# Tony Northrup Predicts The Upcoming Full Frame Mirrorless Offerings From Both Canon and Nikon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 19, 2018)

```
<iframe width="728" height="409" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G1IyIE2gAL4" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>Opinions and predictions are fun, and there is a ton of chatter on the web about what Canon and Nikon are going to bring to the world of prosumer full frame mirrorless camera bodies.</p>
<p>Tony Northrup gives his predictions in the video above about what he thinks we’ll see announced from both companies over the next 6-12 months.</p>
<p>A full frame mirrorless camera from Canon is obviously going to be talked about a lot between now and the inevitable announcement, and we’ll keep reporting new information, and keep confirming past information.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 19, 2018)

I didn't get past Tony Northrup.


----------



## LDS (Apr 19, 2018)

I don't understand why a fully electronic mirroless camera should have the design of a mechanical film SLR, which was constrained by film storage and transport, mechanical linkages and mirror/pentaprism needs, and with no ergonomics at all. Whenever I'm nostalgic of that design, I get my A-1 - which anyway I find more comfortable with the Motor Drive MA installed.

I hope Canon will surprise us as it did with the T90... with an innovative yet fully comfortable design.


----------



## bereninga (Apr 19, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> I didn't get past Tony Northrup.



THIS lol


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 19, 2018)

LDS said:


> I don't understand why a fully electronic mirroless camera should have the design of a mechanical film SLR, which was constrained by film storage and transport, mechanical linkages and mirror/pentaprism needs, and with no ergonomics at all. Whenever I'm nostalgic of that design, I get my A-1 - which anyway I find more comfortable with the Motor Drive MA installed.
> 
> I hope Canon will surprise us as it did with the T90... with an innovative yet fully comfortable design.



What shape do you think it should be? 
What key ergonomic changes would you think about?


----------



## magarity (Apr 19, 2018)

The expression on his face as captured in the still is perfect for a "making predictions" article.


----------



## sanj (Apr 19, 2018)

magarity said:


> The expression on his face as captured in the still is perfect for a "making predictions" article.



hahaha


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 19, 2018)

I want to personally thank the administrator for posting this humorous post - thank you!


----------



## captainkanji (Apr 19, 2018)

Haha. Always nice to remember why I unsubscribed from their channel.


----------



## Canoneer (Apr 19, 2018)

I don't really agree with Tony's prediction about basic adapters coming out first. There's no reason why the first smart adapters can't be weather-sealed. Lack of full weather sealing is the greatest Achilles heal of the Sony cameras; Canon and Nikon would be very wise to engineer full weather-sealed bodies that could be coupled with a weather-sealed adapter and paired to a weather-sealed lens. The extra weather-sealing could also help justify a higher price tag than the A7 III when they launch, because I don't think Canon or Nikon have a prayer in matching the A7 III price point.


----------



## davidhfe (Apr 19, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> … because I don't think Canon or Nikon have a prayer in matching the A7 III price point.



I keep reading this but honestly, I don't understand where it's coming from. What spec is so outrageous that Canon can't offer it?


----------



## rwvaughn (Apr 19, 2018)

Goodness.... don't lessen your respectability by linking to or promoting this buffoon.


----------



## Canoneer (Apr 19, 2018)

davidhfe said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > … because I don't think Canon or Nikon have a prayer in matching the A7 III price point.
> ...



Canon could offer most of what Sony is offering on the A7 III - except comparable Eye AF, IBIS, and the absurd DR. What Canon _could_ offer isn't the issue, but rather what they _will_ offer at a comparable price. If they released a mirrorless version of the 5D IV (closest a7 III competitor) and priced it at $2000 to compete with the Sony A7 III, then the 5D IV DSLR and 6D II will nosedive in value. It's more likely that a 6D II - spec'd mirrorless system would be priced at $2000, but we all know that the 6D II isn't competing in the same league performance-wise as the A7 III.

Canon won't release a mirrorless system that will cannibalize it's DSLRs because it's such a better value. Or if they do, then their intentions are to convert as many people to their mirrorless full-frame system as quickly as possible. And they'll only do that when they can match the Sony bodies in terms of performance. They have some time to go before that happens.


----------



## LDS (Apr 19, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> What shape do you think it should be?
> What key ergonomic changes would you think about?



I'm not an expert camera designer, so I won't give an answer  but I know enough in other fields that often what users want is far from being the optimal solution - as in this case, they may use mostly past experience but are not prepared enough to think forward (and yes, sometimes some designers think *too much* forward too...).

That's why I hope Canon could surprise us with a new ergonomic design, free of old constraints, there is much more freedom.

What I don't really think is a retro design is good - and I like to collect old cameras, it's not because it looks old, it's because I know the limitations of those designs.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 19, 2018)

sanj said:


> magarity said:
> 
> 
> > The expression on his face as captured in the still is perfect for a "making predictions" article.
> ...



I agree! And just what is he looking at?


----------



## amorse (Apr 19, 2018)

magarity said:


> The expression on his face as captured in the still is perfect for a "making predictions" article.


This nearly resulted in coffee coming out of my nose!


----------



## reef58 (Apr 19, 2018)

Seems every time Tony is mentioned there are a lot of personal attacks, but no replies of substance. Pretty sad really.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Apr 19, 2018)

reef58 said:


> Seems every time Tony is mentioned there are a lot of personal attacks, but no replies of substance. Pretty sad really.



That's fair - I'll shut up.


----------



## KirkD (Apr 19, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> If they released a mirrorless version of the 5D IV (closest a7 III competitor) and priced it at $2000 to compete with the Sony A7 III, then the 5D IV DSLR and 6D II will nosedive in value.



Canon needs to forget about competing with its own cameras and start competing with other camera manufacturers such as Sony in the mirrorless department.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 19, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > If they released a mirrorless version of the 5D IV (closest a7 III competitor) and priced it at $2000 to compete with the Sony A7 III, then the 5D IV DSLR and 6D II will nosedive in value.
> ...



Yes, because they are very unsuccessful at competition : : 

The posting here has become so idiotic with posters willfully ignoring facts it has become a bit of a joke, I hope it doesn't continue on this path.


----------



## nchoh (Apr 19, 2018)

So to those who don't like Tony Northrop, which YouTuber would you recommend that puts out Camera videos that are from a similar perspective as Tony Northrop? Similar perspective meaning, more tech talk and not just how to photograph pretty girls.


----------



## MartinF. (Apr 19, 2018)

All this talk about mirrorless requiring new mounts - I simply cann't believe that Canon once again will change mount as we saw with the shift away from FD toward EF mount.
If they want to create lenses that take advantages of an empty mirrobox - would it not be possible to make a protruding rear lens element as on EF-S, but still create a FF image circle?
Of cause it will mean that the camera it self will still have a flange focal distance on 44mm, but I also believe that cameras you could mount a 70-200 or a 400 mm lens on - should not be too small.


----------



## edoorn (Apr 19, 2018)

So basically Tony says a mirrorless would be an 'enthusiast' model, right? Does he mean something like a 6d-ish camera? That would piss off some pro's (lack of dual slot) so I'm not too sure. I'm quite sure they won't go all out with a 1dx-killer or something like that, but what it will be, is the question. 

The latest rumour here mentioned 'prosumer' models in development, which sort of backs up Tony's theory, but what could we expect with that? Something like an a73? That, in fact, is more like a 5d than a 6d if you ask me, so I'm quite curious to see where it would land. For me personally, a very good evf, silent shutter, eye af and dual slots would be mandatory to make me get one.


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 19, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So to those who don't like Tony Northrop, which YouTuber would you recommend that puts out Camera videos that are from a similar perspective as Tony Northrop? Similar perspective meaning, more tech talk and not just how to photograph pretty girls.



At least meaningless videos with pretty girls have pretty girls. Tony just has meaningless videos.


----------



## JBSF (Apr 19, 2018)

reef58 said:


> Seems every time Tony is mentioned there are a lot of personal attacks, but no replies of substance. Pretty sad really.



Okay, I'll pick on Ken Rockwell instead.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 19, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So to those who don't like Tony Northrop, which YouTuber would you recommend that puts out Camera videos that are from a similar perspective as Tony Northrop? Similar perspective meaning, more tech talk and not just how to photograph pretty girls.



Canon USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvqs9r3h9dh87lRHSatDpNg
;D ;D ;D


----------



## nchoh (Apr 19, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> nchoh said:
> 
> 
> > So to those who don't like Tony Northrop, which YouTuber would you recommend that puts out Camera videos that are from a similar perspective as Tony Northrop? Similar perspective meaning, more tech talk and not just how to photograph pretty girls.
> ...



I guess that you are one of those guys who know everything about photography, huh?


----------



## KirkD (Apr 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > Canoneer said:
> ...


They aren't even in the competition yet when it comes to mirrorless cameras. I'm hoping they get in the game with the rumoured full frame mirrorless ones.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 20, 2018)

chrysoberyl said:


> I didn't get past Tony Northrup.



I'm with you on that.
No cred.
Scott


----------



## Talys (Apr 20, 2018)

scottkinfw said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't get past Tony Northrup.
> ...



I skipped through the video... blah blah blah blah Dual pixel... blah blah blah Nikon Canon mount... 4k scaling... blah blah blah Sony... 20fps... blah blah blah blah Fuji

Worst prediction video ever, lol.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 20, 2018)

KirkD said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



Pull your head out of your ass, sales figures publicly available show Canon outsell Sony on MILC's, indeed in the MILC market Canon are second in volume only to Olympus. Sony are third behind both Canon and Olympus, how is that _"They aren't even in the competition yet when it comes to mirrorless cameras"_?

You people and your opinions are so disconnected from the real world it is farcical.


----------



## reef58 (Apr 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I think the point of Tony's video is Canon is not in the game. Unless I am wrong Canon does not have a FF mirrorless camera. I thought his presentation was pretty straightforward and fair. That being said I am not one clamoring for a FF Mirrorless. At this point couldn't care less about mirrorless. I am interested in the 90d and 5dsr2 however.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 20, 2018)

reef58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



People see to take the view that 'the game' is selling mirrorless FF cameras. It is not. 'The game' is selling cameras - no more, no less. 

Panasonic and Olympus could not compete in the FF market so decided to set up the MFT consortium
Sony could not compete in teh DSLR arean so, seeing what Panasonic were doing, went in tot APS-C and FF mirrorless 
Canon are the leaders and concentrated on their core market, taking mirrorless development at a far more casual rate and responding to what was happening in the mirrorless market. It is still early days.
Nikon....I don't think anyone really knows what has gone wrong with Nikon but they have tried to have their fingers in all the pies and ended up creating a winner in the D850.


----------



## melgross (Apr 20, 2018)

First of all, there was absolutely nothing new in this video. He didn’t say a single thing that we haven’t all head, several times, before.

I also disagree with a number of things he said. Sony isn’t doing all that well in their photo business in either DSLR’s, mirrorless or compact cameras. The reason the went to mirrorless so early wasn’t because they wanted to come out it’s something more advanced, but because their DSLR business was in tatters. No matter what they did, they couldn’t raise that 5% marketshare they began with when they purchased Konica/Minolta.

So mirrorless was a way, they thought, to enter a market where they would be early, and capture a large part of it. It didn’t work out the way they thought. It’s interesting to note that Canon, after having being criticized for several years for not entering that mirrorless market, is now one of, or is, the biggest mirrorless maker, with the fastest growth rate.

I also don’t agree that they have the most to lose. I do agree with Thom Hogan, the well known Nikon expert, that it’s Nikon that has the most to worry about, and the most to lose.


----------



## Talys (Apr 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> People see to take the view that 'the game' is selling mirrorless FF cameras. It is not. 'The game' is selling cameras - no more, no less.



Exactly.

By that definition, the _only_ company in the game is Sony.

It isn't like, "On the day that Canon and Nikon both have mirrorless full frame cameras, nearly all cameras sold will be mirrorless full frame cameras."

I mean, all the camera manufacturers wish this were so, but for obvious reasons, that is not going to happen!




melgross said:


> I also don’t agree that they have the most to lose. I do agree with Thom that it’s Nikon that has the most to worry about, and the most to lose.



The assertion is technically true... because the company with the most marketshare by definition has the most to lose


----------



## melgross (Apr 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > People see to take the view that 'the game' is selling mirrorless FF cameras. It is not. 'The game' is selling cameras - no more, no less.
> ...



I’m not sure I understood you reply. Are you really saying that the only company that matters is Sony? Seriously?

People, not only does Canon have the fastest growing mirrorless line, it’s one of, if not, the biggest already. And if the game is selling cameras, not “just” mirrorless, then again, it’s Canon, with over 50% of the world market, and growing.

However canon does full frame, there will be a large user base eagerly waiting for it. If the future is mirrorless, and it might be, eventually, then Canon shouldn’t worry about cannibalizing present camera lines.jf they can transition every DSLR user to mirrorless, then that will move their 50+% share over. They must know that.

If they do this in such a way that a new body and cadaver works seemlessly, then they will have the worlds largest, and newest line if lenses for it too. Moving to newer lenses will be easy. I see no problem there.


----------



## Talys (Apr 20, 2018)

melgross said:



> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Not at all.

I'm agreeing with Mikehit that full frame mirrorless isn't "the game". It isn't even close, because I mean, how many people do you know with a mirrorless full frame camera? Yet this has become an online obsession.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 20, 2018)

nchoh said:


> which YouTuber would you recommend that puts out Camera videos



Karl Taylor. He’s a legitimate photographer first, but does put videos on the YouTubes.
(Some are silly, like a comparison of a relatively cheap MILC to a very expensive medium format system)


----------



## reef58 (Apr 20, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The video was specifically about Canon and Nikon's entry into full frame mirrorless. That is all. It was not about doom, gloom overall sales or any such thing. It was a prediction of their offerings in FF Frame mirrorless. Did anyone actually watch the video?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 20, 2018)

reef58 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > reef58 said:
> ...



I wasn't commenting on the video, I was pointing out the absurdity of the comment I quoted.

Canon absolutely do not have to make a FF MILC, in the same way they don't 'have' to make a MF camera to compete with the Pentax 645Z, or flashes to compete with the Profoto B1Z. If they do make a FF MILC it will be on their terms given that they know how comparatively small that market is.

There are a disproportionately vocal number of blowhards that are completely skewing the apparent size and relevance of a FF MILC market.


----------



## reef58 (Apr 20, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Whether Canon needs to make them or not is a business decision by Canon. I am not interested at this point, but I think that would be like saying Ford doesn't need to build SUV's. The reality is Canon probably does for a host of reasons other than the FF mirrorless market by itself. 

I think Tony's video was based upon the likely fact Canon will indeed be sending one to market. He pointed out Canon's strengths and weaknesses and how they may impact the camera that is eventually introduced. I actually thought it was a pretty fair analysis although history may show it to be wrong. That is the chance you take when you make predictions.


----------



## zim (Apr 20, 2018)

melgross said:


> First of all, there was absolutely nothing new in this video. He didn’t say a single thing that we haven’t all head, several times, before.
> 
> I also disagree with a number of things he said. Sony isn’t doing all that well in their photo business in either DSLR’s, mirrorless or compact cameras. The reason the went to mirrorless so early wasn’t because they wanted to come out it’s something more advanced, but because their DSLR business was in tatters. No matter what they did, they couldn’t raise that 5% marketshare they began with when they purchased Konica/Minolta.
> 
> ...



+1 spot on IMO


----------



## stevelee (Apr 20, 2018)

reef58 said:


> Whether Canon needs to make them or not is a business decision by Canon. I am not interested at this point, but I think that would be like saying Ford doesn't need to build SUV's. The reality is Canon probably does for a host of reasons other than the FF mirrorless market by itself.



Or saying Canon doesn't need to build SUVs. Ford already does, and it is a significant part of their business. Canon, however, has chosen not to, so far, at least.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 21, 2018)

Tony's not my cup of tea either. Wonder if he's really as sarcastic as he comes across?

Jack


----------



## Cochese (Apr 21, 2018)

I think Tony makes a lot of really good points, but I don't understand his notion that people don't understand the viewfinder coming from a cell phone. I don't do it a lot at the moment, but when I'm teaching people the basics of how a DSLR works, the viewfinder is never the issue and they never expect to pinch to zoom a photo. They don't even attempt it. They don't. At all. The last two 18 year old kids that I was teaching the finer points of aperture, exposure, and ISO never once puzzled about the view finder. Maybe it's my sample size (roughly fifteen or so individuals of varying ages, all under 24), but again, the viewfinder was the least of their issues. The biggest issue was teaching them how to process a RAW file. 
Seriously, are the people he knows so slow witted they cannot figure out the difference between an optical view finder and an phone screen? It almost feels like that was thrown in as a troll.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 21, 2018)

Cochese said:


> I think Tony makes a lot of really good points, but I don't understand his notion that people don't understand the viewfinder coming from a cell phone. I don't do it a lot at the moment, but when I'm teaching people the basics of how a DSLR works, the viewfinder is never the issue and they never expect to pinch to zoom a photo. They don't even attempt it. They don't. At all. The last two 18 year old kids that I was teaching the finer points of aperture, exposure, and ISO never once puzzled about the view finder. Maybe it's my sample size (roughly fifteen or so individuals of varying ages, all under 24), but again, the viewfinder was the least of their issues. The biggest issue was teaching them how to process a RAW file.
> Seriously, are the people he knows so slow witted they cannot figure out the difference between an optical view finder and an phone screen? It almost feels like that was thrown in as a troll.


I think you are correct in general but I have known beginners asking about their cameras and not ever using the viewfinder. They find it a strange thing to use the viewfinder.


----------



## Talys (Apr 21, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Cochese said:
> 
> 
> > I think Tony makes a lot of really good points, but I don't understand his notion that people don't understand the viewfinder coming from a cell phone. I don't do it a lot at the moment, but when I'm teaching people the basics of how a DSLR works, the viewfinder is never the issue and they never expect to pinch to zoom a photo. They don't even attempt it. They don't. At all. The last two 18 year old kids that I was teaching the finer points of aperture, exposure, and ISO never once puzzled about the view finder. Maybe it's my sample size (roughly fifteen or so individuals of varying ages, all under 24), but again, the viewfinder was the least of their issues. The biggest issue was teaching them how to process a RAW file.
> ...



Perhaps so. These people should then avoid a full frame mirrorless entirely. They will get just as good results with an APSC, which will cost less, and have significantly cheaper and smaller lenses.

I saw an article somewhere else (maybe DPR?) where someone said the A7M3 was close to being a camera they'd just recommend to someone if they were interested in photography looking for a camera. I would say: why would you make someone who's just curious about photography blow $2,000 + $1,000++ on lenses just to get into the hobby? You can spend a third of that and enjoy the hobby just as well; probably more as you start.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

LDS said:


> I don't understand why a fully electronic mirroless camera should have the design of a mechanical film SLR, which was constrained by film storage and transport, mechanical linkages and mirror/pentaprism needs, and with no ergonomics at all. Whenever I'm nostalgic of that design, I get my A-1 - which anyway I find more comfortable with the Motor Drive MA installed.
> 
> I hope Canon will surprise us as it did with the T90... with an innovative yet fully comfortable design.



I have an A-1 also. I'd hate to carry something like that around all day. Probably part of the reason straps were invented. One more reason to hope for a comfortable mirrorless camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

davidhfe said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > … because I don't think Canon or Nikon have a prayer in matching the A7 III price point.
> ...



I'm just praying Canon won't match Sony's lens cost or quality. If it weren't for companies like Metabones, Sony would already be dead.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canoneer said:
> 
> 
> > If they released a mirrorless version of the 5D IV (closest a7 III competitor) and priced it at $2000 to compete with the Sony A7 III, then the 5D IV DSLR and 6D II will nosedive in value.
> ...



Silly.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

nchoh said:


> ...not just how to photograph pretty girls.



Come on, man. Is there really any other reason to have a camera? Puh-leeeeze!!! That's like saying you go to the beach because you like sand. :


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 21, 2018)

nchoh said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > nchoh said:
> ...



He didn't say that. What he implied (I think) is that pretty girls add more meaning to the meaningless videos than Tony ever could. I agree. I'd have never got a Brazilian waxing if it were not for the meaningless youtube tutorials with pretty girls. Getting waxed is the closest I can get to a hot date. Thank you, YouTube!


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> nchoh said:
> 
> 
> > ...not just how to photograph pretty girls.
> ...



Cat pictures! The internet needs more cat pictures.....


----------



## Talys (Apr 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > nchoh said:
> ...



Our cat rules our life. 8)


----------



## drob (Apr 24, 2018)

I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > Cochese said:
> ...



It really depends on the crowd you are in. If you are hang out with a bunch of friends driving new Merceds/Audis/Porche/etc then suggesting something that cost 3000 as a starter is not a big deal. Like most of us I'm down in the real world and have to think long and hard about just a lens in the 1k price range, especially since it's just a hobby for me. 

This same crowd will blow 20k or more for a small camper that's used 3-4 times tops, or the same crowd that will not think anything about spending 10k for a overseas trip or a week at disney. This same crowd is the reason why the local camera stores that still exist are still in business, and why the only malls that are not dead and dying is "that one mall with all of the high end expensive stores".

For the rest of us there's the SL2 and excellent kit lens with the option to upgrade to better stuff if you like it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 24, 2018)

drob said:


> I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.



No, and you have obviously drunk too much of the DXO/DPReview Kool-Aid. At 100iso there is .25 stop difference in DR between the 5D MkIV and the D850. If you use dual pixel development techniques the 5D MkIV has 0.22 stops more DR than the maximum possible from the D850.

How, exactly, is that _"uncompetitive?"_


----------



## Talys (Apr 24, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.
> ...



Keep in mind that the ONLY thing that matters is the DXOMark sensor score if the main goal of purchasing a camera is to own the highest ranked DXOMark sensor. I mean, why on Earth would buy a Sony A7M3/A7R3 and the matching 28-70 f3.5-5.6 kit lens, otherwise?

Photography: the art of spending money on camera bodies. 8)

The funniest thing that I see on the Kool-Aid reviews is when they take a perfectly exposed studio picture, add ND filters and go, "See, this looks great even at -3EV with exposure compensation in post!!!" But THIS NEVER HAPPENS. When do you ever have perfectly balanced light sources, but just not enough of it? Some poor sap ends up blowing $4,000 then goes into post and cranks the lightroom sliders, and wonders why they can't get a portrait that looks like it came out of a professional's studio.


----------



## JRPhotos (Apr 25, 2018)

My concerns:

I won't be able to use my existing EOS lenses
The body will be too small for my hands
No view finder..... I need a view finder and not that digital junk

I just don't have much of an interest in mirrorless.


----------



## Talys (Apr 25, 2018)

JRPhotos said:


> My concerns:
> 
> I won't be able to use my existing EOS lenses
> The body will be too small for my hands
> ...



I would bet anything in the world that any EF lens will work on Canon's full frame mirrorless. The body might even be to your liking. 

But... it's gonna have a digital viewfinder 

Come to think of it, it would be awesome (though physics defying with today's technology) to have a mirrorless OVF camera . All we need is a transparent sensor that doesn't require a shutter!


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Come to think of it, it would be awesome (though physics defying with today's technology) to have a mirrorless OVF camera . All we need is a transparent sensor that doesn't require a shutter!



No you don't. All you need is a G1X


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 26, 2018)

drob said:


> I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.



Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.

If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100, you don't need Super Telephoto focal lengths (or T/S lenses, or 1-5X macro lenses, or...), and you don't need to worry about less than ideal weather, then Sony is probably the camera for you. But many photographers shoot most of the time in light that requires ISO 800+, and need to be able to shoot in the rain and snow.

Such photographers also generally spend more time trying to make a living with their cameras than spending time on internet forums measurebating about slight differences in camera/lens performance.

Such photographers are more concerned if the camera in their hand can reliably get the shot they need, not about whether the camera in their hands got a score 3 points higher than the camera in someone else's hands.


----------



## Talys (Apr 26, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100...



If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100... save yourself a TON of money and buy an APS-C


----------



## bwud (Apr 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > If all you ever shoot is at ISO 100...
> ...



I don’t get it.

The distinction should be whether you routinely crop, or whether you can fill the frame.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 26, 2018)

Michael Clark, you hit the nail on the head but those you are intending to "educate" won't get it! 

Jack


----------



## Talys (Apr 26, 2018)

bwud said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Clark said:
> ...



For the vast majority of people, _if ISO doesn't matter_ you can just buy a wider angle lens and save a bunch of money on the focal lengths that you don't use a lot; plus, the shorter 2.8 zooms and shorter 1.4/1.8 primes are typically cheaper than the longer ones, if you're getting top-end glass.

So for example, if you shoot 80D, you can get as a pretty nice kit:

EFS10-18 instead of EF16-35 for landscape
50mm 1.8 (or 1.2) instead of 85mm 1.4
24-70 2.8 instead of 70-200 2.8 as your "portrait zoom"

And unless you're a birder or a really serious sports photographer, the center crop of a 70-300 is probably good enough, as compared to a 100-400LII, and will give you more reach and a larger FR, too.

Of course, you could go EFM and get smaller lenses than that. But the kit weighs a lot less and at ISO100, the image quality will be so close that I don't think anyone will know or care for the vast number of photographs.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 26, 2018)

While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.

Jack


----------



## Talys (Apr 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.
> 
> Jack



I couldn't agree more. That remains the main benefit of full frame for me -- resolving higher ISO as cleanly as possible because that's the only way I'll get to a faster shutter speed. But of course, as I get used to using full frame lenses, I just start using full frame for things you could just as easily use crop for.


----------



## Cochese (Apr 26, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Cochese said:
> 
> 
> > I think Tony makes a lot of really good points, but I don't understand his notion that people don't understand the viewfinder coming from a cell phone. I don't do it a lot at the moment, but when I'm teaching people the basics of how a DSLR works, the viewfinder is never the issue and they never expect to pinch to zoom a photo. They don't even attempt it. They don't. At all. The last two 18 year old kids that I was teaching the finer points of aperture, exposure, and ISO never once puzzled about the view finder. Maybe it's my sample size (roughly fifteen or so individuals of varying ages, all under 24), but again, the viewfinder was the least of their issues. The biggest issue was teaching them how to process a RAW file.
> ...



Funny thing is, I really didn't like using the view finder, either. And I didn't even start with a phone as my camera. I was coming from Film point and shoots and film SLRs like the A1, K1000, and OM-1. 

I just really liked/ like using the back screen to nail manual focus. Especially since I'm usually doing landscapes and/ or photographing not particularly fast moving objects. Just use the magnify feature on camera to get either a 1/1 view of the image or a 2/1 view of the image. Focus until sharp, adjust exposure, getting that wysiwyg image Tony was talking about... It's all present, at least on Canon's cameras.


----------



## bwud (Apr 26, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.
> 
> Jack



I haven’t used a cropped frame (relative to 135-format), notwithstanding cell phones, since the 5D2 was released, so I have no real baseline for comparison (only distant memory of 40D and earlier cameras).


----------



## bwud (Apr 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > While crop or fill the frame is important, if you're serious with wildlife, a very big challenge is having enough light for the shutter speeds you'd prefer, and then high ISO performance becomes huge. If you haven't experienced the difference between top FF and a crop camera, you may not realize this. I loved the 1D4 as a camera but the shots above ISO 800, often cropped, just didn't cut it compared to the 6D, which did very well at ISO 1250. With the 1DX2 I'm often working at ISO 3200 without much concern.
> ...



I do the same. Since I often find myself focal length limited and able to fill a full frame within the same shoot (say: wild life that gets close and then far), I use a high resolution full frame camera in order to maximize my yield. But sometimes I come back and have to crop everything (I can only get to 800mm with my setups), and consider that higher pixel densities (crop frame) could have been beneficial. 

I’ve never traded noise between a crop sensor and a full frame sensor cropped down and then viewed at equal sizes.

But really I was just confused by your initial reasoning (if you only shoot at ISO 100 buy APS-C). Maybe someone only shoots at ISO 100 because they want the absolute best output, and specifically light for it. When I shoot in the studio, I shoot at ISO 100 almost exclusively, and I don’t think I’d benefit from a crop frame camera in that scenario.


----------



## MickDK (Apr 26, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.



The difference has shrunk but high ISO is still a bit better in Sony land:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV-versus-Canon--EOS-1D-X-Mark-II___1187_1106_1071

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 26, 2018)

MickDK said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the DR differences between Sony/Nikon and Canon disappear by ISO 800. At higher ISOs, Canon's top end cameras generally have *better* DR and SNR than Sony and Nikon's top models.
> ...



Really? One shows a sliver of colour and the other is a difference you won't even notice amongst the noise of the image? And if that is the deciding factor in your purchasing decision...
You aren't really into data interpretation, are you?


----------



## bwud (Apr 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> nchoh said:
> 
> 
> > ...not just how to photograph pretty girls.
> ...



Is there a stigma on here about photographing pretty girls? That’s nearly 100% of my studio work.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 29, 2018)

CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO. 

BTW, I've wondered why we don't have more female shooters. Surely it's not only males that like photography or is it because of the heavy gear orientation of CR?

Jack


----------



## Talys (Apr 29, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO.
> 
> BTW, I've wondered why we don't have more female shooters. Surely it's not only males that like photography or is it because of the heavy gear orientation of CR?
> 
> Jack



I have a good friend who is a female photography enthusiast. However, she is not a forum enthusiast, LOL.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > CR could do with more pretty girls to balance some of the ridiculous nonsense like "Harry" and his codec IMHO.
> ...



Maybe male aggressiveness is the problem with the forum? 

Jack


----------



## BillB (Apr 29, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't watch the video so I can't comment about what Tony says...but when Canon brings forth their FF mirrorless, will it have a sensor that competes with the likes of Sony and Nikons (D850 sensor)? I mean, really that's what it boils down to, right? Do people really want a full frame mirrorless or do they just want any kind of camera that has improved DR and can compete with the features of the Sony A7 line and the Nikon D850? I honestly don't care whether a camera is mirrorless or a DSLR, I just want to know that my camera isn't 2 years behind the current tech when I buy it (ie the 6D2) or crippled in some way.
> ...



Exactly. For me, the big question is whether I can get the prints I want with the camera I have. It so happens that the camera I have is a Canon 5DIV. Neither Canon nor anybody else is going to have an easy time convincing me that I can get better prints if I buy a "better" camera. (And the 5DIV is a lot more fun to use than the 5DII that I still have and sometimes use, an unanticipated bonus.). Even so, it took a pretty good deal on a refurb to get me to pull the trigger, and I am very happy I did.

There is a reason that the FF market is shrinking and it isn't lack of "innovation". There just aren't that many people out there who feel the need to put pretty big money into a FF camera, whether mirrorless or DSLR. Even fewer are wound up about pretty small differences in magic numbers like base ISO DR and fps. Maybe Sony has the right idea. Just drop the price, pad the specs, bet on internet buzz and hope for a miracle.


----------



## Durf (Apr 29, 2018)

BillB said:


> Michael Clark said:
> 
> 
> > drob said:
> ...



Well, if you look around at the younger generation with their faces stuck in their cell phones, that's their camera! They don't have time enough away from their phones to learn how to use a DSLR or Mirrorless camera, let alone having any clue or idea what the heck "Full Frame" camera even means......

In another 10 years or so cell phone cameras will be so awesome they'll probably be the go to camera for most pro's, with internal interchangeable lens settings these phones will probably be able to zoom in on the craters on the moon!

I see why adobe etc is focusing on cloud base software for tweeking and processing images, all the young'uns are doing all there photography and image tweeking right with their cell phones.....it's working for them just fine and they have not the slightest desire to buy or even use a "Real Camera" lol.

Things sure have changed.....I remember hoeing the neighbors garden in the early 70's for a buck so I could buy a couple rolls of film and some flash cubes for my kodak instamatic!!!!! haha


----------



## dak723 (Apr 29, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Because forums such as this one are all about trying to prove how smart and clever you are. Thank goodness most women are too smart to get caught up in that type of crap. 

There are a few of us males who try and avoid the trap and try to stick to facts and try and discuss things, but as I think anyone can see, almost every thread turns into a meaningless debate and one-upmanship.


----------



## clbayley (Apr 29, 2018)

Durf said:


> In another 10 years or so cell phone cameras will be so awesome they'll probably be the go to camera for most pro's, with internal interchangeable lens settings these phones will probably be able to zoom in on the craters on the moon!



I have a different idea...I think the form factor of the handheld phone will shortly be replaced by wearables (iWatch). Makes me think there may be room in the future for the resurgence of the dedicated camera.

CB


----------



## Talys (Apr 29, 2018)

Durf said:


> Well, if you look around at the younger generation with their faces stuck in their cell phones, that's their camera! They don't have time enough away from their phones to learn how to use a DSLR or Mirrorless camera, let alone having any clue or idea what the heck "Full Frame" camera even means......



If your intended display size is a cell phone, a lot of things suddenly don't matter. Many of my photos that I toss because they're not sharp enough or slightly out of focus would look great on a cell phone.



Durf said:


> In another 10 years or so cell phone cameras will be so awesome they'll probably be the go to camera for most pro's, with internal interchangeable lens settings these phones will probably be able to zoom in on the craters on the moon!



I would like that too!! 



Durf said:


> I see why adobe etc is focusing on cloud base software for tweeking and processing images, all the young'uns are doing all there photography and image tweeking right with their cell phones.....it's working for them just fine and they have not the slightest desire to buy or even use a "Real Camera" lol.
> 
> Things sure have changed.....I remember hoeing the neighbors garden in the early 70's for a buck so I could buy a couple rolls of film and some flash cubes for my kodak instamatic!!!!! haha



Things have changed.... but things haven't.

Let's be honest about film and digital cameras. The VAST majority of people who have purchased film and digital cameras are no different than the vast majority of people who bought camcorders in the 90's. They were to record personal moments and experiences: I was here and I want to remember that.

Nearly everyone that I know who is over the age of 30 has personally owned or used a family camera at some point in their life. But nearly all of them have zero interest in photography. They can appreciate the cover of Vanity Fair, or National Geographic but they have no interest in how it was taken or taking something like that. 

I believe that most cell phone camera users are really no different: they don't want to take photography up as hobby; they have no interest in seeking out subjects that are interesting to them or mentally think, "this could be a great location" when they walk by somewhere, or seek to experiment with light. Instead, they just want to take photographs of their personal experiences in the easiest, most painless way possible and enjoy and share them. And there's nothing wrong with that!


----------



## stevelee (Apr 29, 2018)

When I’m traveling in some of the most beautiful places on earth, I see most people under 40 taking pictures mostly of themselves.


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 29, 2018)

clbayley said:


> I have a different idea...I think the form factor of the handheld phone will shortly be replaced by wearables (iWatch). Makes me think there may be room in the future for the resurgence of the dedicated camera.
> 
> CB



Except now the phone is not about phone calls - it’s about finding that bar via google maps, replying to that urgent work email, web browsing, reading a book on the subway. That’s why phones have been getting larger with every generation recently. They’re not going to be replaced by wrist devices, unless it’s a fallout Pip-Boy or other 80s sci fi nostalgia.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 29, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> clbayley said:
> 
> 
> > I have a different idea...I think the form factor of the handheld phone will shortly be replaced by wearables (iWatch). Makes me think there may be room in the future for the resurgence of the dedicated camera.
> ...



Unless there is a revolutionary display technology I agree. Phones won’t get much smaller, but they might get thinner, further complicating the packaging of camera lenses.


----------



## Mikehit (Apr 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Unless there is a revolutionary display technology I agree. Phones won’t get much smaller, but they might get thinner, further complicating the packaging of camera lenses.



They won;t get thinner. I think ti was iphone 6 with people complaining about them bending when people had them in their jeans pocket - there is a limit for structural integrity.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 29, 2018)

That’s a question of design and priorities. If the market wants thinner, that’s very easily accomplished at the expense of weight and cost. Without increasing weight it becomes more challenging.


----------



## scyrene (Apr 29, 2018)

stevelee said:


> When I’m traveling in some of the most beautiful places on earth, I see most people under 40 taking pictures mostly of themselves.



Because nobody's holiday snaps in the past were of themselves :

Anyway, if they were taking a photograph of the view, it would look like a million other shots, and it would almost certainly be inferior to the best ones of that location. At least the selfies are unique to *and* have meaning for the person taking them.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > When I’m traveling in some of the most beautiful places on earth, I see most people under 40 taking pictures mostly of themselves.
> ...



Maybe. I doubt the person looks much different in the picture from how they looked in the picture made ten minutes ago.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2018)

And yes, tourists have long made pictures of family and friends as part of a shot at some scenic or historical site. I take a few of those myself.







But what I am talking about are the selfies that might have a bit of the scenery showing on the periphery if you look hard.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless there is a revolutionary display technology I agree. Phones won’t get much smaller, but they might get thinner, further complicating the packaging of camera lenses.
> ...


Flexible displays, flexible circuit boards...... I doubt we have hit the limit yet....


----------



## Talys (Apr 30, 2018)

Don Haines said:


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



Flexible camera lenses!


----------



## stevelee (Apr 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> Flexible camera lenses!



Maybe I won't need to save up for a TS lens. By the time I can afford one, I'll just get a flexible lens.


----------



## Durf (Apr 30, 2018)

I duct-taped my 50mm STM lense to a small chunk of vacuum hose and to my camera, now I have a flexible tilt shift lens 8)


----------



## Talys (Apr 30, 2018)

Durf said:


> I duct-taped my 50mm STM lense to a small chunk of vacuum hose and to my camera, now I have a flexible tilt shift lens 8)



haha 

Slinky cam!


----------



## LDS (Apr 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> Flexible camera lenses!



LensBaby already did something alike. Lenses able to change shape have been tested, but the issue is to find a material which has excellent optical characteristics, still able to change and maintain the required precision shape.

But new breakthrough could come from new ways of bending and focusing light, no longer using the classic convex/concave lens of today, nor their aspherical variants.


----------



## stevelee (May 1, 2018)

I'm still hoping to rent a TS lens for a week as a kind of "staycation" of taking pictures most of the week, and playing with the characteristics of the lens. I'm hoping to decide on a week before hot weather and I get busy with a college reunion and other stuff going on in June, so maybe a week in May or in the fall if I can't work that out.

I'm thinking in terms of the 24mm TS, but could be swayed toward the 17. The former might be easier to tame for someone completely inexperienced with TS like me. I have read the articles from links people on this board have shared with me, and will review before the rental. Thanks to those who answered my general questions a while back.

And there's nothing to preclude my renting a different one at a later date. Just coming up with a week that I would have enough time to make it worthwhile is more of a factor than the $125 or so. (That's cheaper than one hotel night on a non-stay-cation.) I'm retired, but rarely run out of things to do. I live in a college town, so things slow down after the students get busy with papers and exams in May.


----------

