs" and on "real use experiences". 8)



If Canon is indeed closely monitoring this forum, we can hope that Canon gives your comments the consideration that they are due.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> @3kramd5 Canon has "marketing nerfed" their M50 customers by (at least) 18% battery reach. It was not done by the evil witch you may believe in, but by Canon corporation *in a conscious decision to "marketing differentiate" EOS M50 in one of its most important characteristics [sensor, IQ, AF, power, EVF/LCD] *compared to EOS M5. And that decision is based on disregard and disrespect for their "entry level" customers.



Yah, I’ve seen you assert that about 50 times. That doesn’t make it true, nor is that as probable as the marketing people having cost targets which the older battery helped satisfy. 

From the get go, had you not positioned your accusation as a hard, undeniable fact, you wouldn’t have received the pushback you have. But then you doubled down a number of times; by now you’re probably 20 fullstops or more from the initial claim with no indication that you accept even one iota of what most consider a more likely scenario. 



fullstop said:


> PS: what would you guys think of a car maker that would just re-use an old, small fuel tank, in a new, small car with little reach - although a newer, larger fuel tank were also readily available that would give customers (at least) 18% more reach per gas stop?



They often reduce fuel capacity as engines become more efficient (which is analogous to camera internals consuming less energy).

(All volumes in gallons, per google search)
2018 Toyota Camry: 14.5-16
2017 Toyota Camry: 17
2011 Toyota Camry: 18.5


(Also, in the same way you avoided using the non-word “n00b” back in Reply #180, I’ll avoid pointing out that you confused energy with charge in Reply #220. See? We can both relax a little.)


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that? 

But to Canapologists it would be "no problem, there are so many gas stations around, it is irrelevant". Right? ;D


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?
> 
> But to Canapologists it would be "no problem, there are so many gas stations around, it is irrelevant". Right? ;D



If it was the difference between 230km per tank and 270km per tank then no, I would not care.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?
> ...



interesting. i would. Every drop of juice is even more valuable when supplies are so low. 
18% is a noticable difference. Not to mention the 83% shots per charge advantage of the Fuji X-T100.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> interesting. i would. Every drop of juice is even more valuable when supplies are so low.
> 18% is a noticable difference. Not to mention the 83% shots per charge advantage of the Fuji X-T100.



Why re you bringing the Fuji into this? You were comparing the tow Canon batteries. 
While we are at it, the LPE-19 whups the Fuji into the long grass. Dumb Fuji.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

Fuji gets into play here because (even) their latest "entry class" camera X-T100, the most direct competitor model to Canon's EOS M50 gets 430 shots per charge. 

Even with LP-E17 the M50 would have been at a significant disadvantage in the power department. With whimpy old LP-E12 battery, it is worse. 

Maybe Canon marketing did not foresee this coming [X-T100 at 599 with decent power pack] and maybe, just maybe they are now really kicking themselves. But .... as much as i like the idea, THAT would be speculation, which I am not allowed by Can-apologists. ;D


----------



## dak723 (Jun 7, 2018)

I, for one, have seen the light! Hallelujah! From now on, battery size will be the most important spec when I buy a new camera! All hail the 18% more shots I might get with a bigger battery!! No longer will I need that extra spare! No longer will I cry out in pain when that "low battery" symbol appears! All is well with the world with a bigger battery! Hallelujah!

Color? Doesn't matter! Exposure accuracy? Only a fool cares about that! Autofocus speed? Who cares! Ergonomics?...Shmergonomics! Give me that bigger battery and I will being doing backflips for joy!!

Now that I have seen the light, I will fill every photography forum with posts regarding this wonderful discovery! Others will begin to see the light and the word will spread throughout the entire world! 

Hallelujah!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOS M50 shots per battery charge to me is akin to a car that had only 230 km range per tank fill. Would you be happy about that?



Not necessarily, but I’m not in the target market.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

@dak haha, i sense a meak attempt to make fun of a very serious topic here! oO ;D

While your preferences may well be different, I do consider sufficient power supply to be one of the important specs in a (mirrorless) camera. At least as long as we are talking about a very low 235 shots [CIPA]. 

* sensor + image processing pipeline -> Image Quality
* AF performance 
* lens lineup "native" and via OEM adapter 
* quality of EVF + touchscreen LCD
* responsiveness, no waiting on anything 
* functional user interface including logical menu system 
* compact size, low weight
AND last but not least: enough power for all of the above. 

Color is less relevant to me, i shoot only raw stills. No jpgs, no videos. Accurate exposure I take for granted in 2018. And best-in-class dynamic range is not even on the list when looking at Canon camera gear.  ;D


----------



## Durf (Jun 7, 2018)

In all seriousness, who in the hell actually shoots several hundred or a thousand or more photos every time they go out to take pictures?????

Perhaps a serious wildlife or sports photographer who spends all day shooting I imagine.....and I highly doubt they are using a camera that uses a LP-E17 or LP-E12 battery.

This thread has not been only derailed and become ridiculous, it has been fullthrottled....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But .... as much as i like the idea, THAT would be speculation, which I am not allowed by Can-apologists. ;D



Free free to speculate. We all do so. Where you went wrong was presenting speculation as fact, over and over.



Durf said:


> In all seriousness, who in the hell actually shoots several hundred or a thousand or more photos every time they go out to take pictures?????
> 
> Perhaps a serious wildlife or sports photographer who spends all day shooting I imagine.....and I highly doubt they are using a camera that uses a LP-E17 or LP-E12 battery.
> 
> This thread has not been only derailed and become ridiculous, it has been fullthrottled....



Battery capacity matters far more for mirrorless cameras than SLR, but shots per charge is a poor metric.

Consider: I may look through a viewfinder for 15 minutes before taking a shot. With a mirrorless camera, I’m using significant power during that non-shooting time. With SLR, I’m using insignificant power during that non-shooting time. Shots per charge won’t tell you anything about that. 

The above is a fundamental advantage reflex cameras have over mirrorless cameras. Which is funny since the instigator for these last several pages unapologetically asserts (i’m sensing a pattern) that SLRs have no advantages over mirrorless, when in fact an SLR can be capable of everything a mirrorless camera can do, but a mirrorless camera can not be capable of everything an SLR can do.

The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily. 


PS kudos to Canon for that little EOS M beast holding up so well. It fell into the snow on a back-country ski randonee tour and i accidentally skied over it, lol. It was in dusty old lost places on many urbex tours. Has quite some scratches, dents and marks, and the body shell squeaks a little, when i press it, but it holds up. Only the LP-E12 battery is whimpy, rest is tough and solid.


----------



## Durf (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.



LOL, a 1000 plus clicks at a single family event is a hell of a lot of pics! 

I've been shooting digital since 2001 or 2002 and I have only on a few occasions shot over 300 pics in one day or even through one weekend, goes to show we all shoot differently.

If I shot like you I doubt I'd be using a camera with a LP-E12 battery.....


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.



Family event, 6h with 1,000 clicks = 1 every 20 seconds. 
Sounds like your family think you are about as interesting as we do. ;D


----------



## Durf (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > my EOS M 1st gen has just reached 60k shutter actuations. All stills, hardly any "continuous rapid-fire" shooting and no stop-motion or similar at all. When i go on a city trip or into backcountry/mountains i often shoot 400-800 pics a day = 4x LP-E12 empty. 2500 clicks for a long weekend not unusual, family events 1000 clicks - easily.
> ...



Isn't that almost a slow motion video? LOL


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Family event, 6h with 1,000 clicks = 1 every 20 seconds.
> Sounds like your family think you are about as interesting as we do. ;D



thx Mike. you are absolutely right. as always. 

PS: our family events sometimes last a fair bit longer than 6 hours. LOL 8) ;D


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 7, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.



I look at it differently. I think modern reflex cameras today are simply mirrorless cameras being forced to support a legacy design. If you think about it, all modern reflex cameras are mirrorless cameras in mirror-lockup or live view mode (mostly). That means that it has two separate operating paradigms, one in OVF mode, and one in LV mode. In OVF mode, you can't shoot video or use subject detection and in LV mode, you can't use the off-sensor PDAF or OVF. It's also larger as a result of having to house the mirror and accompanying hardware.

If a reflex camera dropped the mirror, and made the camera perform just as well in LV mode than its reflex peers it wouldn't need to bother with the entire mirror-thingamajig. Hence cameras like the Sony A9 were created and that's just a first gen example. But it doesn't go the other way though, because if a reflex camera dropped mirrorless mode, you just stripped away 50% of what mirrorless can do today and still have to deal with the physical limitations of the mirror which will never move as quickly as not needing one to begin with.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > The common cited advantages to mirrorless cameras are sensor based metering, focus acquisition, and subject recognition, which an SLR can do with mirror lockup. On the flip side, a mirrorless camera is incapable of viewfinding through the lens without powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display, and it can not make use of off sensor AF or metering sensors designed specifically for those purposes rather than image capture. Additionally, silent shooting, focus peeking, and electronic shutters are sometimes cited as mirrorless advantages, but they aren’t unique capabilities either.
> ...



EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding, and use of purpose-built metering and AF sensors).



jayphotoworks said:


> But it doesn't go the other way though, because *if a reflex camera dropped mirrorless mode*, you just stripped away 50% of what mirrorless can do today and still have to deal with the physical limitations of the mirror which will never move as quickly as not needing one to begin with.



Why would anyone do that? 

With a mirror, you in effect can have full mirrorless operation in lockup mode, and you have full SLR operation in standard mode. 

Your view hinges upon mirrorless cameras being capable of everything reflex cameras are, and that can never be (the exceptions above are absolutes without entirely new hard to imagine technology). Then from that impossible position you take away from a reflex camera half of what it can readily do. 

Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 7, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding,



no, not on current Canon DSLRs with LCD overlay over matte screen. No power, no clear OVF.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > EXCEPT: you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding,
> ...



I can see through the lens in my viewfinder even if the battery is removed from my camera, therefore: yes, I do have unpowered TTL viewfinding with my canon DSLRs (one generation old, but I assure you that is still the case). Did you think the body was generating its own power? 

In actual use it draws some power, but as previously mentioned is insignificant relative to:


3kramd5 said:


> powering the sensor, readout electronics, processor, and display...



If course the sensor, processor, etc are powered even with the mirror down, but not nearly as much is drawn as when reading and rendering the data through to the screen, and powering the screen.

I tried using my A7R2 like I can my SLRs, waiting for a bird to pop up from a nest or mammal to appear at the den. It doesn’t work. The battery drains exponentially faster. That’s not how I always shoot, but when necessary, it makes all the difference.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

in all Canon EOS DSLRs with LCD overlay you can see thru the viewfinder without battery, but you will NOT get a clear image. 

Anyway, it is pointless to even discuss this. Any digital camera is utterly useless without battery power. And almost all SLRs too.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> in all Canon EOS DSLRs with LCD overlay you can see thru the viewfinder without battery, but you will NOT get a clear image.
> 
> Anyway, it is pointless to even discuss this. Any digital camera is utterly useless without battery power. And almost all SLRs too.



Of course. That was only to be illustrative of the fact that my statement was accurate where you said it was not. No one would try to use a digital camera without a battery. Illustration aside, we are left with the truth of the statement you argued was not: “you are giving up capability by eliminating the mirror (unpowered TTL view-finding.”

If you prefer, replace “un” with “minimally-“. Both are true, but the latter applies to real usage.

Although no current SLR has an EVF, nothing about the technology precludes one. No mirrorless camera has an optical viewfinder, nor the ancillary capabilities one brings; technology precludes it.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line. Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more. Its about time. Finally getting rid of all that anachronistic 19th/early 20th century mechanical steam punk stuff stuff in cameras - like slapping mirrors and moving shutter blades.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line.



It’s probably headed there, but is not there yet.



fullstop said:


> Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.



Kindly diagram for me how a mirrorless camera can use an optical TTL viewfinder*, and then name one of the whole lot more things one can do which SLR can not (other than “not have a mirrorbox”). When you do, I’ll own my error.



*I’ll give you one in text: VF assembly directly in line with lens, with a sensor assembly which slides in place in front of it. Not particularly useful, but technically feasible.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless can do ANYTHING a DSLR can and then a whole lot more.
> ...



absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. 
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. 
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror. 
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror. 
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly. 

and then yet another whole lot of things, DSLRs can not do natively, but only when switched to mirrorless operation (live view). Like WYSIWIG viewfinder/LCD. Any sort of video capture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2018)

Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR. 

By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


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



Almost all of those things can be done with SLR by locking up the mirror, which is native functionality on every DSLR I can think of made in the past >decade. I’ll give you half credit for no lubricants (could be done, but wouldn’t because it would be very expensive - I guess lubricants nerf SLR because they’re cheaper?).

Even if you narrowly define an electronic viewfinder as a screen with a series of lenses in front of it that you stick up to your face, nothing about an SLR precludes one, you just have to pick a place for it. Top left when viewed from behind (“Rangefinder style”) would work.

You said it yourself: switch to mirrorless operation. You can do that with an SLR. Try the opposite, and consider that in context of a discussion of power consumption, in which you (correctly) noted that battery capacity is especially important to mirrorless cameras.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 8, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.



You first say that the A9 can be improved to be a super camera by adding a mirror, off sensor PDAF and off sensor metering unit.



3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > talk what you want. DSLRs are end of the line.
> ...



But then you say you think we are headed towards mirrorless. Which is it? Contrary to the advantages you think that DSLRs have, even you don't sound convinced that DSLRs have a future...

You also mention that the limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used, but the neccessity for dual operation because of the mirror is the actual issue. There are certain features that do not work in reflex operation. You will never get rid of the mirror blackout or shoot video in reflex operation. That means if you could stay in mirrorless operation with all of the performance of existing legacy reflex cameras, the reflex bits become redundant. That's why adding a mirror to an A9 makes no sense. It doesn't add any new features to the A9 that the A9 doesn't already have and it would suddenly need an OVF that doesn't benefit any of its other modes and would make the camera more difficult to use.

Not needing the mirror box leads to mirrorless cameras having the option to be made much smaller than equivalent reflex cameras. I said "option" because not all manufacturers embraced this route. M43 strategically took advantage of this by scaling down their sensor and matching some truly tiny zooms and pancakes with equally small bodies. Look at an E-PL8 and a Canon SL2 for example. Furthermore, mirrorless bodies across the board have 100% VF coverage and a bright EVF as it comes right from the sensor path. DSLRS have much more variability and many lower cost DSLRs have cheap pentamirrors and only 95% VF coverage.

If you were then to argue that an SL2 can go into live view mode to remove those limitations, than you have to consider why it should even have those limitations to start if it could be designed without a mirror to start with?


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.
> 
> By the way, how many MILCs have no physical shutter?



If that global shutter eventually outperforms both the mirror operation speed and the physical shutter speed, wouldn't that camera be better off without a mirror? AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Take the best mirrorless camera in the world: A9, and add a mirror+off sensor PDAF unit+off sensor metering unit, and you have a more capable camera than A9. The limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used. The limitations of not having a mirror play always.
> ...



It's both. The fact that the mirror brings some advantages doesn't mean manufacturers won't eventually stop making them, or largely scale back. Dedicated cameras bring advantages over cellular all-in-wonders, but dedicated cameras are becoming niche / on their way out in favor of phones. Large formats are better than 135-format film, but the latter all but replaced the former, before digital all but replaced 135-format film. Laptops bring some advantages over tablets, but the former are being slowly replaced by the latter.




jayphotoworks said:


> Contrary to the advantages you think that DSLRs have, even you don't sound convinced that DSLRs have a future...



Mine are independent assessments.



jayphotoworks said:


> You also mention that the limitations of the mirror only play when the mirror is being used, but the neccessity for dual operation because of the mirror is the actual issue.



Alternately, the necessity of a mirror to overcome limitations of mirror-less, e.g. power consumption, is an issue. 



jayphotoworks said:


> That's why adding a mirror to an A9 makes no sense. It doesn't add any new features to the A9 that the A9 doesn't already have and it would suddenly need an OVF that doesn't benefit any of its other modes and would make the camera more difficult to use.



I owned an a7R2, and I used an a99ii quite a bit. They share much of their internals, yet the a99ii is a much better camera, because of its mirror (albeit one which does not move). The autofocus performance is substantially better, due to the mirror and off-sensor AF unit it facilitates, which was designed for AF rather than for image capture with tiny pixels which each filter out a substantial portion of the visible spectrum for the sake of color reproduction. Likewise, in many situations, especially low light, my 1Dx viewfinder is immeasurably nicer to use than the EVF was.



jayphotoworks said:


> If you were then to argue that an SL2 can go into live view mode to remove those limitations, than you have to consider why it should even have those limitations to start if it could be designed without a mirror to start with?



Because there are also advantages to using a mirror. That's the point. There are advantages to both methods. One configuration facilitates both methods. The other configuration only facilitates one of them. In some situations, putting a camera on a tripod is better than holding it. In others, holding it is advantageous. I’d rather a camera which allows me to use the tripod than one which goes all in on the hand held advantages by removing the attach point.

With a few more generations, some of the gaps will close (AF will likely get close, EVF response will likely get close, and maybe they'll come up with something to reduce eye-fatigue induced by EVF). One gap will never close: power consumption, which was the genesis of this discussion.


----------



## Talys (Jun 8, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.
> ...



The answer is, _sometimes_.

At some point in the future, batteries will be so good that they will last virtually forever, and EVFs will be so good that they will be indistinguishable from OVFs. 

If I'm unable to tell if a viewfinder is EVF or OVF, and the battery will outlast even my most strenuous use, I'll won't care, right? But that day is not today or tomorrow. As someone who might stare at a bird through a viewfinder for an hour before snapping a shot, this is not a good use case for an electronic viewfinder. Now, imagine if you were an investigator who was looking through a camera like a pair of binoculars.

It's also not as simple as "AF can be done off the sensor and you would have a clean uninterrupted view entirely."

Currently, for general purposes, only dual pixel autofocus is really comparable to dedicated AF sensor in user experience, and even that is a bit slower than a dedicated AF sensor in speed. The way Sony does it at the moment is that they rob rows of pixels to use for pixel detection autofocus out of the primary sensor for autofocus purposes, and this is visible in some cases. Or it can do Contrast Detect autofocus, which has terrible speed.

Nothing on the market is comparable to a 1DX autofocus speed when you throw on extenders, which is a core requirement of a lot of the wildlife photography and professional sports photography.

Will it get there? _Probably_. Will I buy one eventually? Definitely. 

But then again, I buy a lot of stuff I end up not using much. And today, it's good enough for me to use for fun, and maybe good enough for general photography. But it isn't nearly good enough for wildlife or low light photography, yet. And what the only pro mirrorless system offers on one hand (like MF viewfinder magnification) it often takes away with the other (like focus by wire). 

Sony is just an unhappy compromise for me, much more so than DSLR. Maybe the Canon will be a happier compromise; we'll see, but I don't think my DSLRs are going anywhere, any time soon.


Going back to your original question, would the camera be better without a mirror. As someone who does like to change lenses on the field, I found that I never did so on the A7R3, because the damn sensor attracted dust like honey to bees. It seemed like if I swapped lenses on the field, dust would get onto the sensor, and that would be visible on every single photo.

On my DSLR, sure, you get dust. But most of the dust is restricted to the mirror and the Fresnel at the top. Dust rarely ever gets on the sensor, so leaving dust to clean later on is not really an issue.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mirror lock up and a global electronic shutter in a dSLR.
> ...



Possibly (Talys summed up the why not's), but my point was simply that Mr. Mode Dial's assertions about things impossible with a dSLR was more of his uninformed babble.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



+1

Well said


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


It doesn’t even need to be global to satisfy his criteria, merely fully electronic.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


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


Is that really what all the fuss is about? I have never had a problems with any of the items on your list and if they are the main reasons why someone might consider switching to a mirrorless camera then I would rather stay with my existing DSLR.
Taking your points one by one:
absolutely vibration-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. - I can't see why that would be a problem. The mirror in my camera has never slapped, and if there is some vibration caused by the mirror lifting up and dropping back down again then that would only be visible if a slow shutter speed is being used. In most of the shots I take the subject is moving so I need to use a reasonably fast shutter speed anyway and for the type of work I do this is completely irrelevant.
absolutely noise-free capture. Not possible with slapping mirror. Again this is not an issue. I do not take any pictures in libraries or anywhere else where silent shooting is required, and I find that silent shooting mode on the 5D mk4 is fairly quiet anyway.
any number fps. Not possible with slapping mirror. This is an exaggeration. Unlimited fps is never going to be possible on any type of camera because there will always be an amount of time required to read the data from sensor into the buffer, and the lens will require time to refocus between shots. Of course I have assumed that the subject will be moving and it will be necessary to refocus between each frame. If it is not then why is the burst speed even relevant?
no lubricants in camera. Not possible with slapping mirror. I know this was an issue with some Nikon cameras in the past but I have never had this problem with any of my Canons.
no front-/back focus issues. Not possible with separate phase-af unit behind moving mirror/submirror assembly. Last week I calibrated all my lenses and only two of them required an AFMA of more than 3 points. Once they have been calibrated the focussing works perfectly so yes, it can be a problem with some lenses but the solution is fairly simple.
However what I really want is to be able to see the scene I am trying to capture without the intervention of any electronics. I like using an optical viewfinder, and have yet to find an EVF that I feel comfortable with.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

well to me 
* no vibration 
* silent operation and 
* no back/front-focus
* and very importantly: small size camera body
are rather convincing advantages. It is more than what I got since switching from film to digital.  

So I am looking forward to getting a fully capable, universal small-body FF mirrorless camera - "hopefully some day soon". Ideally sized somewhere between Sony RX-1R II and Sony A7 1st gen. Or in other words just a bit larger than an EOS M5. 

I'll [only] buy a small set of compact, native lenses between 20mm and 150mm. Ideally very compact f/4 zooms and/or extremely compact, moderately fast primes [f/1.8 - 2.8 - depending on FL], since I rarely use longer tele lenses. For the rare occasions I will either use my existing EF glass - adapter no problem - or rent what's needed. And when i use tele or other big/heavy lenses I use a tripod, so small body/small grip no issue for me.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well to me
> * no vibration Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
> * silent operation and  Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
> * no back/front-focus Regarding focus errors introduced by misalignment of the off sensor PDAF unit: Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup.
> ...



So, once one identifies the real difference, the goal post is moved to “size.” One wonders why you want 135-format, since that drives size significantly relative to smaller sensors.

Also, after endless pages of consternation about a 16% decrease from desired battery capacity being a significant impact, there is no acknowledgement that reflex possesses a significant operational advantage over mirrorless: power consumption. Strange.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> * no back/front-focus



That's strange because in the desire to improve AF tracking, Olympus have put Phase detect sensors on their sensors and this introduced focus errors and now I seem to recall they are introducing micro adjust focus.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > * no back/front-focus
> ...



Advantages to off sensor AF don’t count. Advantages to minimally powered framing don’t count. Advantages to eye-fatigue don’t count. The only advantages are things which favor MILC, specifically the ability to package a given sensor in a smaller body than one with a mirror and OVF.

Of course, I could make a MILC even smaller by removing displays and using HDMI. Smaller as a virtue must be tempered by capability. Remvong core capability to make something smaller isn’t a given, it’s a trade.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 8, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > well to me
> ...



You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.

So, SLRs can do all of those things you say, except they can't if you want to use the one thing that SLRs were designed for - the viewfinder.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 8, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.



[wakes up from multi-page slumber]

+100. This.

The killer app for me of mirrorless is getting more information in the VF while I am holding the camera comfortably and stably up to my eye.

The retort of "LiveView _is_ mirrorless shooting" is technically accurate but completely drives past what I just said. I'm not going to shoot large aperture manual focus glass or try to take a shot in a dark room with the camera wobbling 12" from my eye (or god forbid hook up and use an LCD loupe). 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.
> 
> So, SLRs can do all of those things you say, except they can't if you want to use the one thing that SLRs were designed for - the viewfinder.



I don’t discount EVF. I find EVF very useful in some situations and fully acknowledge it. I find OVF very useful in other situations and fully acknowledge it.



3kramd5 said:


> Although no current SLR has an EVF, nothing about the technology precludes one. No mirrorless camera has an optical viewfinder, nor the ancillary capabilities one brings; technology precludes it.





3kramd5 said:


> Even if you narrowly define an electronic viewfinder as a screen with a series of lenses in front of it that you stick up to your face, nothing about an SLR precludes one, you just have to pick a place for it. Top left when viewed from behind (“Rangefinder style”) would work.



I’d probably buy one. Pellicle mirror is a reasonable compromise, but it doesn’t mitigate eye strain or power draw of extended use.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with? 

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> 
> Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D



What do you mean “without the OVF?” Use the OVF when OVF is advantageous. Use the LV when LV is advantageous. What’s hard to grasp?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 8, 2018)

use of OVF may be useful to you and some others. I don't care for it. And most of the people under 40 don't even know what an optical viewfinder is and certainly don't miss or want one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> 
> Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D



Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try. 

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 8, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> 
> Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D


Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 8, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> ...



It'll be interesting to see how you decide for your next camera; I'd guess Canon would have a FF mirrorless by the next upgrade you do, so it'll be a true dslr vs mirrorless choice if you go canon again (rather the current comparisons which often seem more like sony vs canon vs everything else etc,the brand wars).


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 9, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> ...



What's hard to grasp? If I were in OVF mode shooting stills and I saw a moment I wanted to capture in 4K and wanted to track them as they were walking through the framein video mode, how would I do that?

I would have to move the camera from my eye, hold it about 12" away, hope the sun's glare wouldn't fully obscure the screen, hit the button to go to LV, recompose the image and hit the record button. Whatever was unfolding would be long gone by then. On a mirrorless, I simply hit the record button and start recording, and when done, I can continue shooting stills.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?
> ...



It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways. 

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 9, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


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



I don’t follow the hold it a foot out thing, but if that’s your main use case, you’re better off with a mirrorless camera (until someone designs a reflex camera with dual viewfinders ).

I find only about half the time I prefer EVF, but the trade offs required on the camera I had (which I don’t take as representative of any other nor the potential of the technology) were frustrating enough I went back to SLR.


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Ian_of_glos said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



For me, Canon vs Sony (or other) is not a factor in mirrorless vs DSLR. The fact is, most of my photography is still done on an 80D; I am perfectly happy with APSC for almost everything, and I could just as easily own a M5 (or a6500), but my favorite camera remains the 80D. 

When Canon puts out a mirrorless full frame, I'll certainly consider it, but it will be held to the same litmus test as the Sony -- does it make my life easier doing the kinds of photography I like, without forcing me to make another compromise that I might like less.

In the context of modern sensors, image-related issues are largely all an even playing field for me; I don't think anyone could tell if I took a photo with a Sony or a Canon or a DSLR or a mirrorless. It all just comes down to which one feels better in the hand, and gets less in the way when I want to do the things I want to do.

The things that the Sony didn't quite get right that I hope Canon does better are:

- Better and more consistent autofocus that just works more like a DSLR's dedicated AF sensor (ie always just works and I don't have to pick and choose between different compromises)

- Better low light autofocus, and also AF that is compatible with red-pattern AF flash illuminators

- Ergonomics (feel in the hand) that I enjoy, especially with telephoto lenses, without having to add a vertical grip. I'd really like to see a mirrorless about the size of an 80D at the smallest; a 6D2 would be even better.

- Good support for lenses that aren't focus-by-wire

The rest of the stuff, I think I can live with. If Canon can achieve the list above for me, I'd then ask, what more does a mirrorless offer me, over the DSLR? And is that advantage worth the loss of the optical viewfinder? I would probably trade battery life for manual focus magnification, but I don't know if I'd be willing to throw anything else into the mix, because that's a pretty big concession to me (but for a feature I really love).

I am loyal to Canon in the sense that I won't go and switch systems just because for 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever years, some other system comes out with new stuff. I am not loyal to Canon in the sense that if another system has _exactly_ what I want, I'm more than happy to spend some money there to have it now (it doesn't mean I have to get rid of my Canon stuff, though). The problem is, that just hasn't happened for me yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


@jayphotoworks, I'll attempt to translate the "whoosh" for you. I believe Neuro is calling to your attention the fact that _*your *_urgent need for silence is a niche need, as demonstrated by the fact that the great majority of people don't bother to turn off the artificial shutter sound. 

It's entirely legitimate that you would like to have this feature; however, it is another matter entirely to extrapolate that to a general need. That would be an example of AvTvM's "ego fallacy," which is the reductio ad absurdum of the "hasty generalization" fallacy.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2018)

It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless. 

I am really keen to see what canon bring to the table though and have no doubt it will be a far superior camera to Sony(in the aspects that really matter that is)


----------



## Isaacheus (Jun 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



I totally agree with the points you have; I personally give some features more weight and others less but in the end the same outlook. It's positive to note that there seems to be a steady improvement in the mirror-less offerings from pretty much all brands, which are reducing the 'cons' list of mirror-less and increasing the 'pros' list reasonably quickly. 

For (most) of the points there, I'd say it's really just a matter of time (obviously the OVF will always be a difference)


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 9, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



I understand that most people don't bother to turn off the sound, and as a result completely silent operation is probably not an urgent need for many photographers. My point wasn't that that silent operation was a necessity, it simply is a differentiating point that shows one advantage that mirrorless has that DSLRs don't have as a result of its dual operating paradigm.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 9, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The point you missed was the overall discussion, but that's ok since you are probably used to hearing that "whooshing" sound all the time as most of the people that moved on to mirrorless don't have to..


----------



## Aglet (Jun 9, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless.
> 
> I am really keen to see what canon bring to the table though and have no doubt it will be a far superior camera to Sony(in the aspects that really matter that is)



Don't just listen, TRY one. 
if you haven't shot with, or know someone who's making good use of, Olympus or Panasonic flagship ML bodies then you may not be aware these cameras are not only able to get the job done they also kick butt in ways slappers can't. There are few things slappers can do these new high end ML bodies cannot. Can you name some?..


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2018)

Aglet said:


> Aussie shooter said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless.
> ...



I have tried them. Most of them any way. I love the Oly's. If I was a street photographer that is what I would get. The XT2 is pretty sweet as well. Sony suck so many kinds of a#@ it is hard to describe. Thing is though, I shoot wildlife. And not one of them can hold a candle to the 7d2 I shoot with, let alone a flagship model when it comes to wildlife photography. EVF's are close in that lag is almost negligible now but they still don't compare to and OVF. The EM1 mk2 is close on ruggedness and reliability now as well. None of them can compete in ergonomics when shooting for a full day(and yes I do sometimes do that when travelling to crazy places). When mirrorless are as good at those things then the balance will shift but not until.


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



Without wading into the thick of it, purely electronic ones are not here yet for interchangeable lens stills cameras, which means we're pretty much stuck with sound, whether you're using a mirrorless or DSLR. Sure, there are plenty of ILCs where there is a silent mode, but they all come with caveats, like the Sony one which works great as long as you and your subjects stay still. 

Anyways, I know this has been repeated to death here, but if you can make a mirrorless totally silent and do all the things you want, you (technologically) could achieve exactly the same thing on a DSLR, in live view mode. Asking "do you want silent mode or not" is not the real question; rather, it remains, "do you want an optical or electronic image through the viewfinder".


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2018)

I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.

Buy some clothes with pockets.

Then, you see, there's a remarkable trick you can use. It turns out, and it seems many of you are unaware of this, that you can buy ADDITIONAL batteries, and keep them in your pockets and swap them out when the battery is getting low (here's another professional tip, swap the battery when it's low at a time when it's convenient for you, don't wait until it's completely dead and then complain you miss a shot.) 

So please, no more comparisons with electric car range. That makes no sense at all (you can't carry spare batteries for an electric car.)


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.
> 
> Buy some clothes with pockets.
> 
> ...



I have a better solution for people who are perfectly satisfied or prefer an optical viewfinder and want to consume pretty much no battery when using the optical viewfinder: Use a DSLR. 

It turns out that this may be a cheaper and more satisfying solution, and you don't even need pockets. Amazingly, this light refraction technology consumes no power, and you can stare through the barrel of your lens for as long as you fancy!

Snark aside, I've taken a few dozen photos yet stared through my viewfinder for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> der for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.



Being sensible again for a moment, this is a very good point and although there are solutions that allow you to run your EVF all day - eg external high-power battery pack connected via cable to the battery pack - for example I have the ExPro 16000mAh battery pack which I can use with the A7RII - equivalent of 14 standard batteries. I have it clipped to my belt and the cable can be fed under jacket, inside jacket arm to the camera. Or, if I'm not planning to be so hardcore, a simple battery grip with 2 extended batteries lasts me all day.

Birding is quite a specialist but clearly popular hobby. It's not something I would have the patience to do, so the reduced battery life on the mirrorless camera doesn't outweigh the many other benefits that mirrorless gives me. 

I am sure though that for some applications in birding the use of a totally silent shutter would be a great advantage, no?


----------



## Durf (Jun 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Ian_of_glos said:
> ...



I also shoot with both the 80D and 6D2 and these two cameras work perfect for me for what I do. Many can not appreciate how great these two cameras are together unless they actually owned them and used them. 

I like you love the ergonomics of them and if I was to ever even buy a mirrorless camera it would mostly only be out of curiosity and it would likely have to be a FF Canon with a grip no smaller than the 80D, and yes, even more so like a 6D2. I would never completely replace my dslr's though and go completely mirrorless.

When I started shooting with the 80D in early 2016 I almost completely stopped using all my older smaller cameras because I enjoyed the ergonomics and feel of the 80D so much. The 6D2 fits just a bit better in my hand. 

Yesterday I was down in Atlanta doing a cabinet job for a pro wedding photographer and she let me go through her kit and handle and inspect her cameras. She had a 5diii, 2 5dIV's, and also a 7Dii. (I was like a little kid in a candy store)!!!!

Her 5D4's didn't feel any better in my hand than my 6D2 but what I immediately noticed was the joystick and wider point spread. That's basically the only thing I liked better with the 5D4 compared to my 6D2. I'm sure the 5D4's internal guts so to speak are better than my 6D2 but my 6D2 works just fine for me for what I do and I'm happy with it. The only thing she told me was she wished her 5D4's had a flip screen like my camera did.

What I was honestly more interested in was her 7D2, yesterday was the first time I ever held one and it actually felt better in my hand than my 80D. I love my 80D and it feels great in my hand but the 7D2 is more 6D2 like. I may upgrade my 80D to the 7D3 when it comes out if I can afford too. The 7D3 must have a flip screen though or I will NOT upgrade to it.

In all reality though in 2 years from now I'll probably still be shooting with my 6D2 and my 80D. Also, Canon's new FF mirrorless they are working on most likely won't have a deep grip or be as comfortable to use as my 80D or 6D2 so I'll probably not ever consider buying it.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 9, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.
> Buy some clothes with pockets.
> Then, you see, there's a remarkable trick you can use. It turns out, and it seems many of you are unaware of this, that you can buy ADDITIONAL batteries, and keep them in your pockets and swap them out when the battery is getting low (here's another professional tip, swap the battery when it's low at a time when it's convenient for you, don't wait until it's completely dead and then complain you miss a shot.)
> So please, no more comparisons with electric car range. That makes no sense at all (you can't carry spare batteries for an electric car.)



Really interesting. This is the only forum i post in, where a half dozen forum members go into a 100+ posting frenzy, when somebody dares to mention that Canon unfortunately marketing nerfed a great little new camera [EOS M50] that is fully competitive in all important dimensions [sensor, IQ, AF system, user interface, touchscreen, body size, weight, price] except one: battery charge! - by using an old, weak battery pack [LP-E12] rather than a newer, better, readily available power pack [LP-E17] that would yield at least 18% more shots per charge. 

There is no argument spared in attempts trying to prove, that a better "shot yield per battery charge" is either
* pointless, because "it is so low anyways, so why even care" and "one can carry any number of spare batteries in their pockets" and 
* or irrelevant, because DSLRs have a much superior shot yield per battery charge. Yes, they better, given the size and charge of the much bigger batteries in them and given the size of DSLRs bodies vs. an EOS M50  
* or "even when 18%+ more shots per charge would have be nice", it is definitely not "marketing nerfing" on Canon's part, but "in the best interest of customers", since some fraction of purchasers may already have some of the old, weak batteries lying around at home as spares
* and - when all of these arguments obviously fail, then come the personal attacks and some forum bullying and at the peak of discussion inevitably the oh so pseudo-logic line is pulled out: "while it may be important to you, that does not mean it is important to anybody else" and "it really is just you complaining", "you little whiny kid", "go home and stfu" - and don't ever dare again to criticize infallible Canon. Canon "always have their reasons to do whatever they do" ;D and it is not up to us mere mortals and much less so to you, little whiner, to question Canon's reasons and motives. ;D

That's when I cannot help but feel like being in a forum populated mostly by Canon marketing spin doctors and/or shills. I have been told, that none of the honorable forum members here are. Of course I shall believe that. But I cannot help to note, that a few people here certainly act like it. 

PS: @Joly - just to make sure: I don't mean you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

Typical AvTvM. When his arguments fail, he can't refute the counters with facts or data so he plays the victim card. This from someone who has previously made many discriminatory and racist comments, and in this very thread lambasted people who choose a 6DII by calling them ignorant n00bs and then joking about it. Pathetic.


----------



## Talys (Jun 9, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > der for 12+ hours in a day when somewhere like a bird sanctuary. When I start, I might be at 50% battery, and when I'm done, the camera still says I'm at about 50% battery. That would be pretty hard to accomplish with an electronic viewfinder, and spending my day watching the birds is a whole lot more fun than watching my the battery meter.
> ...



A pair of binoculars would be a better replacement for an OVF than lugging around a car battery. Essentially a lens with an OVF is a telescope with which you can take photographs. More electronic just isn't always better.

Silent shutter, at least as Sony does it, is useless because of distortion with movement. More generally, except your own patio, you're usually way too far away from a bird for them to care about the shutter sound; generally, they care much more about the movement of a lens being pointed at them than the sound of your shutter. If you're 3 meters away and whir away pointing another direction, they won't move, but if your lens swings towards them, they'll fly away.

There are subjects like hummingbirds that you can get very close to, if you let them acclimate to you. If they like you, you can tap dance near them. They'll land right on you and drink from your hand.

Sports obviously falls into the same category as wildlife.

In both cases (sports and wildlife), another good reason to NOT go mirrorless is that mirrorless cameras don't have dedicated AF sensors, and current on-sensor autofocus (including dual pixel) is just not as fast, especially with teleconverters. I believe one of the key reasons that pros use 1DXII is that the AF speed with a 1.4x or 2x is just much better than other cameras. If I could afford/justify it, my rig of choice would definitely be 1DXII with 200-400.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.



Or if your subject is moving sufficiently fast that a shutter speed of faster than ~1/150 s is needed to stop the motion. Personally, I typically use at least 1/250 s even when my kids aren't moving all that fast. But hey, even though my kids don't like jello, maybe you do.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2018)

If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2018)

AlanF said:


> If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.



I wouldn't just say bird photographers. I would say any wildlife shooter would be better served by a serious dslr. Wildlife photography is by far the most demanding form of the art and as such has requirements that other forms do not. And in any endeavor in life it is the most demanding aspects that determine what does and doesn't work. Not the easy aspects. The requirements for wildlife photography will never lessen so mirrorless will have to be as good as dslrs in every aspect before they can replace them. At the moment dslrs can do everything but mirrorless cannot


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you are a bird photographer, Canon and Nikon "mirror slappers" are the gold standard. I have had reasonable results using various mirrorless alternatives but for birds in flight, staring through a viewfinder and homing in and focussing on a bird hiding in foliage, mirrorless are currently a compromise. I am currently playing with a Sony RX10 IV and am very impressed by its AF and it will be interesting to see how AF does develop.
> ...


In general I agree with the sentiment that ML is not yet ready to fully displace SLRs. I will note, however, that wildlife videography has been using ML for a while now. Of course, that brings its own set of compromises.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2018)

Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes. 

What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.
> 
> What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.



Near as I can figure, the correlation is strongest with those who want the smallest/lightest body possible.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

simple. Digital cameras don#t need mirrors in them. For film SLRs it was the only way to "see and meter thru the lens". Outdated early 20th century reflex technology has only managed to drag itself into the 21st century because the market dominating CaNikon duopoly found they can really easy money by selling iteration after iteration of marginally improved, same old stuff and cream off people with that, until they eventually might move to a more "digitally adequate" future-proof, mirrorless design concept. 

But then, along comes Sony and starts turning the tables on them. That was "totally uncalled for". LOL.

I want a good, compact FF mirrorless system. Soon now. That's all I care about. It does not matter to me whether millions of others want to cling onto their DSLRs for dear life or some people prefer to shoot film. There is more than enough choice for all of those guys. DSLRs and big lenses GALORE! 

But Canon and Nikon have been refusing to take my money and that of many others [no, I am NOT alone!] who have been waiting for years for a decent FF mirrorless system to replace or complement (!) their big, chunky, mirrorslappers that today only offer advantages for a small minority of use cases that for some reason or other seem to be over-represented on this forum. Only a very small portion of all images are captured by sports photographers and even less by wildlife and BIF photographers. Nothing wrong with those fields of photograohy, quite to the opposite, and nothing wrong with people wanting to use DSLRs if they prefer them. But, the large group of people whho want to go without a mirror should also have a choice. And we are being DENIED just that. 

Yes, I am a tad bit angry. OMG! But me [and many other "average amateur/enthusiast" people] are just totally fed up how Canon and Nikon have been BLOCKING the development of mirrorless cameras and refused to offer us decent mirrorless cameras for so long. Almost all Sony and Fujifilm mirrorless camera could have been a sale for Canon or Nikon. Sony did not have a large user group. Fuji had none for digital cameras. Vast majority of Sony/Fujifilm digital cameras are bought by (former) Canon or Nikon customers. Often as a supplementary system, but growing numbers have started to go fully mirrorless and turn their backs on CaNikon. 

Demand is there. Lots of it. Supply side on Canon and Nikon side is what sucks! 

I truly hope, Sony will take market leadership from Canon because of this and Nikon will hopefully go under as a whole. Conservative money milkers have not deserved any better. 

END RANT.


----------



## Durf (Jun 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> *Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking?* Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.
> 
> What prize is going to be awarded to AvTvM/fullstop if mirrorless dominates the market? (which I have serious doubt will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.) I see no evidence that the market cannot support both technologies.



This bizarre "my way or the highway" behavior is not just limited to several obsessed mirrorless camera junkies only, just watch CNN, MSNBC, etc etc for a little while.....


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2018)

Durf said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > *Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking?* Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.
> ...



Yes, but one could argue that in the realm of public policy there is some justification because the arguments (in at least some cases) have significant real world implications for sizable percentages of the population. Sometimes people need to step back and acknowledge that camera technology is at its core, insignificant in the grand scheme of things. (I enjoy a spirited debate over camera esoteria as much as anyone, but really, some folks get so carried away it's unhealthy.)


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> simple. Digital cameras don#t need mirrors in them. For film SLRs it was the only way to "see and meter thru the lens". Outdated early 20th century reflex technology has only managed to drag itself into the 21st century because the market dominating CaNikon duopoly found they can really easy money by selling iteration after iteration of marginally improved, same old stuff and cream off people with that, until they eventually might move to a more "digitally adequate" future-proof, mirrorless design concept...
> 
> ...I want a good, compact FF mirrorless system. Soon now. That's all I care about. It does not matter to me whether millions of others want to cling onto their DSLRs for dear life...
> 
> ...



You do realize, I hope, that your rant sounds like a crazy conspiracy theoy.

Isn't it a much more logical and reasonable explanation that Canon and Nikon are conservative companies that have not wanted to jump into a market that is unproven, and especially, have not wanted to jump into such a market with technology that has so many compromises that it would damage their hard-earned brand reputation to release an inferior product until the technology is reliable? 

Isn't it also logical that they have been content to watch Sony expend millions (possibly billions) experimenting in the marketplace, while they conserve resources until the market and technology is ready?

And, finally, if you really don't care about what technology others choose, why are you so insistent on insulting and denigrating competing technologies and the users of those technologies?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> END RANT.



Promise? :


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> But Canon and Nikon have been refusing to take my money and that of many others


You've answered your own question: if they're not "taking your money" it can only be because they don't think there's enough money to take in that segment of the market. And no, you do not know more than they do about market demand.

Yours is a niche need for now. That will change at some point. Until then you may buy or not buy.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



+10


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.



It's similar to militant vegans. As long as other people are eating meat, humans will continue to slaughter animals, which is insufferable.

As long as there are people who recognize the benefits a reflex camera brings in some (not all) situations, the evildoers are canon will continue to produce them rather than mirrorless cameras (excepting the EOS M, M2, M3, M5, M6, M10, M50, M100, and upcoming full frame line).

Speaking as a newly-mined canon marking guy or shill (who knew they were paying me? I'll have to go check the back of my mailbox for all the checks I haven't cashed), I am not sure I believe at least one of these critics, with his many esoteric and ever-changing specific requirements, is actually in the market.

I am in the market. I would legitimately buy a camera which had both EVF and OVF (something a camera with a mirror is uniquely capable of). My experience using an EVF for about two years put me off of them for the time being as the negatives outweighed the positives, even though the positives were great in some scenarios. However, I'll go ahead and give it another shot after a development cycle or two. Because I'm actually a camera buyer.


----------



## Talys (Jun 10, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



Sadly, we're living in an increasingly tribalistic society. Mirrorless vs DSLR, EVF vs OVF, Canon vs Sony -- you can plug in any of the things you see on television daily, like progressives versus conservatives or free trade versus protectionism, or even iPhone vs Android or Windows versus OSX. People get entrenched in their positions and fight like hell to defend it.

I'm actually fine with people taking firm positions, though, of course, I prefer to have conversations with people with an open mind. However, I take major issue with folks whos response to a losing argument is to make stuff up, refuse to accept facts, and to ignore provable science.




unfocused said:


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



I sincerely doubt that


----------



## BillB (Jun 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > END RANT.
> ...



Well, there will be another one, if experience is any guide. I have to admit to a certain curiosity as to what will be the next episode. The M50 battery tizzy did explore some new possibilities, it seems to me. Of course we can expect reruns. Lots of reruns.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Isn't it a much more logical and reasonable explanation that Canon and Nikon are conservative companies that have not wanted to jump into a market that is unproven, and especially, have not wanted to jump into such a market with technology that has so many compromises that it would damage their hard-earned brand reputation to release an inferior product until the technology is reliable?



guess what. I expect the upcoming Canon (and Nikon) FF mirrorless cameras to be 1st gen and in many ways just as "rough around the edges" as Sony's first 2 generations of A7 mirrorless cameras. Only that CaNikon come 7 years later.

But, of course it is just a crazy conspiracy theory and infallible Canon may bring a stunning "really right", all-round best-in-class mirrorless FF system. Because Canon being Canon, they know best. ;D


----------



## BillB (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> guess what. I expect the upcoming Canon (and Nikon) FF mirrorless cameras to be 1st gen and in many ways just as "rough around the edges" as Sony's first 2 generations of A7 mirrorless cameras. Only that CaNikon come 7 years later.
> 
> But, of course it is just a crazy conspiracy theory and infallible Canon may bring a stunning "really right", all-round best-in-class mirrorless FF system. Because Canon being Canon, they know best. ;D



Your insight continues to amaze. Breathtaking.


----------



## Durf (Jun 10, 2018)

Canon's future FF Mirrorless could easily be a camera that totally competes and or out performs most anything on the market right now simply with it's DPAF w/eye tracking for both photos and video, LP-EN6 battery, awesome 1080p capability, and a minimum 4K at 24fps capability. That's all they'd have to do in my opinion to basically hit a home run with this 1st edition FF Mirrorless camera.

Will they do this? perhaps yes, perhaps no.......

Regardless of what they do though there will always be several that trash and bash it and complain that it isn't good enough.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> simple. Digital cameras don#t need mirrors in them. For film SLRs it was the only way to "see and meter thru the lens". Outdated early 20th century reflex technology has only managed to drag itself into the 21st century because the market dominating CaNikon duopoly found they can really easy money by selling iteration after iteration of marginally improved, same old stuff and cream off people with that, until they eventually might move to a more "digitally adequate" future-proof, mirrorless design concept.
> 
> But then, along comes Sony and starts turning the tables on them. That was "totally uncalled for". LOL.
> 
> ...



Ah, finally, after pages and pages of baloney, we have come to the truth.

It's not about batteries at all. It's not about Canon nerfing or crippling its cameras. It's come down to the usual - I *want a small compact FF mirrorless from Canon and they don't make one.*   

Of course, Canon and Nikon can not BLOCK anyone. How absurd is that? If you want a really good mirrorless camera, many are available. For non-FF, Canon makes an excellent M5. For cameras with more bells and whistles - and some fantastic lenses - you can go M4/3rds. And, needless to say, Sony is now in its 3rd generation of FF mirrorless - not really possible if Canon has BLOCKED mirrorless tech. So mirrorless technology is readily available - not BLOCKED at all. But all of the above solutions are not acceptable if the reason for someone's unhappiness is that they *want a small compact FF mirrorless from Canon and they don't make one.*   

The funny thing is, both of the alleged co-conspirators are coming out with FF mirrorless with the next year. So why the rage, why the rant, why the bitterness?

I guess the answer is some folks want a small compact FF mirrorless from Canon *NOW*...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

it is as much about Canon marketing nerfing their products. And about the whimpy LP-E12 in the EOS M50. I am going to buy one for my daughter as a gift. Or a Fujifilm X-T100I like almost everything about the Canon M50 better, except the battery charge. And for myself I want a decent FF mirrorless camera. More than enough DSLRs, not enough mirrorless FF cameras. That's the only problem as far as I am concerned. Rest is just observation of market trends.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 10, 2018)

Gee, it's really a bummer that no one makes the exact specific niche product I want. I know, I'll go on the internet and whine about it incessantly. Yeah, that'll work!


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> Sadly, we're living in an increasingly tribalistic society. Mirrorless vs DSLR, EVF vs OVF, Canon vs Sony -- you can plug in any of the things you see on television daily, like progressives versus conservatives or free trade versus protectionism, or even iPhone vs Android or Windows versus OSX. People get entrenched in their positions and fight like hell to defend it.



It is the tribalism itself that bothers me. My political party began leaving me a long time ago. I finally registered as unaffiliated when I retired and needed to update my voting address here. They proceeded off the cliff since then. I still make fun of the main opposing party for sitting on their butts during elections, mainly 2010, and have confidence that they will still manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as they are so talented at doing. There are genuine problems in our country and our world. Instead of addressing them, we get tribal games. 

In the 1960s I got a Canon SLR because I couldn’t afford a Nikon. It served me well. About ten years ago I made an impulse purchase of a Rebel when I went into a store to look at TVs and washers and dryers for my home where I would later retire. I accumulated a few EF lenses in addition to EF-S, so that sticking with Canon was the course of least resistance as well as a financial decision, and I have been pleased by my purchases. It is not like I have a religious commitment to Canon or anything. 

As I sit here missing church this morning, I don’t think I even have a religious commitment to my religion. The terrorists who have come closest to blowing me up were fellow Christians, so I am not inclined to rave on about other faiths. If my schedule had been different today, I would be playing the organ right now at a church of another denomination. I will play for them the next two Sundays and again in August. 

Computers are different. I have used Macs since 1987 when I attended a summer workshop at Stanford and first used one. I am pleased the more family and friends who use Windows, since I can honestly beg off helping them with their tech problems. iOS devices work well for me for ecosystem reasons not unlike my EF situation. I don’t care what kind of phone anyone else uses. Why would I?

I read these mirrorless threads I guess for train wreck “can’t help looking” reasons, rather than for anything that is likely to be relevant to me in the next five years, maybe. If people want to use mirrorless and/or Sony cameras, that’s cool with me. I like the Sony electronics I use, and will probably buy more of their stuff.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that the mirrorless fans seem to be such zealots, to the point of insisting that everyone must convert to their way of thinking? Maybe, it's just a few very vocal participants on this forum, but I fail to see what difference it makes.
> ...



And CrossFit people here in the States. The joke here is "If you meet a Cross-Fit Vegan, _what will they talk about first?"_ ;D

No malice towards any of them, they are simply super assertive about sharing what they are into. To each their own and I hope everyone is pursuing their happiness, but one can do that with respect to those who don't agree with them.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gee, it's really a bummer that no one makes the exact specific niche product I want. I know, I'll go on the internet and whine about it incessantly. Yeah, that'll work!




Good idea!


I want a really tiny camera with a full frame sensor. It has to be the size of an M series camera, but needs to have the controls of a 5D4. It needs a tiny battery that gives twice the charge of the LP-6..... I want tiny F1.2 FF lenses and I want to be able to use an adaptor so that my crop kit lenses will work on a FF image circle WITHOUT vignetting. I want it to come with a fixed articulated screen and it should be the lowest priced camera in the Canon lineup, despite it's ability to shoot 8K video and burst mode of 120FPS.


Any failure to do this in the next 15 minutes means that Canon is *******!!!!! and that I shall go off in a huff and buy a Sony camera that meets none of the stated requirements......


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, it's really a bummer that no one makes the exact specific niche product I want. I know, I'll go on the internet and whine about it incessantly. Yeah, that'll work!
> ...



Don, you missed perhaps the most important aspect: no moving parts. That means the lenses shouldn’t be f/1.2 max, but something like f/1200 so they have adequate DOF to capture images without moving elements around.

Also, no oscillators. There must be a cable connection to a medical wristband enabling the user’s pulse to provide the reference clock.


----------



## Durf (Jun 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, it's really a bummer that no one makes the exact specific niche product I want. I know, I'll go on the internet and whine about it incessantly. Yeah, that'll work!
> ...



I want firmware updates for my DSLR's so I can watch Netflix on my cameras while resting between taking photos of things.....it's ridiculous in this day and age that people can't watch movies on their cameras.

I bet Sony makes a camera that you can watch movies on next month.....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 10, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...




Nah, you just derive it from the GPS..... which is always on, yet consumes no battery power....


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

hehe! "whining for a niche product". We are talking about a "capable, compact and affordable Canon FF MILC" -
a product that definitely is "extremely niche". Absolutely nobody except me would buy such a camera from Canon. ;D

Canapologists can really be incredibly funny in their incessant apologizing efforts.  ;D 

Luckily I don't really suffer from Canon's refusal to offer "my extreme niche product". I just don't buy anything from them. Hurts them, not me.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I want a really tiny  very compact mirrorless camera with a full frame sensor. It has to be the size of M series camera  a Sony A7 1st gen or even as small as a Sony RX-1R II but needs to have the controls of a 5D4 a Canon M6/M5 class camera. It needs a tiny battery sized like e.g. a Fujifilm NP-W126S https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery that gives almost  twice the charge  shot reach of the LP-6 whimpy old Canon LP-E12 ..... I want tiny F1.2 f/2.0 to f/2.8 FF prime lenses and compact f/4 zooms and I want to be able to use an adaptor so that my crop kit  Canon EF / L lenses will work on a FF image circle WITHOUT vignetting. I want it to come with an fixed articulated screen and it should be the lowest priced like a middle class mirrorslapapper camera in the Canon lineup e.g. 6D2, despite it's ability to shoot 8K video and burst mode of 120FPS  with 6fps and no video recoding at all.
> 
> Any failure to do this in the next 15 minutes  6 full years after the competition did means that Canon is  has lost a lot of possible sales, has allowed additional competitors to take a portion of the market [Sony, Fuji]  and may well be ******* if they continue much longer on this path. and that I shall go off in a huff  when I've had enough of waiting and buy a Sony camera when they offer one that meets none most of the stated requirements ...



fixed

;D


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I want a very compact mirrorless camera with a full frame sensor. It has to be the size of a Sony A7 1st gen or even as small as a Sony RX-1R II, but needs to have the controls of a Canon M6/M5 class camera. It needs a battery sized like e.g. a Fujifilm NP-W126S (https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery) that gives almost twice the shot reach of the whimpy old Canon LP-E12... I want tiny f/2.0 to f/2.8 FF prime lenses and compact f/4 zooms and I want to be able to use an adaptor so that myCanon EF / L lenses will work on a FF image circle WITHOUT vignetting. I want it to come with an articulated screen and it should be priced like a middle class mirrorslapapper camera in the Canon lineup e.g. 6D2, with 6fps and no video recoding at all.
> 
> Failure to do this 6 full years after the competition did means that Canon has lost a lot of possible sales, has allowed additional competitors to take a portion of the market [Sony, Fuji] and may well be ******* if they continue much longer on this path and that I shall go off when I've had enough of waiting and buy a Sony camera when they offer one that meets most of the stated requirements ...



Fair enough, but I'm not sure how realistic some of these requests are. Obviously, any mirrorless will have video and most likely it will have 4K. Prime lenses seem to be a fading market. Maybe you will get a 40mm-ish f2.8 pancake, eventually, but I wouldn't count on much else. 

I'd be surprised if it's priced like a 6D, but maybe somewhere between the 6D and 5D could happen. 

Lens mount remains an open question as about half or more of the folks on this forum who have an interest in mirrorless seem pretty committed to a native EF-mount. F4 zooms sound likely, although if you are correct and size matters as much as you seem to think, we could see more variable aperture, STM lenses.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

@unfocused:

actually, as long as Canon makes me my extreme niche FF mirrorless body (with new slim mount of course) i shall be happy to use both my EF 40/2.8 STM and EF 50/1.8 STM with a native Canon adapter on it for a start until they come up with new mount native lenses. 

and if it has video recording, also fine with me. I just don't care about it and don't need or use it and I don't want to pay for it or have video stuff get into my way ... eg "marked in red record video buttons in stupid locations where i inadvertently activate them


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I want a really tiny  very compact mirrorless camera with a full frame sensor. It has to be the size of M series camera  a Sony A7 1st gen or even as small as a Sony RX-1R II but needs to have the controls of a 5D4 a Canon M6/M5 class camera. It needs a tiny battery sized like e.g. a Fujifilm NP-W126S https://www.apotelyt.com/camera-power/fujifilm-x-t100-battery that gives almost  twice the charge  shot reach of the LP-6 whimpy old Canon LP-E12 ..... I want tiny F1.2 f/2.0 to f/2.8 FF prime lenses and compact f/4 zooms and I want to be able to use an adaptor so that my crop kit  Canon EF / L lenses will work on a FF image circle WITHOUT vignetting. I want it to come with an fixed articulated screen and it should be the lowest priced like a middle class mirrorslapapper camera in the Canon lineup e.g. 6D2, despite it's ability to shoot 8K video and burst mode of 120FPS  with 6fps and no video recoding at all.
> ...




Don't get me wrong, I think that mirrorless is the future, but I have not seen one from anybody that meets my needs. Personally, I would like to see one the size of a 6D2 with the same ergonomics and articulated touchscreen, a FAST! burst mode, an EVF that would work from birds-in-flight to astrophotography, and an AF system at least as good as a 7D2. Until then, I shoot with mirrorslappers…..


For those who say that the Sony system meets their needs, GO BUY IT! You want to put pressure on Canon to make the equivalent? Then go do it with your wallet. If they see such a significant number of sales go away, then they will react.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 10, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> For those who say that the Sony system meets their needs, GO BUY IT! You want to put pressure on Canon to make the equivalent? Then go do it with your wallet. If they see such a significant number of sales go away, then they will react.



actually I am re-considering whether to buy the Fuji X-T100 rather than M50. Only thing that gives me pause are the EF-M lenses i have. Don't want to buy crop lenses a third time over ... first EF-S then EF-M and then again? No way! Especially not when crop lenses are fine quality but as expensive as the Fujis are. 

PS: My 4x LP-E12 batteries are not "locking me into Canon EOS M system". ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > For those who say that the Sony system meets their needs, GO BUY IT! You want to put pressure on Canon to make the equivalent? Then go do it with your wallet. If they see such a significant number of sales go away, then they will react.
> ...



I'm not in the market for a crop mirrorless system, but if I was, I wold be looking hard at Olympus..... There is a reasonable selection of lenses (and some fast primes), the cameras are capable, and the size is hard to beat... The only drawback is the menu system, but after a while you get used to it and it gets better.….


----------



## BillB (Jun 10, 2018)

dak723 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > simple. Digital cameras don#t need mirrors in them. For film SLRs it was the only way to "see and meter thru the lens". Outdated early 20th century reflex technology has only managed to drag itself into the 21st century because the market dominating CaNikon duopoly found they can really easy money by selling iteration after iteration of marginally improved, same old stuff and cream off people with that, until they eventually might move to a more "digitally adequate" future-proof, mirrorless design concept.
> ...



Really remarkable how someone can use their camera design fantasies to sucker people into 20 pages of mindgames with no end in sight


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 10, 2018)

fullstop said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I have a great solution for those of you who feel that the battery life on a mirrorless camera is an issue.
> ...



I think it ironic that you complain about ad hominem, yet dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as being a Canon marketing shill.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2018)

BillB said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



^^ especially when one is not a serious buyer. I’ve read many a post of “I’m thinking about buying something from a vendor who competes with canon,” but they all inevitably fall through (like this Fuji one did in less than a day). Meanwhile despite liking everything about the m50 better than the Fuji aside from the battery - of which one has several spares - holding 15% too little charge, one won’t buy that either. 

And when canon releases a full frame mirrorless camera, there will be some other poison pill holding up the transaction. Perhaps the body will be 7mm too tall.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > For those who say that the Sony system meets their needs, GO BUY IT! You want to put pressure on Canon to make the equivalent? Then go do it with your wallet. If they see such a significant number of sales go away, then they will react.
> ...



No, don't 'consider' it. Do it, because only when you actually buy some else's product will Canon take note. But no. You come onto this forum complaining about things and still buy more Canon gear. Doing what you are doing you are telling Canon 'Hey, things are not perfect in Canon world but you are doing a majority of things better than other people'. You complain about Canon being conservative and unadventurous...but your purchasing pattern purchasing pattern matches them in that respect. It seems you are their perfect customer and they are your perfect supplier.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



and this is my point! The last two Canon bodies that I bought did not have all the features on them that I wanted, but they had enough, so I bought them. This sent a clear message to Canon that their product was OK.... and remember, their goal is not to produce a product that is perfect for a few, it is to produce a product that is acceptable for many, and that's where large sales numbers come from. If you truly believe that they do not fit your needs, go elsewhere. Vote with your wallet.


----------



## Durf (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



same here; My Canon DSLR's lack a few things I wish they didn't lack but they get the job done for what I like to do.

Most importantly when out shooting all day they are comfortable in my hands and a pleasure to shoot with. If I could have a 20 thousand dollar camera to use with every feature available that would be awesome; but if it was a pain in the ass to hold and complicated as hell to use I'd probably get frustrated and throw it in the dumpster and happily return back to my 6D2 or 80D......

The only other camera brand that feels good in my hands is the larger Nikon DSLR bodies, but I chose Canon instead for my main kit brand simply because I liked Canon cameras and lenses a bit better than Nikon's, not because I absolutely thought Canon was far superior in technology.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



He won't. He's waiting for someone to deliver his perfect camera. The new Canon FF MILC may be 99% there…but maybe the battery power will be 5% too low, or they won't launch a native 136mm f/3.8 with it, or shade of matte black it's painted will be slightly too reflective. So he won't buy it, but I guarantee you he'll come here to complain about what a horrible camera it is for failing to meet his expectations of perfection.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

I'll balk if Canon FF mirrorless only (!) comes as big brick with big native EF pig snout up front, because Canon listened to the "make it chunky and with native EF mount" crowd. ;D

And if the battery pack is anemic, I shall note and criticize it. 

Also correct: I won't buy pink, white, "hello Kitty" or "champagne"-color versions of it. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I'll balk if Canon FF mirrorless comes as big brick with big native EF pig snout up front, because Canon listened to the "make it big and with native EF mount" crowd. ;D
> 
> Also correct: I won't buy pink, white, "hello Kitty" or "champagne"-color versions of it. ;D


So.... go buy a Sony or an “m”.....


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

No. M is APS-C only. I'll buy an APS-C for my daughter, because she values small size even more than I do. She is currently using my EOS M 1st gen - almost exclusively with the 22/2 pancake. 

For myself I want "one single compact FF-sensored camera system". Not 2 systems in parallel - 1 FF, 1 APS-C. 

Sony has many things right by now, but not UI and their lenses. At least not for me.
And mFT does not offer significant enough reductions in size/weight/price compared to APS-C - if any. And it comes with an all-around 1 EV photographic disadvantage vs. APS-C and 2 stops vs. FF. Not interested. 

What is so hard to understand or accept here?


----------



## bvukich (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I'll balk if Canon FF mirrorless only (!) comes as big brick with big native EF pig snout up front, because Canon listened to the "make it chunky and with native EF mount" crowd. ;D



And I'll balk if it's a tiny non-ergonomic card deck sized body that doesn't balance well with my lenses.



fullstop said:


> And if the battery pack is anemic, I shall note and criticize it.



So, if it's like Sony? 



fullstop said:


> Also correct: I won't buy pink, white, "hello Kitty" or "champagne"-color versions of it. ;D



Well, perhaps there we agree.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

bvukich said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > And if the battery pack is anemic, I shall note and criticize it.
> ...



well, have not really looked into it yet, but if true, then Sony has best-in-class shot reach per battery charge 



> the A7III also has pretty ridiculous battery life – for a mirrorless camera, at least. Boasting 710 shots on a full charge it beats everything else out there in mirrorlessland, and is stepping into DSLR territory.


https://www.diyphotography.net/new-sony-a7iii-boasts-best-battery-life-mirrorless-camera-ever-700-shots-per-full-charge/

So let's see whether Canon FF MILC manages to get 700 shots per charge from a FF MILC not larger than Sony A7 III. Hint: sticking a whimpy old LP-E12 in, won't cut it.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

Just what exactly is the market segment here?

In general, FF users are after image quality first.... and want the controls and ergonomics that go with that requirement.... when size becomes your major requirement, you are ready to compromise on quality...... but there in lies the problem....lenses! If you do not get the size saving with your lenses, how much of a gain (loss) in size have you really made? If you want small, then you want to go crop and with the lenses specifically designed for a tiny crop system.... like the 4/3 system.... where you get a huge (pun intended) size advantage over FF.....

We do not know which route Canon has taken yet, DSLR sized body and EF lenses, or a new and smaller body with a whole new lineup of lenses where image quality MAY be compromised to get some size advantages, but what we do know is that they will have done a lot of market research in the real world, and will ignore this forum, where it is the voices of the fanatics that stand out, because WE DO NOT REPRESENT THE TYPICAL USER!

So, in the meantime go big or go crop. No matter how much a few fanatics would like it to be so, FF camera systems will never be as small as crop systems because you need more glass to cover a larger sensor. PERIOD!


Note: both systems pictured below have the same focal range.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Just what exactly is the market segment here?
> 
> In general, FF users are after image quality first.... and want the controls and ergonomics that go with that requirement.... when size becomes your major requirement, you are ready to compromise on quality...... but there in lies the problem....lenses! If you do not get the size saving with your lenses, how much of a gain (loss) in size have you really made? If you want small, then you want to go crop and with the lenses specifically designed for a tiny crop system.... like the 4/3 system.... where you get a huge (pun intended) size advantage over FF.....
> 
> ...



Or you build smaller lenses with 135-format coverage by reducing max aperture. You then eat the EV loss bemoaned above, but at least you can choose to put a big lens on, whereas unless modularity becomes a thing you’re stuck with the camera sensor.

That being said, I agree: use the right tool for what you want to accomplish. If that means selecting a different body now and again, so be it.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> So, in the meantime go big or go crop. No matter how much a few fanatics would like it to be so, FF camera systems will never be as small as crop systems because you need more glass to cover a larger sensor. PERIOD!



yes. BUT! 

But an FF sensored mirrorless camera can be as small as a Sony A7 (1st gen) or even a Sony RX-1R II. And moderately fast prime lenses and f/4 zooms in the most commonly used focal length range can also be made quite compact. That's what I am after - something like a modern day, digital version of Minolta CLE system [but with f/4 zooms, not only with primes]. 

I do understand that other people have other preferences, and am sure that Canon will make "chunky FF mirrorless" options. I just hope, they not ONLY make large versions, but also "very compact" ones. 

If Canon were to go with native EF mount - which I don't believe - then a compact system would not be possible. If they go with a new "slim" mount for FF mirrorless, then any size camera bodies and lenses are possible - from 
* "XS"ultra-compact [similar to Sony RX-1R II, but with lens mount] to
* "S" [eg Sony A7 1st gen] 
* "M" [eg like Sony A7 III/A9] 
* "L" [like 5D] all the way to 
* "XL" [1DX class] 

Customers can then chose which body/bodies they want depending on their shooting scenarios/lenses used and personal preferences. I'd be very surprised if Canon would not take that approach. Only open question to me is, what they come first with? Only M? Only L? Or L + S ? And ever something in XS or not?

Ah, and I further *hope*, that smaller camera size does not automatically mean "less functionality". Ideally it would be more like a BMW Mini - it is available with basic but also with very potent engines, high-quality chassis, brakes, interieur etc. despite being a sub-compact size car.


----------



## BillB (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So, in the meantime go big or go crop. No matter how much a few fanatics would like it to be so, FF camera systems will never be as small as crop systems because you need more glass to cover a larger sensor. PERIOD!
> ...



Fair enough, and well put. There are differences of opinion about the desirability or the various options and their practicality of the various options, but that is life.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2018)

I personally don’t believe the notion of vendor lock in a competive market like ILCs, but many people do (e.g. “my lenses lock me to canon/Nikon/whatever” *). 

What I don’t get is, once you’ve committed to buying a new line of lenses with zero pedigree (not even announced), why does brand matter one bit? Just buy whatever vendor most closely approximates the system you want, rather than barking up the tree of one specific manufacturer.


*this is routinely demonstrated to be false when people see shiny new series II lenses and replace their series I, and then see series III lenses and replace their series II, and then see DO lenses and replace their non-DO.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I agree. It all depends on what Canon's market research tells them is the way to go. We don't know. Some of us think big, some think small, but we are all guessing.

My personal guess, and I REALLY emphasise that it is a guess, is that they will first come out with an EF mount FF about the size of a 6D2, and most of the reason for the guess is that they already have the full suite of lenses that will work on it. Will they later come out with a new form factor and new lenses? Who knows! Only time and Canon will tell, and Canon is famous for keeping quiet....

For my personal needs, I would be better off with a smaller body and lenses as it would be awesome for canoe and hiking trips.... but when I look around me on these trips I see P/S cameras and cell phones. Even with an M and a couple F6.3 lenses I would still have the biggest camera.... Eyes bug out when I lift up my Tamron 150-600  That sucker is heavy to pack and lighter would be better......


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I personally don’t believe the notion of vendor lock in a competitive market like ILCs, burn many people do (e.g. “my lenses lock me to canon/Nikon/whatever” .



To me it is very real. Canon EF and EF-M (!) lenses really are the main reason I have not switched to another brand. 

Long time ago, when Nikon launched the D300, I had a clearly inferior Canon 40D. It was primarily due to the fact Nikon had [and has!] no APS-C zoom lens that could have replaced my "go-to zoom", the Canon EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 IS that I did not switch but waited it out - until Canon finally came along with the 7D. 

The last few years were similar. I want to consolidate from FF + APS-C to only one FF sensored mirrorless system. Nikon has nothing mirrorless of interest at all. mFT is not for me. Fuji has only crop sensors and lenses and I am not willing to pay a lot for yet another crop system, even when the lenses are optically fine. 

So, my only choice right now would be Sony. While I do find the A7 III "mildly tempting", I cannot say the same about the Sony FE lenses. Generally they are 1. bigger than I want, due to poorly chosen lens mount parameters for FF image circle and 2. not enough bang for the buck. Always a lot more expensive than Canon without necessarily being optically superior. 

That's the main reason why I'm still waiting for Canon FF mirrorless system. Or Nikon. But I have even less faith in Nikon than in Canon in that regard. And I prefer the Canon UI.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My personal guess, and I REALLY emphasise that it is a guess, is that they will first come out with an EF mount FF about the size of a 6D2, and most of the reason for the guess is that they already have the full suite of lenses that will work on it. Will they later come out with a new form factor and new lenses? Who knows! Only time and Canon will tell, and Canon is famous for keeping quiet....



My ever-shifting opinion is that Canon will go thin FF mirrorless for the enthusiasts / smaller 2nd body / travel people and eventually (say 2 years later) offer a full EF one for the pros.

I just don't see Canon rebuilding the core/guts of EF in a thinner mount, and I don't see them making a push towards general working pros and require they use an adaptor 75% of the time. I believe the easiest option for them is:


A line of thin FF mirrorless bodies with 3-5 crucially small lenses + EF adaptor for the rest
A line of full EF bodies for higher end needs, tougher build, chunkier grip, etc.
The EF portfolio lives on at full steam.
The thin mount lens portfolio is carefully contained to prevent it getting big/huge/fast. It's much easier to point an enthusiast or small form factor fans at an adaptor for the odd bigger lens need than it is for Canon to tell pros that they need an adaptor almost all the time.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ...So, in the meantime go big or go crop...



Although I am a little perplexed by how much cameras and lenses have been super-sized over the past 50 years. My original F1 and its lenses were much closer in size to Rebels than to today's full frames. And yet, in those days the cameras had tons of wasted space with room for cassettes and take up reels that aren't needed anymore. 

The SL series shows that they can pack most of same electronics into a much smaller body. 

Even lenses have grown in size, although that may be because we've gone from primes to zooms and incorporated IS and autofocus motors that didn't exist at the time.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 11, 2018)

Part of the thing to address will be who it is aimed at as the primary market. 

Professionals, on the whole, will have telephotos or f2.8 zooms (gross generalisation I know) and they would probably favour a 6D2 sized body. 
Professionals/enthusiasts wanting a back up - you would go smaller body, maybe a new mount with adapter for EF lenses. Quite a few on this very forum have things like the SL2 as a second body so would it be that much of an issue? 
Amateurs who go after the SL2 sized because they want something more compact. To them, mount design is probably not an issue....but they do like to 'have a camera like what professionals use' so we are back to the first option. 

Then there is the vocal, and vastly over-represented youtube vlogger/technofreak. They will be happy with nothing less than a direct competitor to the Sony series. No matter what Canon do they will probably find reason to decry it: so why even try to appease them . More seriously, Canon is unlikely to hit this level on the first iteration so they will probably be pragmatic and be happy initially with something to make the statement "we can do it too". 

The more I think about it the more I think along the lines of a back up for pro/enthusiast with a new mount...but it is the adapter that has me flipping. As said before, if you are creating a new camera with new lenses then you reduce the reasons for brand loyalty - and I can't help feeling an under-spec Sony with Canon ergonomics would be quite interesting.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally don’t believe the notion of vendor lock in a competitive market like ILCs, burn many people do (e.g. “my lenses lock me to canon/Nikon/whatever” .
> ...



Right, but for this new MILC you want a new mount and new lenses. So it’s not your EF and EF-M lenses for which you are electing to wait for an acceptable canon camera, it’s that you’re assuming canon will make smaller new lenses and better UI than Sony. The latter is probably true, although the iii series cameras have some pretty good UI (in some ways better than anyone else since they’re extensively customizable with all the of mapping functions). The former? That’s a coin toss. 

The third party native Sony FE lenses are typically pretty good and typically smaller than Sony’s “GM” line (Sigma Art notwithstanding), as are the smaller aperture lenses (naturally). I had the batis 25 and 85. Size wise they felt pretty good on that small body (A7R2).


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> ...Canon is unlikely to hit this level on the first iteration so they will probably be pragmatic and be happy initially with something to make the statement "we can do it too"...



I've seen this reasoning a lot on this forum and I don't understand it. Why would Canon not want to hit it out of the park on its first attempt? And, why couldn't they?

They certainly have the resource available. And they've no doubt been researching this for years. I'm not suggesting that their first full frame mirrorless with be the perfect body for everyone. There are some baked-in decisions that will be guaranteed to disappoint no matter what they do (lens mount for example). But, I find it very unlikely they will unveil a "beta" version and in effect say, "we'll do better next time."


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon is unlikely to hit this level on the first iteration so they will probably be pragmatic and be happy initially with something to make the statement "we can do it too"...
> ...



Careful not to conflate quality with excitement. No one's saying they'll put out a clunky lemon of a first try. I expect it to work very well. I just don't think they'll swing for the _spec_ fences with their first offering. Why?

1) As they've constantly shown, there is no need to give more spec-per-dollar yet. Sony isn't stealing Canon share (yet). Canon can continue to maximize profits by charging more for lesser body specs provided it is well designed, handles well, etc.

2) Though mirrorless offers pros (and cons) to all levels of photography, the foaming-at-the-mouth pent up mirrorless demand is surely the highest with enthusiasts. So I see the $2k-ish lower-spec FF body setting sales records while a $3K+ spec FF body has more discerning users that will be more skeptical at first.

So I'm expecting an extrapolated-for-2018-level take on on the 6D2 specs. Perhaps a 6D2 spec list with 4K and an on-chip ADC sensor -- nothing more. No IBIS, no high MP x high fps supercamera, nothing to challenge/threaten the same-spec'd SLR that sits next to it in the portfolio, etc. It'll just be solid and that's it.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon is unlikely to hit this level on the first iteration so they will probably be pragmatic and be happy initially with something to make the statement "we can do it too"...
> ...



Depends whether Canon has seen the light and goes "all-in" on mirrorless FF - as they should, and *hopefully* will as they won't be selling many mirrorslapppers any longer in the not so distant future. Basically a mirrorless 1DX-III in an "A9 sized" body - to show Sony [and Nikon!] "who's boss". Priced ... very high. Innovative Canon should be able to pull it off. Big question mark will be new native lenses to go with it. Maybe similar to Sony, first 2 primes, maybe an EF-X 50/1.4 IS Nano USM ;D ;D ;D for a start and a mirrorless version of the 85/1.4. Plus a new, "really good" EF-X 24-105/4.0 zoom? And definitely a "native" Canon EF adapter. 

Or they repeat what they done with mirrorless APS-C ... first 3 generations of EOS M clearly not fully competitive with "best in class". But, they managed to target the right audience with the most COMPACT (!) products that were "just good enough" and "lowest prices for decent APS-C lenses in the market". And because there are so many potential buyers who want SMALL, decent and affordable mirrorless cameras, EOS M system has been selling well. It took Canon 5 full years to finally come up with APS-C mirrorless cameras [M5/M6, M50] that are "technically" fully competitive [although many Fuji fanbois will dispute that]. 

Or both. Hi-end plus enthusiast lineup. 2 or even 3 cameras at start. 1 video-centric. 

Will be interesting to see which route Canon takes.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Depends whether Canon has seen the light and goes "all-in" on mirrorless FF - as they should, and *hopefully* will as they won't be selling many mirrorslapppers any longer in the not so distant future. Basically a mirrorless 1DX-III in an "A9 sized" body - to show Sony [and Nikon!] "who's boss".



Because the smartest place to start in FF mirrorless are with the most demanding / most mirrorless-skeptical people, who routinely carrying more lens weight than body weight, and have bumper stickers on their cars that say "You can pry my mirror out of my cold, dead hands."

Even _Sony_ wasn't foolish enough to start there.

I'd love to see A9 vs. A7III sales units. I'd bet it's an order of magnitude difference.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Depends whether Canon has seen the light and goes "all-in" on mirrorless FF - as they should, and *hopefully* will as they won't be selling many mirrorslapppers any longer in the not so distant future. Basically a mirrorless 1DX-III in an "A9 sized" body - to show Sony [and Nikon!] "who's boss".
> ...



At least, and doubly so because the a9 is a camera without a lens. For the sports and wildlife folks, you max out at 400/5.6 or 560/8. While that is ok for hobbyists, it doesn't cut it at the high end. And for the hobbyists, an A7 of some sort will be just fine.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jun 11, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.
> ...



In real world performance, it is close enough to not have as large of an impact as you would like to highlight. You can find a video on youtube demonstrating the A9's e-shutter with a golf swing. Yes, there is a slight rolling shutter effect in some of the shots, but a mechanical FP shutter is not immune to this either at 1/250. If you consider an average golf club head moves at 93.5mph across the frame, and many of the shots are usable on the A9 and you think you are somehow going to see jello on an A9 with your kids running around, perhaps that jello is coming from somewhere else, maybe from between the eyes


----------



## fullstop (Jun 11, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Depends whether Canon has seen the light and goes "all-in" on mirrorless FF - as they should, and *hopefully* will as they won't be selling many mirrorslapppers any longer in the not so distant future. Basically a mirrorless 1DX-III in an "A9 sized" body - to show Sony [and Nikon!] "who's boss".
> ...



THAT is indeed an argument I am willing to accept.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 11, 2018)

fullstop said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



W are you so obsessed with Canon never selling another mirrorslapper? A company like Canon is perfectly capable of catering to both markets - and despite your short sighted egocentric view of the marketplace I see DSLRs having a role for quite a few years yet: shrinking, admittedly but they will be around.

Try operating a camera short on real-estate with squishy buttons while wearing gloves. You can do that far more easily with the 1Dx2 or 5D4.

So yes, they can keep you happy while also selling DSLRs.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

Talys said:


> At least, and doubly so because the a9 is a camera without a lens. For the sports and wildlife folks, you max out at 400/5.6 or 560/8. While that is ok for hobbyists, it doesn't cut it at the high end.



Sure, but the notion that the A9 wasn't a smash success because it lacked lenses it's just the tip of the iceberg there. The form factor is disastrous for long days of large lens use. 20 fps is great if you like electronic shutters, and if you don't -- if there are flickering lights, if you are panning, etc. -- enjoy throttling down to (I think it was) 5 fps. 

The A9 is an example of Sony saying "Our marketing reports that folks love how we push the envelope with our body designs, and we're just _one more_ great body away from finally cracking that nut and stealing CaNikon pro units. Engineering: give me a supercar, stat -- a real 1DX2/D5 killer. Screw that stupid integral grip, because all mirrorless for all use cases for all levels of experience thinks that smaller is better. Engage. No. Stop talking about lenses. People don't go nuts on social media about lenses."

- A


----------



## BillB (Jun 11, 2018)

It is true that Canon has not released a FF mirrorless, but I wonder how far behind Sony Canon really is. Is Canon really at square one? One question is how much Canon has learned in developing its aps-c mirrorless cameras that has been helpful to its FF mirrorless development. Another question is how relevant the Liveview capabilities of the Canon FF frame cameras have been to the FF mirrorless development. Does Canon really have to do much more than swap out the mirror of a 5DIV for an EVF?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> It is true that Canon has not released a FF mirrorless, but I wonder how far behind Sony Canon really is. Is Canon really at square one? One question is how much Canon has learned in developing its aps-c mirrorless cameras that has been helpful to its FF mirrorless development. Another question is how relevant the Liveview capabilities of the Canon FF frame cameras have been to the FF mirrorless development. Does Canon really have to do much more than swap out the mirror of a 5DIV for an EVF?



No, not really. One could argue that the M5 checked off the two biggest missing pieces we had been waiting for (except for 4K) in a proper mirrorless rig: DPAF + integral EVF.

I'm sure there are real world implementation challenges when you try to scale an M5 up to FF terms (power consumption with an FF sensor that is _always_ effectively in LiveView, cooling during 4K if they go with at tiny body, etc.) but there are no major components or subsystems in FF mirrorless that Canon can't cobble together from their combined M5 + FF SLR experience. (Right?) 

- A


----------



## Durf (Jun 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> It is true that Canon has not released a FF mirrorless, but I wonder how far behind Sony Canon really is. Is Canon really at square one? One question is how much Canon has learned in developing its aps-c mirrorless cameras that has been helpful to its FF mirrorless development. Another question is how relevant the Liveview capabilities of the Canon FF frame cameras have been to the FF mirrorless development. Does Canon really have to do much more than swap out the mirror of a 5DIV for an EVF?



I suspect both Nikon and Canon will shake things up a bit with Sony's momentum within the next 12 months or so.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 11, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > ...Canon is unlikely to hit this level on the first iteration so they will probably be pragmatic and be happy initially with something to make the statement "we can do it too"...
> ...



The reason I am a bit sceptical is that there is a difference between designing a product and it working out as you intended in the real world. 
Added to this, Canon is very cautious about releasing new technology - it seems to me that if there is any doubt they prefer to hold back a bit until something works with a high degree of confidence. Their main marketing drive is making cameras that professionals use and as a soldier says, a rifle that works intermittently is worse than one that does not work at all and I think that thinking has got into Canon's DNA. 
Yes, the M series started off a bit of a lemon but that was aimed squarely at the lower end of the market, but I get the idea that with their first FF mirrorless they want to aim more upmarket and that means it must work.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I get that, but canon does not need any new to them technology. They have arguably the best on sensor auto ficus system; they know how to make an EVF. What else is there really? Hell if they want to do something special, they know how to make a global shutter too.

I expect them to do the smart thing, which is to go up to the widest market they can capture. That’s not the high end, and it won’t be a spec sheet warrior, but there is no reason to assume it won’t be well thought out and put together.


----------



## BillB (Jun 12, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



They also have software/firmware pretty well sorted out from their Liveview in the DSLRs as well as the M cameras.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 12, 2018)

BillB said:


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



Unless they reuse a processor, it will need new firmware.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 12, 2018)

BillB said:


> They also have software/firmware pretty well sorted out from their Liveview in the DSLRs as well as the M cameras.



oh yes, best-in-class Canon Powershot firmware is ready to rule them all! ;-) 

and powerful LP-E12 battteries are also piled up in a Canon warehouse. Everything ready for Canon MILC 1M Mk. I!
Mark II may even come with LP-E17 battery and - most exciting - a new paint job in space silver! oh yes! and come 2025, Mark III will really knock it out of the park with something Canon Research calls "Direct Print button"! Unfortunately i cannot say more because of NDA. 

only this: Sony, start shaking in your boots! 

oops, SCNR


----------



## fullstop (Jun 12, 2018)

meanwhile Samyang has announced the next AF lens for Sony FF mirrorless. tiny, optically decent, less than 100 grams and very affordable. 

that's how i like 'em, slim and trim!







https://www.dpreview.com/news/4636663751/samyang-rokinon-24mm-f28-lens-official

Samyang can. Canon asleep at the wheel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2018)

fullstop said:


> only this: Sony, start shaking in your boots!



True. Just as a broken analog clock is right twice a day, on rare occasions you say something correct. 

Sony tried and failed to compete with Canon/Nikon in the dSLR segment, and went to MILCs because that's where Canon and Nikon _weren't_. When Canon launched APS-C mirrorless, in a few short years they beat out all Sony's MILC competitors and most Sony MILC models in sales/market share. Sony 'dominates' FF MILC because their only competition is Leica (and Canon still sells more FF ILCs than Sony). So yes, with Canon apparently poised to enter the FF MILC market, and Nikon reportedly re-entering the MILC market (with something larger than a P&S sensor), Sony is definitely shaking in their dress shoes.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

BillB said:


> It is true that Canon has not released a FF mirrorless, but I wonder how far behind Sony Canon really is. Is Canon really at square one? One question is how much Canon has learned in developing its aps-c mirrorless cameras that has been helpful to its FF mirrorless development. Another question is how relevant the Liveview capabilities of the Canon FF frame cameras have been to the FF mirrorless development. Does Canon really have to do much more than swap out the mirror of a 5DIV for an EVF?



people tend to forget this. canon has been prototyping mirrorless in it's EF mount since the canon 40D and they got really serious with it with the 70D, the 5D Mark II followed suit on full frame.

canon isn't "generations behind" because they have been doing mirrorless for generations on their DSLR's.

the only caveat is the firmware. the EOS firmware has not kept pace with the Powershot firmware in higher end mirrorless features. That's the main challenge for Canon when it comes to mirrorless.

however for all we know, a full frame mirrorless could be made using the powershot firmware - there's nothing stopping it.

you rip out a mirror, af assembly, metering assembly and penta prism and add in an EVF, and voila. you have an EF mirrorless from any of canon's latest generation of DSLR's.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 14, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> however for all we know, a full frame mirrorless could be made using the powershot firmware - there's nothing stopping it.



well i keep fingers crossed it will not happen on Canon FF mirrorless cameras. ;-)


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > however for all we know, a full frame mirrorless could be made using the powershot firmware - there's nothing stopping it.
> ...



the powershot firmware is in it's 4th generation. You should hope it is.

DSLR's don't even have focus peaking let alone half the features that got added to the powershot firmware over it's 4 generations.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 15, 2018)

4 generations of cow dung is still cow dung. ;D


----------



## TAF (Jun 19, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > It is true that Canon has not released a FF mirrorless, but I wonder how far behind Sony Canon really is. Is Canon really at square one? One question is how much Canon has learned in developing its aps-c mirrorless cameras that has been helpful to its FF mirrorless development. Another question is how relevant the Liveview capabilities of the Canon FF frame cameras have been to the FF mirrorless development. Does Canon really have to do much more than swap out the mirror of a 5DIV for an EVF?
> ...



Quite correct; they have all the parts in the parts bin. I wonder why they are taking so long.

The heat dissipation issue is why the first FF mirrorless will not be some tiny pocket camera.

Which pleases me (BTW), since tiny is not what I am looking for.


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2018)

TAF said:


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



My guess is that there have been several things going on with the timing of FF mirrorless. First was the development of dual pixel technology with touchscreen focussing. Then there was the decision to start mirrorless development with aps-c cameras, followed by releasing a generation of 1D and 5D cameras with pretty much everything in Liveview but without an EVF. It seems clear that Canon has not seen a need to rush FF mirrorless to market. Maybe it has been partly about waiting on having more processing power.

I also think that the first FF Canon mirrorless will not be a tiny "Super M" wonder. Maybe about the size of a 6D.


----------



## Durf (Jun 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> TAF said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Personally I think we will soon see Canon take a pretty large step forward with some pretty interesting camera releases with in the next year or so. I think we may see something rather surprising coming this September that'll be FF mirrorless.

If the APS-C M50 is somewhat a sign of things to come (at about 700 bucks), just imagine what Canon will show the FF Mirrorless market for , say, 2000 bucks. I do believe it'll be a remarkable beast of a FF mirrorless camera....

The M50 is just a teaser IMO.

On the DSLR side, we still have possibly the 7D3 and 90D coming soon too (and more?). Canon's about to basically spit a bunch of new stuff out one after another pretty soon.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jun 19, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Canon has shown they are closer to building a FF mirrorless camera than a lot of people give them credit for and more closer to FF mirrorless than Nikon.

They have technology based on previous APS-C mirrorless tech:
- DPAF with full touch screen menu and focusing
- EVF from M5
- eyeAF from M50
- Ergonomic, menu & build quality from DSLR

Canon can really come out with a really compelling FF mirrorless this Sept if they are aggressive. Pent up demand with enough features at compelling prices will drive a lot of sales even if they decided to go with a new mount (backward compatible to EF lens via adapter close to 100% native).

- 26-30 mp sensor that's an improvement over 2 yo 5D IV
- improved EVF from M5
- improved eyeAF from M50
- ergonomic, menu, build quality, color science similar to 6D
- dual SD 
- fully touch screen.

If they can add global shutter, IBIS, or comprehensive video features, it will definitely a success.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 20, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


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



the M50 is killing it in Japan, do they even need to do that much?

The 5D Mark IV sensor is very competitive as it stands, they don't even really have to improve that much on it. just make it faster, and less power intensive.


----------



## TAF (Jun 22, 2018)

I have a suspicion that the FF mirrorless we're about to see will look a good deal like an EOS-M on steroids.

Somewhat like a 1950's rangefinder camera - the viewfinder will be a bump not quite as tall as what you see on a DSLR, but much wider, covering most (say, 2/3) of the top of the camera, centered on the lens.

Plenty of space for heat sinks and batteries.

With a large display on the back.

It will use an EF mount. No adapter.

As for tech specs, not a clue.

But the form-factor would be so easy to implement, it just seems like something that would make sense for an initial fielding attempt.

I hope I am correct, and can afford it...I may be in the market for some new equipment soon. The nephew liked my EOS-M so much I may not get it back.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jun 22, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Canon APS-C Mirrorless is very successful in Japan except world-wide. I think Canon would like a debut their first FF mirrorless not like a first generation product but a more mature and well-thought camera. 

I don't think what I'm asking is too much. I don't expect global shutter sensor or similiar ISO/DR as Sony sensor.
They already a great camera with Canon 5D IV and existing APS-C Mirrorless and that sensor is more than most photographer needs for a 2 years old sensor. I'm sure they can refine the sensor even more.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 25, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > bokehmon22 said:
> ...



your phrasing was confusing then because it sounded like you thought they *needed* to have global shutter, IBIS, or comprehensive video features, to be a success.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Jun 25, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I took it out for avoid confusion. It doesn't need global shutter or IBIS to be successful. A decent video feature may be needed to be competitive for hybrid shooter and if they are demanding $3000+ up MSRP. No way Canon can only deliver Canon 5D IV video features in 2018.


----------

