# Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 16, 2017)

```
Over the last couple of months we have received a lot communication about a full frame Canon mirrorless camera. This sort of talk has come and gone every since Sony entered the segment with the a7 series of cameras.</p>
<p>Here’s a breakdown of what we’ve been told, please mind the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/">[CR1] rating</a>. Some of these talking points could be considered plausible.</p>
<ul>
<li>The goal is to announce a full frame mirrorless camera for Photokina 2018 which takes place in September of that year.</li>
<li>EF mount will be native</li>
<li>New exclusive image sensor for the camera.</li>
<li>New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application</li>
<li>There will be no new “dedicated” lenses, but mirrorless will be “considered in all future EF lens design”</li>
<li>4K video is considered a necessary feature in all full frame cameras going forward</li>
<li>One full frame mirrorless camera body to start</li>
<li>There is testing at Canon of a more hybrid approach between DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras. What that looks like we don’t know.</li>
</ul>
<p>We’ve received other information beyond what’s posted here, but most of it didn’t quite fit.</p>
<p>Some of this information can be backed up with some patents over the last 12-24 months and we have no doubt a full frame mirrorless camera from Canon is coming. However, we’ve always said EF lenses would have to work on the camera “natively” and that there won’t be another line of lenses developed for this application.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<p><em>image credit // mockup by Canon Rumors // Images used from <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/35mm-f14-ii.htm">KenRockwell.com</a> and <a href="https://en.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-Q/LEICA-Q">Leica</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## DannyPwins (May 16, 2017)

Can't wait


----------



## rrcphoto (May 16, 2017)

"New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application"

that wouldn't be required not including DPAF which already exists. unless they are making DPAF into QPAF for horizontal / vertical shooting.

this would only be required if you were going shorter than the EF mount.

"There is testing at Canon of a more hybrid approach between DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras. What that looks like we don’t know."

I'd have to assume the hybrid OVF / EVF approach?


----------



## brad-man (May 16, 2017)

The goal is to _announce_ a FF MILC in 16 months. Heady stuff indeed ;D


----------



## Sharlin (May 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> "New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application"
> 
> that wouldn't be required not including DPAF which already exists. unless they are making DPAF into QPAF for horizontal / vertical shooting.



Yeah, I'm guessing it's AF related. Canon may not be comfortable equipping their FF mirrorless with "just" a current-generation DPAF or an evolutionary upgrade thereof.


----------



## tr573 (May 16, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> this would only be required if you were going shorter than the EF mount.



That's what I immediately thought too. Some sort of lens in the sensor stack to reduce the FFD?


----------



## unfocused (May 16, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Over the last couple of months we have received a lot communication about a full frame Canon mirrorless camera....Here’s a breakdown of what we’ve been told...



Interesting. Some semi-random thoughts:



Canon Rumors said:


> The goal is to announce a full frame mirrorless camera for Photokina 2018...I wonder if this means the 7DIII will be announced earlier in 2018
> EF mount will be native. No surprise there.
> New exclusive image sensor for the camera.Exclusive at the time of release, or exclusive, as in it won't be used by other bodies? Given that this would arrive mid-life cycle for the 1D 5D and 6D and the 5Ds is by design an exclusive sensor, this could mean nothing, or it could mean something.
> New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application. Don't understand why it would require a new sensor technology.
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (May 16, 2017)

Eye AF-tracking Mr. Canon


----------



## dadohead (May 16, 2017)

Oh, there's so much disappointment ahead I can almost hear it from the future.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (May 16, 2017)

Hoping for...
No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
Detachable Hi-Res EVF
CFast + SD
Continuous raw buffering at 15 fps
High capacity battery


----------



## YuengLinger (May 16, 2017)

CR1 :


----------



## Bernard (May 16, 2017)

unfocused said:


> New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application. Don't understand why it would require a new sensor technology.



Maybe they are working on a faster sensor readout. Most mirrorless cameras are slow to update the display, which makes them useless for action.
They could also be working on a better way to clear the sensor. The current options are closing the shutter, clearing the sensor, and opening the shutter for the shot; or EFC which limits DR and creates other artifacts. Neither solution is optimal.


----------



## Jopa (May 16, 2017)

Not bad. Don't really care if it's mirrorless or not as long as it takes all my ef lenses and no worse than the pdaf-based Canons.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 16, 2017)

It takes at least two years for a design to be executed once the features have been frozen. Unless Canon has that new sensor developed to the point where they know it can be built, and will work, it will likely be 3 or more years away.

I'd certainly welcome the demise of the mirror, or even their hybrid approach as outlined in several patents. The hybrid mode gives the photographer choice of OVF in mirror mode, or EVF in mirrorless mode.

Getting high AF and tracking performance along with a decent view finder have been the big challenges. The cost to develop such a camera may result in a higher price.

Canon has pretty obviously been working on the issues, their recent patent to overcome problems with light loss near edges and corners with DPAF technology shows that.


----------



## tmroper (May 17, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Getting high AF and tracking performance along with a decent view finder have been the big challenges. The cost to develop such a camera may result in a higher price.



Canon's Cinema cameras have excellent EVFs, along with high AF and tracking performance. So they already have all the technology needed here. Like Sony (and Panasonic), they've been making cameras with EVFs for decades, and just need to commit to cramming it all into a tiny, mirrorless body.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 17, 2017)

Bernard said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application. Don't understand why it would require a new sensor technology.
> ...



Well, that's a good point.

Canon already has a global shutter sensor, maybe they are thinking of making that prime time.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 17, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> Over the last couple of months we have received a lot communication about a full frame Canon mirrorless camera. This sort of talk has come and gone every since Sony entered the segment with the a7 series of cameras.</p>
> <p>Here’s a breakdown of what we’ve been told, please mind the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-canon-rumors-rating-system-explained/">[CR1] rating</a>. Some of these talking points could be considered plausible.</p>
> <ul>
> <li>The goal is to announce a full frame mirrorless camera for Photokina 2018 which takes place in September of that year.</li>
> ...



actually the more I think about this. this sounds like the 120MP 5Ds/R replacement.

there's no reason that cannot and should not be mirrorless and the timing fits.


----------



## archiea (May 17, 2017)

Interesting news.

The faster reading sensor thingie makes sense. It definitely needed having used the Eos-M series cameras. It has epileptic seizure inducing a blackouts!

Here's another theory: taking a page from Leica's sensor, they are the only full frame camera with a short flange distance made possible with their sensor design incorporating micro lenses to accommodate the angle at which the light rays hits the sensor. It wasn't as much of an issue in film but digital sensors have that problems. 

some details here:
http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/02/23/3-detailed-reasons-not-to-switch-to-sony-full-frame-mirrorless-system/
http://briansmith.com/flange-focal-distance-guide/

This is why sony lenses are larger than their DSLR equivalent while the body is smaller. Sony just moved the flange distance to most lenses. 

I suspect Canon is developing such a system since it would be the only way for canon to fit EF lenses on a mirrorless body. I would guess the canon mirrorless body would probably be "thicker" than say the sony mirrorless to help alleviate this. 

In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to the thicker design since there still is no mirror, it should help with cooling & weather sealing, it would still be lighter still without the mirror. Perhaps they could shave a few millimeters from the film plane to the rear LCD. 

I would say that was the main obstacle for Canon: to create a mirrorless that can use the ef lens system natively.


----------



## justawriter (May 17, 2017)

Let the mirrorless fanboy fapping begin

Going to be a sticky couple of years 8)

(don't get me wrong, if the features/price ratio is favorable, I could very well be a buyer. But lack of a mirror alone won't be a deciding factor.)


----------



## Chaitanya (May 17, 2017)

Canon Rumors said:


> <li>4K video is considered a necessary feature in all full frame cameras going forward</li>




What about better codecs? what about implementing of faster storage interface? what about redundant storage implementation?


----------



## deleteme (May 17, 2017)

For all the speculation about speed and video and so on, I think that they may take this opportunity to play to the strengths of mirrorless and deliver a camera in the vein of the 5DSR.

RRC above noted the same.

This would leverage massive resolution, low vibration and advances in DR for a killer landscape, architectural, commercial camera. Not to mention that Canon sells a ton to amateurs who want all the latest trends. 

High speed, while nice, is irrelevant for the bulk of potential buyers. I would still expect snappy focus and responsive performance just not 20fps.


----------



## Maximilian (May 17, 2017)

Will be an interesting time if this becomes true. 
I already can hear those crying and gripe at Canon that are now shouting the loudest that Canon has to develop a FF ML:

DOA, because
too big
to expensive
feature "x" missing and without that the market acceptance will be zero
no dedicated lenses with short flange distance.
esp. "my" EF-x xxxmm/F1.2 in the size of the EF-M 22mm/F2 is missing
blablabla
 

The market, sales numbers and Canon profit will tell if it'll be DOA or a big success. 
My guess is that'll be the later. Maybe They'll need a second iteration like with the EOS M to make it right. 
But they should have learned from this.

About high speed:
Canon will be launching this new platform with a general purpose camera to reach as much customers as possible. Maybe high MP, so more studio and landscape oriented. but I am not sure about that.
High speed will come at least one or two bodies later.


----------



## pwp (May 17, 2017)

+IBIS...

-pw


----------



## M_S (May 17, 2017)

Since I like the ergonomics of the Mark3/4, I would like to see the follwoing:

Mark 4 Body and put an EVF in and the mirror out 
Rotating and tilting bright screen as in the G12
double CFast cards
new sensor in the 40 MP region
two batteries in. 
Get rid of the LCD screen on top and use an OLED like the Phase one 


Done. All existing Canon lenses could be used.


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass. 

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> 
> Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D



The move from FD to EF was essential to introduce AF - the pain was offset by long-term gain. No such extreme advantage exists with a move to mirrorless. Apart from to stop you whining (then again.... :-X).

Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy with all but the top range bodies. Even Sony with their much-praised adapters take a massive hit in performance then you use an adapter to fit a Canon lens. 

So where is the sense, again?


----------



## Maximilian (May 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


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


Hi Mikehit!

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter. 
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.

Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.

So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?


----------



## NorbR (May 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Even Sony with their much-praised adapters take a massive hit in performance then you use an adapter to fit a Canon lens.
> 
> So where is the sense, again?



Not really a fair comparison. Sony bodies, Canon lenses and Metabones (or Sigma) adapters are a combination of *three* items, all from different manufacturers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a Canon body with a Canon adapter and Canon lenses would work much more smoothly, right out of the box. 

I have to say, I really don't know which way Canon is going to go here ... I know what *I* would prefer, a straight EF mount, 6D-like body size, good grip, and no adapter. But I still feel that if I were making the decision as a Canon exec, I'd lean towards a new mount, shorter flange and an adapter for EF lenses. It seems more logical to me, you get the best of both worlds, you open the door to a larger range of bodies of all sizes, and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8) 

It wouldn't make me happiest, but it seems to make the most sense ... well, I'll wait and see.


----------



## addola (May 17, 2017)

Maximilian said:


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



I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance that light have to travel. Even if the teleconverter is glass-free, AF would still take a hit!

Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter. They cut the light that reach the sensor (among other things), which makes AF harder for the camera. I do realize that this is not only due to loss of light, but also due to the shallower DoF, but stack a few extension tubes or use a macro bellow & your frame will look darker in the viewfinder, making even manual focus harder (that, and the DoF gets ridiculously shallow as well). Basically, you will lose a few stops of light with these tubes. It could be the same problem with mirrorless cameras using AF adapters.

A full-frame mirrorless using EF mount lenses with the typical EOS focal flange distance is nothing to write home about. It's basically a permanently locked-up mirror Canon DSLR with EVF.

I don't think it is easy or even possible to do EF mount with shorter FFD. But who knows what magical tricks they might have? I believe that would require some glass element like the Speedbooster adapters, and I wouldn't be amazed if we gain a stop or two. The EF mount is larger in diameter than other 35mm format cameras, so it'd be interesting to see what they would do. 

On side note, sure Canon ditched the FD and move with a new mount with their EOS AF cameras. But I doubt they would invest into an another Mirrorless-only FF mount that goes parallel with their DSLR's EF mount. We all know how Canon fears cannibalizing their sales


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

NorbR said:


> ... and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)



exactly. 

Agree with the rest of your posting too, except I want a camera body *as small as possible+ to still be *fully functional*. To me that would be around Sony A7 (Mk. I) sizewise.


----------



## Maximilian (May 17, 2017)

addola said:


> I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance that light have to travel. Even if the teleconverter is glass-free, AF would still take a hit!
> 
> Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter. They cut the light that reach the sensor (among other things), which makes AF harder for the camera. I do realize that this is not only due to loss of light, but also due to the shallower DoF, but stack a few extension tubes or use a macro bellow & your frame will look darker in the viewfinder, making even manual focus harder (that, and the DoF gets ridiculously shallow as well). Basically, you will lose a few stops of light with these tubes. It could be the same problem with mirrorless cameras using AF adapters.
> ...


Hi addola! 

Either you made a such bad joke about optics that I missed the pointe or you should go back learning about optics and lens optical formula. 

Extension tubes are - physically - similar to flange distance adapters: no glass, just air, no electronics, just conduct the electrical signals from body to lens and back.
But they have a totally different influence on the optical formula of the lens in relationship to the image plane although both just alter the distance to the image plane.

An EF lens has an optical formula that is designed to create a certain image circle (about 43.3 mm and therefore an "image height" of about 21.65 mm in patents) on the image plane and therefore cover the full (FF) sensor area and deliver a certain amount of light on the sensor area, say 100%.
If you would place such a EF lens closer to the image plane, e.g. having a shorter flange distance like you have on a FF MILC you would modify that optical formula in a way that would make the image circle smaller and nor longer covering the full sensor. This will give you more light on that covered area (100% on a smaller area) but will also cause heavy vignetting (almost 0% light) on the outer area of the sensor. Additionally this could have other effects on the formula like the possible focus range. 
A flange distance adapter simply corrects this error in the optical formula by setting the distance to the image plane back to the correct value.
An extension tube (for macro) now does something into the opposite direction. It puts the optical formula further away from the image plane, making the image circle bigger. So you can attain a higher magnification (subject will be reproduced bigger on the image plane, good for macro) at the cost of a smaller amount of light (less than 100%)reaching the image sensor as well as lower DOF and reduced focus range - mostly heavily reduced.

And about the longer "distance that light have to travel", say 1 cm for calculation:
This will cause some additional 3,33 e-11 s or say some 33,3 picoseconds of traveling time. 
Effect on AF? Surely not! Especially as with a flange distance adapter the distance is now set back to "normal" again.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> 
> Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D




You (still) haven't explained why changing mounts would provide any real benefit to the camera system. For you to use the 1987 FD to EF change as an example you would have to give a reason for the switch (like AF back then). IF and ONLY IF you want to make a small, light camera system when using small primes and non-L style zooms a new mount is desireable (I would argue that the current M lineup provides this as the sacrifices in IQ you get with those lenses contradicts the reason most people want FF). As demonstrated by Sony, once you get into L style zooms or primes you lose the size and weight advantage, so the new mount provides no benefit and, depending on the mount, may negatively affect IQ with heavy vignettes etc. 

So I'll ask the same question I have before (and many others have as well). What advantages come with the new mount you want, aside from size and weight?

As a side point not directed to AvTvM, could the new dedicated sensor mentioned simply be the first stills implementation of a global shutter for Canon?


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more capable than today's most "powerful" DLSRs in a much smaller and lighter package. It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses. Provided of course, mount parameters are well chosen = not like Sony E-mount  

some people are also VERY confused about the type of adapter we are talking about here. It is NOT something like a teleconverter, but rather a very simple, very cheap "electrified extension tube". No glass inside, only air. Like the current Canon EF/EF-M mount adapter. 

Such an adapter by itself has NO IMPACT on AF performance. Any difference in AF behavior comes only from using lenses with AF drive and firmware *optimized for separate phase-detect AF* [as in DSLRs] on mirrorless cameras with a different AF-system: on-sensor PD-AF / DP-AF / Contrast-Detect AF or any sort of hybrid between these AF-methods. 

AF performance of EF lenses with STM AF drive should not be impacted by a simple extension-tube type mount adapter ... unless (deliberately?) caused by firmware ...


----------



## GHPhotography (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more capable than today's most "powerful" DLSRs in a much smaller and lighter package. It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses. Provided of course, mount parameters are well chosen = not like Sony E-mount
> 
> some people are also VERY confused about the type of adapter we are talking about here. It is NOT something like a teleconverter, but rather a very simple, very cheap "electrified extension tube". No glass inside, only air. Like the current Canon EF/EF-M mount adapter.
> 
> ...



So there is no benefit from a new mount, aside from size and mass. I'm not going to run down the entire list of reasons why smaller isn't always (or, IMO, ever in this case) better, but I'll give the standard few. Anything less than a 5d size body means cramming buttons onto the back or putting them all in digital menus, which sucks. It also makes it difficult to hold onto and use, especially when using larger lenses. Personally, I prefer the 1D size bodies, I always use battery grips on my other bodies because I want the extra grip/controls. I am also considerably larger than most people, so that may be just a personal thing. 

Compact bodies mean compact batteries, which means a few hundred shots or short video clips before swapping. it also means that heat is more difficult to dissipate, which leads to lock up (see Sony). Both of these are body killers for pros.

Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?


----------



## romanr74 (May 17, 2017)

addola said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens at the foreseen distance to the sensor.


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens works at the foreseen distance to the sensor.



true. but hairsplitting. ;D 

Technically such an adapter - like e.g. EF/EF-M adapter - is exactly an extension tube. Absolutely identical.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> 
> Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D



Canon at the time was not the leading camera company and was after Minolta did AF, sitting number 3. They needed something big.

Right now canon controls the market. 

Any more from Ef would be a huge disruption in the market and not in a good way.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> 
> Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D



+1, Some native f2 pancake style to keep small for certain jobs. An adapter for all EF glass still the main key for Canon.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 17, 2017)

EF could mean "EF-X."


----------



## romanr74 (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens works at the foreseen distance to the sensor.
> ...



Not hairsplitting at all. The effect on AF performance is completely different: Putting an extension tube between the lens and the camera moves the lens away from the foreseen working distance to the sensor, while the adaptor puts the lens on the foreseen working distance to the sensor. Hence the effects on AF performance are unlikely to be the same. This is what the discussion was about. Not whether they both consist of air...


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 17, 2017)

I'm gonna take a HUGE grain of salt with this rumor. Through the few years, I've learned that Canon may can their customer's expectations... just a little bit. Hoping for the best though. ;D


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses.



E-mount lenses vs Canon:

100mm f2.8 
Sony 85x118mm weight 700g
Canon 77x123 625g

85mm f1.8
Sony 78x82 371g
Cano 75x72 425g

24-70 f2.8
Sony 87x136 886g
Canon 88x113 805g



You were saying....?


----------



## CanonCams (May 17, 2017)

Hopefully this isn't in any relation to the MK II that some people are saying will be FF mirrorless. :-X


----------



## jolyonralph (May 17, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.



How many times is this nonsense going to be repeated?

Shorter flange distance only means more flexibility in lens design.

*YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT YOUR REAR ELEMENT BANG UP AGAINST THE SENSOR. * You can air-gap it to exactly the same distance it is on an EF lens if you really want to (eg some 3rd party FE mount lenses).

So. You can design compact lenses for those who want compact lenses (with potentially lower IQ as you suggest) AND you can design larger, heavier lenses with greater IQ and without any of these disadvantages you speak of. Look at the G lenses on FE for this for example.

And. Of course with an adaptor for EF lenses fitted other than the potential issues with how well the adaptor holds up to daily use there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE optically between the operation of the lens on the mirrorless and on an equivalent DSLR.

And wait! There's more!

The flexibility of a shorter flange distance means you can add all sorts of fun adaptors in the way. Want an autofocus adaptor for Nikon lenses? It's possible! Tilt/shift adaptors for EF lenses? It's possible!

Please... stop with this mirrorless = lower IQ nonsense right now.


----------



## unfocused (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> NorbR said:
> 
> 
> > ... and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)
> ...



More like, exactly wrong. 

That's not the way successful companies think. Canon has a base of users already committed to their existing lens mount. Releasing a camera that doesn't use the existing mount, but requires the purchase of new lenses to mount on the camera without an adapter just releases all those existing customers to go shopping for any brand of camera they choose. 

While most will still choose Canon, there will be some loss and it's an unnecessary risk for the company. They will compare the two choices and pick the one that will net them the most sales. Given the very small advantages that a new mount might offer to a full frame option, it's clear the better choice is to keep all their existing customers happy by using the existing mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> > Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
> 
> 
> Hi Mikehit!
> ...



The exact nature of the problem using the EF mount adapter and why there's a performance hit is not clear to me, either...but what is clear is that such a performance hit does exist. It seems very unlikely that Canon would find that performance hit desirable, therefore there must be some problem they were unable to solve. What makes you so sure they could solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for a FF sensor, when they could not solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for an APS-C sensor?

Following that logic, do you believe Canon would release FF MILC bodies – a higher end product, with a generally more demanding and discerning customer base – with a known performance hit for users with a collection of EF lenses who switch to a FF MILC?


----------



## jedy (May 17, 2017)

A welcome step in the right direction. I don't have any grand illusions a first attempt Canon FF mirrorless will be the camera to beat all cameras like some people think. Sony have made vast improvements but we're still some way off from a true SLR replacement and Sony have a big head start on Canon (just not with lenses). I also think it will be very expensive - the apsc Canon M5 is extremely expensive for what it is. Still though, this is great news and we will see som genuine FF mirrorless competition at last.


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> You were saying....?



I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount 

Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow. 

So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 17, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> GHPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.
> ...



If you are arguing that mirrorless means smaller size then you absolutely must put the elements up to the sensor. Air gapping the elements is the same thing as putting an adapter on there, which kills the entire point of a new mount. I wasn't arguing that mirrorless means lower IQ or that you had to put it there, i was arguing that if you state the purpose of a new mount is to create a smaller, lighter, more compact system, you will lose IQ in the process. 

To your point about "fun" adapters, canon would never make an adapter that allows you to mount Nikon glass, that would hurt their bottom line. Tilt-Shift adapters are interesting, but they'd provide a minimal effect or add optical elements, which would change IQ. 

To restate- my argument about reduced IQ was ONLY in regard to making a small and lightweight system.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > You were saying....?
> ...



Please provide examples of a flange distance and existing lenses/lens designs that achieve this. If you can then you have an argument. If you can't then you have a hope and a dream.


----------



## hmatthes (May 17, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Hoping for...
> No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
> Detachable Hi-Res EVF
> CFast + SD
> ...


*PLEASE! No "detachable" EVF* -- Professional cameras should not rely on any detachable accessories. The EVF is part & parcel of a mirrorless. The two full frame Leica EVF cameras (SL & Q) are the best EVFs anywhere, case closed.
Let's have better weather sealing. Let's not have dongles to drop in the stream while wading across. The EVF, not the back panel, is the command center of these cameras.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 17, 2017)

hmatthes said:


> *PLEASE! No "detachable" EVF*



I used to agree with you, until I got the EOS M5 and realised that the viewfinder in there wasn't anywhere close as useable and flexible as the detachable one from the M3.


----------



## [email protected] (May 17, 2017)

KeithBreazeal said:


> Hoping for...
> No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
> Detachable Hi-Res EVF
> CFast + SD
> ...



GPS
WiFi
30+MP resolution
If SD due to smaller footprint, UHS-II


----------



## AvTvM (May 17, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> Please provide examples of a flange distance and existing lenses/lens designs that achieve this. If you can then you have an argument. If you can't then you have a hope and a dream.



Leica M. ;D

Other than that there are no examples, since currently Sony has the only mirrorless FF system on the market. So you are asking me the sort of "proof", the Spanish inquisition demanded from their delinquents. 

Looking at existing lens mounts my *wild guess* for well chosen FF mirrorless native mount parameters would be around
* FFD: 22 mm to maybe 24 mm [= about half of EF mount @ 44 mm] 
combined with a "generously large" 
* Throat (clear width) 50mm to 54mm [= similar or same as EF @ 54mm]

but I'd be happy to take whatever Canon chooses, as long as it gives me compact AND good camera and lens options. Of course they can also produce LARGE cameras and LARGE lenses for those with large hands or who generally prefer things TEXAS-size. ;D


----------



## douglaurent (May 17, 2017)

Specs and timetable are absolutely realistic - unfortunately. As Canon will release a crippled down camera for the start to protect their DSLR, cinema and camcorder business, this means it takes at least until the second generation in the year 2020, until we see a Canon camera that might have the dozens of nice Sony features included. 

And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?


----------



## sanj (May 17, 2017)

CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.


----------



## ecka (May 17, 2017)

This whole Canon FF mirrorless situation is hopeless ... they don't want our money.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> What Canon advantage is left by then?



Reputation. Service. In the US, mutliple company service centers vs. one contracted 3rd party service vendor. Much larger consumer user base. Far larger and more varied OEM lens selection. Popularity. A much larger professional user base. Extremely unlikey that they'll just abandon the market.


----------



## ecka (May 17, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > You were saying....?
> ...



OK, then show us a good example, please.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 17, 2017)

As I recalled, few years back. We have numbers of well respected CR members mentioned it's impossible to design UWA for FF mirrorless. As an owner of both 2470GM + 70200GM, IQ is excellent. I hope these latest UWA will have same results as first two.

My wish list still: FE135f2 and/or FE200f2


----------



## Dylan777 (May 17, 2017)

sanj said:


> CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.



Visited your site, good stuffs you got there


----------



## Fleetie (May 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > > Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
> ...


Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?

Don't I remember hearing that when you attach a big white lens to a 1DX, then the latter can drive the AF system faster, because of the increased power available? I read something similar to that. Could this be the same issue?

That said, I'm not sure what batteries the Rebels and the xxD cameras use, as I've only ever had a 7D and a 5D3.


----------



## addola (May 17, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> addola said:
> 
> 
> > I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance
> ...



Ahhh, did you just tell me to "go back to learn optical formulas" then proceeded to use the comma & decimal interchangeably? Ha! Correct me if I am wrong, and I'll be happy I learned something. But first you need to understand what I am talking about:

I was not talking about optical formulas. I was explaining why a teleconverter would cause loss of light regardless of how well designed is the glass elements in it due to the added distance, and that in turn effects the cameras ability to AF.

The way you compute light loss is not correct. Maybe using the term "distance light travels" is inaccurate description to what I meant. To compute the new effective f-number due to this change, we have to understand that it's the ratio of focal length to aperture diameter, and this new f-number will be lower because the new focal length is the original + extensions. 
Let:

*e* = extension tube in mm
*f* = focal length used 
*amax* = max aperture of the lens at that focal length 
We want to find the effective f-number of using *e* mm extension tubes, let's call is *aeffective* which is computed (or estimated) by:

aeffective = (f + e) / ( f / amax)

I get this formula by combining two equations:
amax = f / D where D is diameter of exit pupil in original setup and
aeffective = (f + e) / D ration of new focal length to the same pupil

So D = f/amax and we can substitute that in Eq 2

_*Correct me if I am wrong with the formulas above*_

So when you say that when 1cm (10mm) is used that the loss of light would have an insignificant effect on AF I urge you to look at Canon cameras specification.

For example, a 100mm f/2.8 camera with a 10mm tube would lose about 1/3 of a stop, as the effective f-number would become ~3.0, if you think this doesn't have any effect on AF, then look at camera specs. Beyond f/2.8, the 6D's center point will lose it's vertical sensitivity, and the 5D Mark 4's Dual Crosstype AF points will lose their left diagonal/right diagonal. The 6D would lose most AF functions beyond f/5.6 (I believe only a single center point can be used at f/8). Canon's extension tubes & teleconverters are longer than just 1cm. 

On shorter focal length, the effect would be greater, as a 24-70 f/2.8 at 24mm would effectively lose almost one complete stop, as the effective f-number would be f/3.9

An FFD adapter simply allows you to achieve infinity focus. It does not adjust the optical formula of the lens per se, but rather project it as you mentioned. You are simply pushing the lens further so that the image is projected on the sensor "as intended" by its optical formula, which is to focus from infinity to minimum focus distance. Pushing it any further will add the extension tube effects: reducing MFD, loss of infinity focus, and loss of some light. 


If the FFD is shorter than the correct one, it's as you said: vignetting presented as dark corners. It is not almost 0%, it is exactly 0% since light travel in straight lines. This is "kind of" like what happens with Nikon DX lenses on FX bodies. Have you ever wondered why vignetting is prevalent in FF & not APS-C cameras? and why is it only in the corner & not center? Of course light takes "longer" to reach the corners, and I have seen lenses with vignetting as low as -3 EV!

But what about infinity focus? I actually never thought about that before. If you have ideas, share them! 

So what I am saying is, a Canon EF lens on a CR1 rumored FF mirrorless would have to have the same FFD as the EOS bodies. Otherwise, the effective focal length would be different. I don't know what that would cause beyond the vignetting. Maybe their "new" sensor technology involves glass elements, layered sensor or something. I don't know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
> 
> Don't I remember hearing that when you attach a big white lens to a 1DX, then the latter can drive the AF system faster, because of the increased power available? I read something similar to that. Could this be the same issue?
> 
> That said, I'm not sure what batteries the Rebels and the xxD cameras use, as I've only ever had a 7D and a 5D3.



I don't think so. The AF drive difference is because the 1-series batteries output 11.1V, whereas the non-1-series dSLR batteries output 7.2V, regardless of capacity. As for the M-series using a smaller battery, my EOS M/M2 as well as the current M5/M6 use the LP-E17, and that's the same battery used by the T6i/s, T7i, and 77D bodies.


----------



## Fleetie (May 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
> ...


I just wonder whether the LP-E17 batteries "sag" more under load than the larger batteries of the 7F, 5D series cameras. 


Or, perhaps the M-series bodies even *restrict* the current flow out of the camera bodies, to the EF lenses, to preserve battery life, at the expense of AF speed. Perhaps the EF lenses will gobble as much power as they can, left to their own devices. Perhaps restricting current out to the EF lenses was considered necessary. "You can have 7V at 0.5A, but you're not having 1A of it. Easy, tiger!"


I mean, what else could it be? The EF-M -> EF adaptor is just plastic/metal, air and straight-through electrical contacts. *Unless* there are electronics in the adaptor that we don't know about (seems unlikely), then it pretty much has to be either a power issue, or a firmware issue, if the camera or lens "knows" that the adaptor is there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2017)

Fleetie said:


> I mean, what else could it be? The EF-M -> EF adaptor is just plastic/metal, air and straight-through electrical contacts. *Unless* there are electronics in the adaptor that we don't know about (seems unlikely), then it pretty much has to be either a power issue, or a firmware issue, if the camera or lens "knows" that the adaptor is there.



A firmware issue (more of a decision by Canon engineers, actually) seems most likely. When you mount a 1.4x TC, AF slows by 50% relative to the bare lens, and when you mount a 2x TC, it slows by 75%. They slow it down on purpose to improve accuracy. No idea what the technical reason is for the EF mount adapter, but I assume there must be one.


----------



## Mikehit (May 17, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?



And how many times are you gong to spout this garbage about it being Canon's responsibility to produce a speedbooster so you can fit third party lenses onto their cameras?
If this is your idea of good marketing strategy you are a conceptual retard whose opinions are merely a wishlist of what you want. If Canon followed your suggestions they would go bust.


----------



## Maximilian (May 17, 2017)

Addola, it seems I hit a nerv. Really sorry, if I did so. But I was reading your reply thrice before I decided it was neccessary to answer.



addola said:


> Ahhh, did you just tell me to "go back to learn optical formulas" then proceeded to use the comma & decimal interchangeably?



If the use of comma was the only error you could find in my explaination, then you really had to dug in deep. 
I am German, to for me the comma is standard. As this is a American forum I tried to adapt, but this sometimes ends in a mixture. 
So please don't tell me how to use my SI system but show some more tollerance. 



> Ha! Correct me if I am wrong, and I'll be happy I learned something. But first you need to understand what I am talking about:
> 
> I was not talking about optical formulas. I was explaining why a teleconverter would cause loss of light regardless of how well designed is the glass elements in it due to the added distance, and that in turn effects the cameras ability to AF.



Sorry, but you were not talking about teleconverters but about this:


addola said:


> Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter.


And as you were talking about extension tubes as I quoted above the rest was wrong.

If you meant something else it is now not about accusing me beeing smart-aleckand and patronizing you 
but you should look at your post and say "Sorry, you didn't understand me right. Please let me point that out."



> The way you compute light loss is not correct.


I didn't compute anything but the transit time of light through 1 cm. I said that a flange distance adapter is not making any change to the basic optical formula and therefore to the basic setting. So if this would affect anything like AF I'd be really surprised. 



addola said:


> ...
> _*Correct me if I am wrong with the formulas above*_


I don't want to because I don't need to. 
The calculations refer to a situation I was not refering to (extension tube vs. adapter).
But seeing the rest of your calculations make me apologize that I seem to have assumed something wrong.

But your basic statement was not correct and therefore my choice was to put it right.

So hopefully you can agree to the fact that your initial post was ambiguous as far as I can agree to the fact that I did simplify the use and optical effects of an extension tube because I thought it was enough at that point.


----------



## Maximilian (May 17, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > I mean, what else could it be? The EF-M -> EF adaptor is just plastic/metal, air and straight-through electrical contacts. *Unless* there are electronics in the adaptor that we don't know about (seems unlikely), then it pretty much has to be either a power issue, or a firmware issue, if the camera or lens "knows" that the adaptor is there.
> ...


Comming back here into the discussion and your question, Neuro, about what's the reason for the performance hit and what Canon could do against it, of course I can only make a guess, as I am not in their dev. department.
My guess is similar to what is mentioned above that it has to do with phase detection AF (DSLR) vs. contrast AF (MILC) and that DSLRs + EF/EF-S are better designed for phase detection AF and that switching to contrast AF gives the punch to the AF performance.
As I have no data it is a pure guess. And Canon could work against that by increasing the performance of technologies like DPAF. But this was also mentioned already above.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?
> ...



Unfortunately for you I never demanded or expected that Canon will introduce a Speedbooster, as of course it's technically impossible. But it's a 100% true and clear disadvantage for Canon and a fact that is worth mentioning once every 4 month. Like temporary disadvantages of Sony which are mentioned here 10 times a day by others.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > What Canon advantage is left by then?
> ...



Yeah, but all these points don't actively help when you're a working Canon photographer or filmmaker out in the field in the coming 1000 days, and are not able to use 20+ relevant workflow features of a Sony mirrorless camera (starting most obviously with an electronic viewfinder that lets you see the actual exposure right away, focus peaking helps, the video image and the playback of photos and videos).

Canon's (and Nikon's) reputation, popularity and service seem to be going downhill, and Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are going the other direction. Give 100 pros or amateurs a 1DX2, 5D4+Grip, A9 and A7R2+Grip for a week, and then let them say which workflow they did like more (visual results would hardly look much different).


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and SonyAlphaRumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010. 

The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.

If something good can be done better, it had to be said.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Canon's (and Nikon's) reputation, popularity and service seem to be going downhill, and Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are going the other direction.



Your evidence for Canon's popularity going downhill is what? Their rising market share? Oh, that's right...it's your opinion, which is shared by 50 of your close friends and colleagues. Yeah. :


----------



## Ryananthony (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
> 
> The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
> 
> If something good can be done better, it had to be said.



What about viewing the forum on mobile is nearly unreadable? Using Chrome on my Android, it converts perfectly to my phone. For me it is 100% mobile friendly. Sounds like you are misunderstood about the ''6d'' label under your name. As your posts rise, that ''6d'' will change to higher end cameras, and I believe lenses. If you want to show off your cameras, you can use your signature like many others have done. I support the addition of a third wheel to Canon cameras.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Other than that there are no examples, since currently Sony has the only mirrorless FF system on the market. So you are asking me the sort of "proof", the Spanish inquisition demanded from their delinquents.



So, again (I went through this with you a while ago), you want us to accept your word that this is possible, when everyone building mirrorless cameras doesn't do it? Forget the proof demanded by the Spanish Inquisition, you're insisting the sun orbits the Earth despite all evidence to the contrary.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
> 
> The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
> 
> If something good can be done better, it had to be said.



Serious question: Why are you still shooting Canon and hanging out on this forum? It sounds like you'd be happier with a Sony and on those forums. So, why are you still here with "inferior" cameras and forum software? Is there something missing from the Sony paradise, maybe?


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
> 
> The Sony forum, like the cameras, feels like it's 2017. While the Sony mirrorless cameras have lots of refreshing and important features like a third wheel for ISO, the Sony rumors website has lots more little refreshing and important infos about their brand's products.
> 
> If something good can be done better, it had to be said.



And yet, just as Canon dominates its market, Canon Rumors dominates in its market. Perhaps that's because appearances are far less important than the actual quality of the product.


----------



## weixing (May 18, 2017)

Hi,


neuroanatomist said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Could it just be that when you attach an EF (or EF-S) lens to a M-series camera, with its smaller battery, then the latter can't deliver the power to drive the AF system in the lens as quickly as the larger non-M cameras can?
> ...


 May be current dual pixel technology is still not as fast?? Base on my experience, my M5 + EF to EF-M adapter + EF lens focusing speed is at least if not slightly faster than my 7D2 live view + EF lens.

Have a nice day.


----------



## sanj (May 18, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.
> ...



Thank you sir. Need to revise it desperate...


----------



## pokerz (May 18, 2017)

Bernard said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > New sensor technology required for the EF mount in a mirrorless application. Don't understand why it would require a new sensor technology.
> ...



That's why Canon needs a blackout free EVF


----------



## Antono Refa (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Speed booster is possible only if the lens' power of coverage is greater than the camera's sensor, so the Sony a9 (or whichever Sony FF camera) would have no advantage, in this respect, over a Canon full frame mirrorless.

As for adapters, if the flange distance & diameter allow it, and demand exists for it, some third party manufacturer(s) would make it.


----------



## ewg963 (May 18, 2017)

Great plan Canon you already a great line up of glass which I own quite a bit of... I can't wait!!!              ... but it's a CR1 drat!!!!!! :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(


----------



## lightthief (May 18, 2017)

M_S said:


> Since I like the ergonomics of the Mark3/4, I would like to see the follwoing:
> 
> Mark 4 Body and put an EVF in and the mirror out



Which Mark 4 do you mean?
This one is not portable (at least for me) ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank
... and this one, smaller but still not portable, has no mirror to remove.
http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceout.gif
???


----------



## MayaTlab (May 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > > Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
> ...



It might not be related to the adapter, but to the AF motor used in most EF lenses. So far most if not nearly all lenses designed for mirrorless cameras use AF drive approaches that are significantly different from DSLR PDAF cameras.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's (and Nikon's) reputation, popularity and service seem to be going downhill, and Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are going the other direction.
> ...



...or what you can read in worldwide photo forums, or hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere. Because it's not a subjective feeling, it's based on the specs and features of existing camera models, and clearly visible different speeds of innovation between Canon/Nikon and Sony/Panasonic/Olympus.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

Ryananthony said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
> ...



Using the built in web browser of always the latest Samsung smartphone, the text of this forum is too small or too wide. 

Who the hell should understand that "6D" concept without knowing? 

Funny that this forum - automatically or manually - does xxx out the correct name of the Sony forum I mentioned. Don't think it will ever happen when I write "Canonrumors" in the Sony forum. That's another example for typical artificial Canon limitation style.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Strangely, the feel of a Canon DSLR and a Sony mirrorless camera is pretty similar to the use of CanonRumors and ++++++++Rumors: CanonRumors for example is nearly unreadable on cell phones and does not allow me to change the stupid public "6D" user info I never added - it feels very much like 2010.
> ...



I own nearly complete pro camera and lens lineups of all brands, as I also rent out stuff. And I use all systems daily, which is why I can compare and recognize the differences. Traditionally I would always use Canon first, but it's frustrating when you experience the many unnecessary limitations and missing features of their products.

And I also wrote many times that this whole forum is about NEW Canon product developments. So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.


----------



## douglaurent (May 18, 2017)

Speed booster is possible only if the lens' power of coverage is greater than the camera's sensor, so the Sony a9 (or whichever Sony FF camera) would have no advantage, in this respect, over a Canon full frame mirrorless.

As for adapters, if the flange distance & diameter allow it, and demand exists for it, some third party manufacturer(s) would make it.
[/quote]

4K video can be recorded in crop mode and is even better then, which means lots of Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Tamron full frame lenses would work great on a Sony A9 as well. On a Sony A7R2 you nearly have 20MP photos with a speedbooster.


----------



## Orangutan (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.



This is the core of your misunderstanding: *NO ONE *here that I'm aware of is unwilling to talk about improvements we'd like to see in Canon products. The problem is that some folks, such as yourself, phrase these discussions in apocalyptic terms, such as _Canon is destined to fail if they don't ______ very soon, because Sony will crush them._" 

The problem is your hyperbole.

What we know from history is that Canon has been very skilled (as a business). They've come into new markets as they have needed to (from the business perspective). Based on history, and based on the interviews with executives, they're very much aware of the changes happening in the market, and are simply waiting for the best (i.e. most profitable) time to act.

Feel free to discuss and compare features

Please discontinue the apocalyptic hyperbole


----------



## romanr74 (May 18, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> [...] and are simply waiting for the best (i.e. most profitable) time to act.



You might be right. And I hope you're right. I would hate to find out at some stage that they just missed the bus. Am I certain this is not the case? Probably not.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> I own nearly complete pro camera and lens lineups of all brands, as I also rent out stuff. And I use all systems daily, which is why I can compare and recognize the differences. Traditionally I would always use Canon first, but it's frustrating when you experience the many unnecessary limitations and missing features of their products.
> 
> And I also wrote many times that this whole forum is about NEW Canon product developments. So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.



Good for you. However, if you don't like the site, and find Canon products frustrating, why not sell them off and use the others you prefer? You still didn't answer the question.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> ...or what you can read in worldwide photo forums, or hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere. Because it's not a subjective feeling, it's based on the specs and features of existing camera models, and clearly visible different speeds of innovation between Canon/Nikon and Sony/Panasonic/Olympus.



How exactly is that more meaningful than actual sales data?


----------



## romanr74 (May 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ...or what you can read in worldwide photo forums, or hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere. Because it's not a subjective feeling, it's based on the specs and features of existing camera models, and clearly visible different speeds of innovation between Canon/Nikon and Sony/Panasonic/Olympus.
> ...



I don't think there is sales data publicly available which is meaningful enough for this discussion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



The specs are not subjective, but what you 'hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere' is absolutely subjective...and when they go out and buy Canon anyway, what you hear becomes irrelevant. Auto shows are full of discussions about Lambroghinis and Ferraris, and about the innovative concept cars from Lexus and Infinity. But most those folks talking about them get into their Toyota sedans and Ford SUVs to drive home.

Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



How is the sales data of Canon vs Sony not meaningful enough? How is the marketshare of DSLRs vs ML not meaningful enough? They get posted here quite regularly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



For some people, data are only meaningful if they support one's preconcieved opinions.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2017)

This discussion is starting to make me miss Dilbert.


----------



## romanr74 (May 18, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 18, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.



Spoiler alert: it's Canon all the way down.


----------



## Mikehit (May 18, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.



Product groups - I believe Canon leads sales in DSLR and mirrorless. How narrowly do you want so split that? Sony would win the FF mirrorless only because they are about the only company making them. If they are a minority in the APS-C mirrorless the only conclusion you can draw is that people prefer to buy DSLR APS-C

performance level - this is ambiguous. What use is a high-performance product if people don't like the size/shape/colour/after sales service...etc What is the use of making the world's best medicine if people hate the taste?

Form factor - what has that got to do with it? What use is the best designed camera if it only has a crap sensor?

Life cycle: is Sony's rapid life cycle better than Canon's slow one? They sure have hacked off many a user who feels cheated by being made to buy a sub-standard product 12 months later

Sales is a measure of all those aspects *as a whole package*. The backers of Betamax where whining the same thing 30 years ago and ended up losing to a technically inferior product. Oh look...Sony made Betamax as well....
The problem is sales is an indicator if you got it right _after the event_. Taking short-term sales figures as 'proof' can be as dangerous as relying on them to justify complacency. One thing with Sony is you can say 'they have got exciting products' but what you cannot do is look at Sony and say 'they know how to do it in the long term'.
On the other hand, you can say is 'Canon know how to do it in the long term' and that they are developing mirrorless at a slower pace - and they have closed the gap significantly in the last 2 years. The key question is 'when mirrorless really takes a big share of the DSLR-style market in 3-4 years (?) will they have advanced enough to keep their pre-eminence'.

people like douglaurent seem to be saying 'No'. others are more relaxed about it


----------



## romanr74 (May 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.
> ...



I'm not arguing if Canon is doing right or wrong. I'm saying that if you want to assess if individual spec decisions are right or wrong, you have to look at how any given product sells in various channels and to various customer groups (e.g. sports, studio/fashion, film-makers, hobbyist, etc.). You also want to see how a given individual product's sale ramps up and how fast it flattens after the market introduction (life cycle). You want to understand how early you have to run promotions and to what extent. You look at product segments (performance levels, form factors, product groups) and market segments (sales channels, consumer groups) to fine-tune your strategy and decisions. This gives you meaningful and timely data - certainly much more meaningful than a total sales number.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.



In 2006, Sony entered the dSLR market. Between 2006 and 2010, they launched a variety of APS-C and FF dSLRs. All of the components of what goes into sales numbers and market share are interesting from an academic standpoint, but ultimately irrelevant from a practical standpoint. In total sales numbers, Sony's dSLRs could not compete with Canon and Nikon – the relevant stakeholders spoke loud and clear. Sony gave up, and abandoned the dSLR market in 2010. Is that meaningful enough to understand?

Incidentally, you can bet that Canon et al. do have that line- and model-specific data, and that drives their decisions on features that are included or excluded. We don't have access to the data, but we can see the aggregated results of those decisions over time...that's market share, i.e. how consumers vote with their wallets. Canon owns close to 50% of the ILC (dSLR + MILC) market. The conclusion regarding who is making the best decisions across those factors and many others is obvious.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> On the other hand, you can say is 'Canon know how to do it in the long term' and that they are developing mirrorless at a slower pace - and they have closed the gap significantly in the last 2 years. The key question is 'when mirrorless really takes a big share of the DSLR-style market in 3-4 years (?) will they have advanced enough to keep their pre-eminence'.
> 
> people like douglaurent seem to be saying 'No'. others are more relaxed about it



I agree with everything you said, I would just add a caveat to this paragraph- The key question is WHEN/IF mirrorless really takes a big share. For your average consumer canon's M line is just as capable as the Rebel series. Why then are DSLR sales still massively greater than mirrorless? Sometimes a better/rival technology comes along and competes with what is currently sold instead of replacing it. 

Case in point- Blu-Ray disks should have made DVDs obsolete; Blu-Ray players and disks are competitive in price and offer several benefits to DVD, but DVDs are still made and sold at comparable numbers. The real question is do average consumers see the difference between DSLRs and MILCs, or are they really just two options capable of upgrading the camera phone that most people are now using (phones are basically Netflix in the disk comparison). 

Canon has a responsibility to its shareholders and to its corporate health to follow the sales trends, not just the new tech trends. Until MILCs represent a real threat to DSLRs Canon, as a company, has to focus on what makes them the most money AND what advances their chances of keeping future market share. I would say that they are doing that admirably, and sales numbers would agree with me.


----------



## romanr74 (May 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.
> ...



I'm perfectly fine if you look at it that way.


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2017)

I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....

We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....


----------



## BillB (May 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....
> 
> We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....



True enough, but a mirrorless FF camera with the specs contained in the OP would seem to be aimed at a pretty knowledgeable niche in the overall consumer base.


----------



## canonographer (May 18, 2017)

I'd love to come back to Canon for a number of reasons, but until they can provide an enthusiast level camera with the following, I gotta stick with the Sony.

- EVF functionality (this provides the biggest advantage over my 6D)
- In body image stabilization
- Sensor dynamic range that matches Sony's for the price paid
- Electronic shutter capability

For the record, here are the areas where I think Canon wins, and why I might yet come back to Canon.

- Cost and selection of lenses
- Build quality and ergonomics of both cameras and lenses
- More intuitive menus
- PDAF
- Color rendering
- Battery life

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 18, 2017)

canonographer said:


> Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.



Except for the sales and market share gaps.


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.
> ...


And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......


----------



## PHOTOPROROCKIES (May 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



The only thing Canon currently has that Sony doesn't in the flash line are macro flash units...


----------



## canonographer (May 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2017)

canonographer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



And anyone who grew up with a 4x5 also laments the lack of a tilt/shift senor plane , but the Canon T/S lenses are a close second........


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2017)

canonographer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



For any professional, service is a big deal! To be able to send a lens or camera in for calibration or repair and get it back quickly is a make or break proposition..... I can't afford to have kit missing for months!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...





Just use a geared head and move the camera! But in all seriousness, as tilt angle is directly related to focal length and not equivalent focal length, the shorter lenses needed for 135 format don't offer the flexibility standards cameras do. And don't mention the issues retrofocal tilt lenses add to the complications.


----------



## Don Haines (May 18, 2017)

canonographer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



OVF vs EVF?

For landscape and especially Astrophotography, I prefer the EVF......
For action I prefer the OVF.....
For everything else I am ambivalent.......

I expect Canon to release a FF mirrorless soon, but I expect it to be 5D sized with decent controls.....

I will undoubtedly continue on from that point with a mirrored DSLR plus a mirrorless.... each has advantages that I do not wish to give up.....


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 19, 2017)

No interest in a FFMirrorless camera that uses EF lenses.

EOS killed the FD lens, and Canon sold EF lenses to the faithful, and all the new Nikon converts.

Maybe the EFMirrorless will drive the 5D3 price down  That would be a good thing.


----------



## canonographer (May 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.

Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



You are both being ridiculous. Expecting any lens or camera to be the answer to great pictures is just ridiculous. That's like thinking a golf club can make you into Tiger Woods. You don't need Zeiss lenses... you don't need tilt-shift lenses...you don't need in-camera stabilization...you don't need live view...you need talent and vision.

This thread passed into an alternate universe several days ago. Everybody needs to take a deep breath. When and if a mirrorless camera comes, it isn't going to make anyone a better photographer.


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.



I use a 90mm T&S for product photography. I guess I'm doing it wrong  Please don't tell my paying clients 



> Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.



Internet forums prove the the old axiom that there are more horses asses than there are horses  Thanks for pointing that out—sometimes I forget


----------



## c.d.embrey (May 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> This thread passed into an alternate universe several days ago.


Welcome to the internet  Where the absurd is the normal state of things. 



> When and if a mirrorless camera comes, it isn't going to make anyone a better photographer.



But the multitude thinks it does. And for many perception equals reality


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



 I was just being provocative, deliberately...

The implication seemed to be that because the poster didn't see a lens gap there wasn't one, which is patently not true.

As for the 11-24, I own one, and the 17TS-E and for detailed landscapes the two don't compare, the TS-E's are in a different league. Now whether an individual 'needs' that extra detail or not is a decent thing to have a discussion about but the statement _"there are no lens gaps anymore, none,"_ is asinine.


----------



## 100 (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.



Why is an EVF a game changer for landscape? 
Without live view it might be, but all modern DSLR’s have live view.


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> You are both being ridiculous. Expecting any lens or camera to be the answer to great pictures is just ridiculous. That's like thinking a golf club can make you into Tiger Woods. You don't need Zeiss lenses... you don't need tilt-shift lenses...you don't need in-camera stabilization...you don't need live view...you need talent and vision.



Everything has to be in balance, but upgrading any part of the essential trio (skills, lens, camera) will result in better pictures overall..... Since this is a gear forum, we do tend to obsess on gear, but I think that most of us would rank skills as far more important than the camera or lens.... 

As to "upgrading" camera and lens.... it is not always so and depends a lot on what you are after... If you are out shooting a soccer game in the afternoon, an 80D will outperform a 6D, but when the sun goes down and you want to take a picture of the milky way, the 6D outperforms the 80D..... and this is just one of the reasons many of us have multiple bodies....


----------



## gmrza (May 19, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?



This is possibly one of the bigger issues with a shorter flange distance: the illumination of the sensor is from a much more oblique angle. This creates problems in itself with lenses being harder to design while still giving a good image, but also results in significant peripheral illumination fall-off. This is actually already a problem with the EF mount with very fast lenses (think f/1.2).
While Canon may be able to address the illumination issues by developing sensors that can accept light from oblique angles, the cost of building high quality lenses to work with a shorter flange distance may be higher than customers are willing to accept.

A small full frame camera only makes sense in a limited context, as you have pointed out, where you are using focal lengths that are not too long and not too short (possibly somewhere like 50mm to 135mm if you look at the traditional range-finder segment). For most professional photography, for instance, the format of the current EOS bodies probably provides the best ergonomics, so having a mirrorless body is almost academic. While it is a technology of the future, Canon has to satisfy its customer base of professionals, first and foremost.
We need to think about it for a moment: the 1DX / 1DXII are the size they are because that presents the best ergonomics. Canon probably could fit all of the features of the 1DXII into a body the size of a 5DIV (except for battery life), but doesn't because that is not what its customers are looking for.


----------



## canonographer (May 19, 2017)

100 said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
> ...



Focus peaking, exposure zebras, histograms, levels, etc.


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.



May I know why EVF is preferred to OVF for landscape photography? I have not shot landscape in a while because I have a young kid, but I always thought EVF is not good for astrophotography and night landscapes.

Appreciate if you can provide some insight here 'cos I am debating if it's worth keeping my OVF stuff.


----------



## pokerz (May 19, 2017)

Woody said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
> ...



If OVF is better in low night, why astrophotography needs MF with Liveview (EVF) ?


----------



## pokerz (May 19, 2017)

gmrza said:


> GHPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?
> ...


the FACT is that shorter flange distance + extension on len (when required) = longer flange distance
long flange distance = long flange distance


best ergonomics? so what is the best colour? what is the best temperature? what is the best height?


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

pokerz said:


> If OVF is better in low night, why astrophotography needs MF with Liveview (EVF) ?



When it gets really really dark, live view focusing is useless. You just need to know where the infinity focus point is and manually focus. Human eyes can see better under pretty dark conditions than EVF/live view.

But when it's not too dark, then manual focusing with EVF/live view works.


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Why is an EVF a game changer for landscape?
> ...



If those are the advantages, then they mean nothing to me.

Having said that, I am rather impressed with Sony PlayMemories Camera Apps. Very very cool. Will like to see that in Canon MILCs.


----------



## BurningPlatform (May 19, 2017)

Just adding an idea to the EF flange distance part of the discussion. I think that retaining native EF lens compatibility is a good idea. But in the future, I think that Canon may be tempted to release a lens line that is compatible with EF mount but not with current (d)SLR cameras. So much empty space behind the lens previously filled by the mirror assembly could be utilized for backwards protruding lens elements. Think historical designs like Biogon and Hologon. The lens does not have to end at the mount.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > So when you want to avoid hearing about what Canon logically can improve, you can shut down the whole forum.
> ...



You seem to read words and messages that don't exist, maybe consider contacting a doctor?

Most of all not Canon, but many Canon users have a problem who invested a lot of money. They waste some years with inconvenient workflows and missing features, because Canon plays it slow.

Canon losing customers to Sony or Panasonic, and also losing reputation for their slow path innovation is a fact you can read, hear and see today. It doesn't need any apocalyptic predictions for that - and as Canon will catch up at some point, this problem might not exist anymore in the years 2020/2021/2022 to eternity.

Just right now Canon's tactics are a lose-lose situation for them and their customers.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I own nearly complete pro camera and lens lineups of all brands, as I also rent out stuff. And I use all systems daily, which is why I can compare and recognize the differences. Traditionally I would always use Canon first, but it's frustrating when you experience the many unnecessary limitations and missing features of their products.
> ...



If all people on the planet would get rid of all things they don't use often, all things that are dated and all things with aspects they are angry about - without any financial necessity - that would turn the whole world into a third world country. So why should I do that? The goal is to make Canon come up with better solutions, and come up with them faster.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ...or what you can read in worldwide photo forums, or hear from photographers and filmmakers everywhere. Because it's not a subjective feeling, it's based on the specs and features of existing camera models, and clearly visible different speeds of innovation between Canon/Nikon and Sony/Panasonic/Olympus.
> ...



How is sales data more meaningful than being a photographer and filmmaker working on a project with tools that are artificially limited?


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
[/quote]

In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....
> 
> We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....



Any average customer - and those millions of people who bought cheap DSLRs - appreciates what an EVF can do if you show it to them (a viewfinder that shows the right exposure and focus helps, lets you see video and review shots etc etc). The reason why most of these people DON'T buy any new DSLR's or add lenses is, that the workflow completely sucks, and they are not supported in improving their skills.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Owning all current 8 Canon and Nikon Tilt Shift lenses, I can reassure you that they all work great on the Sony A7R2 - AND do work even better on the Sony body as they are stabilized.


----------



## transpo1 (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.



In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?
[/quote]

It's always funny to me how anytime someone on this forum has the temerity to criticize Canon for not offering the reasonable features they want, the answer always seems to be "marketshare and sales." It's like there's a whole forum of marketing professionals not photographers and artists


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > > Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
> ...


I think the problem with this argumentation (features vs. market success) is not that those who use the argument of "market share and sales" are saying that this is the reason why they bought into a Canon system. 
It is the argument that comes first from those wanting more features: "If feature X is missing, Canon is *******!" (displayed in some more or less technical expressions).
Here comes counterargument that Canon seems to be doing something right, because of market share.

I don't know if I speak for the others in the "market share" fraction but I'd say it that way:

Of course I would like to have any kind of good, cool feature, gimmick and gizmo that is possible in my Camera. 
But I can understand that by just demanding this in a forum and stress this with the "loss of success" argument won't have any real influence on the Canon dev. and marketing departments
If enough people vote with their purse, Canon might react
If you think that by arguing in that way and style, you can gather a big enough crowd behind you to change something, I'd say you seem to need more knowledge in marketing and pol. campaigning


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Canon losing customers to Sony or Panasonic, and also losing reputation for their slow path innovation is a fact you can read, hear and see today. It doesn't need any apocalyptic predictions for that - and as Canon will catch up at some point, this problem might not exist anymore in the years 2020/2021/2022 to eternity.
> 
> Just right now Canon's tactics are a lose-lose situation for them and their customers.



Yes, people are talking about those things. The question is: how many people and what percentage of the market do they form? You are in those circles and see it all the time - but my guess is you are in a very small, self-selecting group and those discussions, in the context of millions of satisfied DSLR users mean very, very little.


----------



## 100 (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



Useful features for sure but you don’t need an EVF for that, live view will show you the same information. 
With Magic Lanten you can have it on some Canon camera’s today http://www.magiclantern.fm/features.html (Image Overlays) and I hope Canon will add those features in future camera’s as well as a tiltable display on a high resolution full frame camera. 
Even with an EVF I’d probably use live view for landscape photography.


----------



## 100 (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
> 
> In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?



Once you use the word “important” before features you’re not talking about facts but about opinions. 
If you look at all features of all cameras is there one specific camera that scores best on all features or even the majority of all features? 
And when a camera scores second, third, fourth, etc. on a specific feature does that really matter if the difference between them is small? 
If there was a single camera or single brand that outscored all others by a big margin, wouldn’t it be logical that camera or brand would gain market share rapidly and eventually have the biggest market share?


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.



In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?
[/quote]

I believe you wrote this in 2016:



> I have the 1DX2 since 10 days now. Used to work with A7R/S2 and GH4, the size and weight and the lack of a tilting screen or peaking is a big minus. Even on the photo side Canon did cut features like internal timelapse or the HDR function of the 5D3, which is very uncool for this price.
> 
> But by adding a magnet viewfinder like in old 5D2 days, the 1DX2 is still a handable and can be used as one man show, with 2 outstanding advantages: 4K 60fps of course and the excellent video autofocus. If you use it right, there is no need for manual focus or focus peaking, and shooting can be done much faster than before and can be even more fun with even sharper shots.
> 
> ...



Seems to me you believe Canon is doing quite well....


----------



## pokerz (May 19, 2017)

Woody said:


> pokerz said:
> 
> 
> > If OVF is better in low night, why astrophotography needs MF with Liveview (EVF) ?
> ...


there are many mirrorless and even canon len offering electronic distance scale.


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

pokerz said:


> there are many mirrorless and even canon len offering electronic distance scale.



Those candles can be used for focusing... EVF or OVF. 

Try it when the subject is far away and you only have starlight or crescent moon light. No city lights or other forms of light pollution. Seriously, try it.


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

100 said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > Focus peaking, exposure zebras, histograms, levels, etc.
> ...



Precisely.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



I think you missed his point. You stated that Canon had no advantage over SONY regarding landscape photography. Clearly they have a very large advantage over SONY in landscape photography; tilt-shift lenses.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Why do you work with those tools if they are limited? Isn't part of being a professional photographer using the tools that you need? Why are you using Canon products if they limit you? His point was that the MAJORITY of consumers do NOT find them limiting, demonstrated by market share and sales. Who cares what YOU want?


----------



## romanr74 (May 19, 2017)

Why do you guys always try to convince each other? That's a completely futile excercise...


----------



## Orangutan (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> They waste some years with inconvenient workflows and missing features, because Canon plays it slow.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Aside from your own personal observations, what evidence do you have that these are true assertions?


----------



## Orangutan (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



It isn't, and there's no problem if those people talk about the features they want. The problem is that people like you make the false assumption that everyone else wants the same thing you do.

There are two different questions here:

What should an individual photographer buy? The available item that best meets their needs.

What should a company make and sell? The items that are likely to be profitable.


Do not confuse the two: while there is some overlap, they are not the same question.


----------



## GHPhotography (May 19, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> What should an individual photographer buy? The available item that best meets their needs.
> 
> What should a company make and sell? The items that are likely to be profitable.
> 
> ...



I feel like this is 95% of the issue people have on this forum. It's perfectly fine to be mad at Canon for not making what you want, but refusing to believe data that doesn't support your personal view is dumb. The fact is Canon dominates the market, and is gaining market share. Market giants stay giant by focusing on what is good for business and innovating/shifting either a) to grab/create a new market or b) respond to a new threat to your market share. Canon is doing both, but like all giants it is slow to move. When it does move, though, history shows it makes a massive impact.


----------



## transpo1 (May 19, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...





Maximilian said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I'd argue that we've already had influence and people have already voted with their purse in the video department. Sony is the premiere option for 4K video these days, which is likely one of the reasons Canon added C-Log to the 5DIV. 

I, for one, voted with my wallet and did not purchase a 5DIV, but have stayed on this forum because I love Canon products and want them to be more competitive with features for my needs. Just the same way you photog guys want an 85mm 1.4 IS or 200-600 or whatever the most anticipated lens is right now. (Full disclosure, I would love an 85mm IS.)

Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.

From a video perspective- we don't know the numbers- but my hunch is that the market share looks quite different. I believe most people have already voted with their wallets in this regard. And since a major requirement of the new Full Frame mirrorless rumor the OP stated is 4K video, then, well- there you have an example of Canon trying to add a feature to match their competitors in an effort to maintain that market share.


----------



## Woody (May 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.



Well said.

But keep in mind that impressive technology does not guarantee success. Just look at history: Minolta, Pentax and Samsung (photography-wise). One can almost say the same about the current state of Nikon: their OVF facial tracking capability and awesome sensor quality (thanks largely to Sony) are the envy of many, still their ILC market share is declining...


----------



## Rockskipper (May 19, 2017)

Probably the most important thing about buying a camera is your perceptions of what you're going to get and whether or not that matches what you do get. Canon is now to the point that they pretty much own the average person's perceptions that they're the top of the line, or at the very least, one will get a darn good camera and also lenses and support. When you start spending the kind of money you can put into camera equipment (I just spent over 5k this week alone, and I'm a hobbyist), you want that feeling that there will be someone out there if you need to make a repair or support call. 

Canon's marketing has made sure that the average consumer gets a warm fuzzy feeling when they think about them (things like their Boy Scouts and National Parks programs), as well as making sure there are lots of fantastic photos out there for people to look at. Most consumers aren't pros, and I would guess not even at the enthusiast level, but they just want to make nice photos. Canon, whether their technology is superior or not, provides this at about any price point you want.

Just try to buy something at the Canon Store and you'll see how loyal people can be. It can be difficult to use and sometimes doesn't work at all (try to read reviews or info on the 6D) and should be an embarrassment to such a large successful company. But people buy there anyway (or so I assume, as I did). Canon owns the perceptions and also has good products, whether they be superior or not is not as important to the average Joe or Jill, as long as they can take nice photos. They don't pixel peep.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> I'd argue that we've already had influence and people have already voted with their purse in the video department. Sony is the premiere option for 4K video these days, which is likely one of the reasons Canon added C-Log to the 5DIV.
> 
> I, for one, voted with my wallet and did not purchase a 5DIV, but have stayed on this forum because I love Canon products and want them to be more competitive with features for my needs. Just the same way you photog guys want an 85mm 1.4 IS or 200-600 or whatever the most anticipated lens is right now. (Full disclosure, I would love an 85mm IS.)
> 
> ...



The other issue is a skewed perspective. 
There is a growing minority of people who want a 'stills' camera to double up as a semi-professional video camera. On image quality the Sony is ahead of Canon. 
Because these people want a 2-in-1 camera there are more complaints against Canon for not upping their video than there are complaints against Sony for not addressing the shortfalls in their stills functionality. 

In some ways I see that as a compliment to Canon in that people think Canon is most likely to get the whole package right _when they see the need to_, and they are unable to understand why Canon hasn't done it _yet_.
You could also interpret it as when Canon do decide to do it, Sony are toast because their one advantage will have gone.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

Rockskipper said:


> ...and sometimes doesn't work at all (try to read reviews or info on the 6D) and should be an embarrassment to such a large successful company.



Really? Please enlighten me


----------



## addola (May 19, 2017)

Maximilian said:


> addola said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, did you just tell me to "go back to learn optical formulas" then proceeded to use the comma & decimal interchangeably?



Oh no! I was joking about that! Hence the "Ha!"! My bad! Maybe I should put a smiley face  instead. I know that in Europe you use the decimal/comma differently with Euros!

Take a look at DxOMark scores for transmission (T-Stop for actual transmission as opposed to F-Stop). I noticed that with Sony FF lenses, the transmission seem higher (closer to F-Stop) than SLR counterpart (Disclaimer: this is unscientific, and I could be wrong, but it's interesting)


----------



## rrcphoto (May 19, 2017)

canonographer said:


> I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.


well, that's you. I can't ever see the benefit of shooting landscape with anything BUT an OVF. otherwise you don't get the natural contrast, dynamic range of the scene as you are framing the image. you get a 8 bit blocked up video stream that can even approach distracting at higher ISO's because of noise.

Nor can that video stream really indicate when you are raw clipped, and will artificially clip at "jpg" levels and not at raw latitude levels.

essentially it's a "make do" for a lack of understanding of the scene, your sensor and what your histogram is suggesting to you.

I find it always curious that some assert that they need high DR sensors and the works and then view the image data through a low DR and usually tight contrast curve EVF....


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> *Canon losing customers to Sony or Panasonic*, and also losing reputation for their slow path innovation is a fact you can read, hear and see today. It doesn't need any apocalyptic predictions for that - and as Canon will catch up at some point, this problem might not exist anymore in the years 2020/2021/2022 to eternity.
> 
> Just right now Canon's tactics are a lose-lose situation for them and their customers.



While it's technically true that Canon is losing customers to Sony or Panasonic, it's also true that Sony and Panasonic are losing customers to Canon. Given that Canon has been gaining ILC market share while Sony has lost it, your implication that Canon is losing net customers as 'fact' is at odds with reality. But we've already established that you prefer to believe your opinion over documented fact...I believe you earlier recommended that someone seek medical attention...a psychiatrist is the appropriate medical professional to address the problems of those who cannot accept reality. 




douglaurent said:


> > Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
> 
> 
> In what way is the popularity of Canon relevant regarding the proven facts that their top products are behind in at least 20 important features? Is this a forum about technical features, or the forum of the Wall Street Journal or brand values?



It is relevant because in spite of your contention that Canon is 'behind in at least 20 features' that _you personally_ find important, Canon's popularity and nearly 50% and growing ILC market share indicate that the majority of consumers don't find those 20 features particularly important, or don't think that Canon is behind in the areas that matter to them. 

Obviously, you're welcome to have and share your opinion. Just don't go thinking that your opinion is universally shared…the actual facts clearly show that your opinion is irrelevant in the context of the ILC market. 




douglaurent said:


> Any average customer - and those millions of people who bought cheap DSLRs - appreciates what an EVF can do if you show it to them (a viewfinder that shows the right exposure and focus helps, lets you see video and review shots etc etc). The reason why most of these people DON'T buy any new DSLR's or add lenses is, that the workflow completely sucks, and they are not supported in improving their skills.



So now you're speaking for millions of customers, and claiming to have knowledge of what drives their purchasing decisions? Talk about delusional… Millions of people don't buy new cameras and lenses because 'the workflow completely sucks'? Completely asinine. It's far more likely that in most cases, the camera and lens(es) they have are meeting their needs perfectly well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> Market share is only an argument in so far as a company has it- it's the "might makes right" argument. What we are anticipating is a time when others start to catch up with Canon market share. Sony has a LONG way to go from a photography perspective but they are outputting some impressive technology and lenses. What we are saying is that Canon has to be a bit more competitive in features in order to hold onto that market share in the long term.



Is this the same 'we' that are anticipating purple unicorns to fly by, gold dubloons to rain down from the sky, and world peace? :

There have been countless claims on the Internet like yours...Canon has to be more competitive in _____________ (fill in the blank with your favorite feature) or else they will _____________ (fill in the blank with your favorite dire fate).

Several years ago, Sony's implementation of on-sensor ADC enabled them to increase their dynamic range relative to Canon's sensors. Lots of people on this forum stated with absolute certainty that photographers would defect to Sony and Nikon (who began using Sony's sensors) in droves, and Canon would be *******. But what really happened? First Nikon and then Sony lost marketshare to Canon, such that Canon now holds nearly 50% of the ILC market. 

So, you go right on anticipating… Have fun riding the unicorn, and don't spend all the gold in one place.


----------



## tcmatthews (May 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> canonographer said:
> 
> 
> > I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.
> ...



Are you serious I cannot remember the last time I shot any serious landscape not on a tripod in live-view. Normally this is with the histogram for reference. 

I like low angles and do not use a OVF or EVF on any of my cameras when shooting landscape. I have also found that the camera JPG settings can really throw off the live-view so I have found it necessary to set the JPEG image profile to faithful/Neutral or what ever it is called on the camera you are using. This started when I was not paying attention to the histogram and hand an entire series of images underexposed because the JPG setting embedded in the Raw image had the contrast turned up. 

I could see how a punched up high contrast EVF could cause the same issue. But in neutral settings with histogram this should be a non-issue.

All this said I prefer the bracketing and time-laps options on Canon to Sony.


----------



## xps (May 19, 2017)

I´ve seen the new Sony on an advertisement show this week. Not helding in my hands, but shown to us by an sony representative. Impressing, how fast this body is, and how accurate focussing works. And it is really silent. 
Yes, I know, the mounted lenses are not for wildlife, but for wedding photographers. But it wouled be an option for BIF mounted on Canon lenses. 

I hope Canon will bring out an mirrorless FF body in the next month. But this will not come true. 
There is much discussion about that on the net. No one really knows (besides Canon managers). Some say, salesmanagement, others say Canon is still struggling to come close to Sony, and others are thinking Canon is waiting until Sony and Nikon offer their new products - to decide which feature has to be implemented and which not...
Canon will bring ml-FF bodies on the market, and some will be disappointed by their specs. But most of us will buy it and will be (the more or the less) satisfied with them.
Our best friends at Sony are an extremly hard working motor on the market. Developing many new lenses and bodies (just wait for the 7RIII). and this will be good for us Canonians too, as Sony "increases the lattice" and Canon has to compeed.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 19, 2017)

tcmatthews said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > canonographer said:
> ...



I find back LCD / liveview LCD experience different from an EVF or OVF.

usually I use the liveview for rough histogram and framing but review the scene by "looking up" at it without either an OVF or LCD.

an EVF and an OVF share the same experience where you do the majority of composition and framing and the "idea" of the shot via the viewfinder.

and yes, you have to choose flat / neutral Jpg profile or that will affect your histogram.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (May 19, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> Why do you guys always try to convince each other? That's a completely futile excercise...


This is the first sensible comment I have seen in the whole debate. Surely we should be grateful that we still have a choice rather than trying to persuade everyone to adopt exactly the same type of camera.


----------



## ricky_005 (May 19, 2017)

GHPhotography said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > What should an individual photographer buy? The available item that best meets their needs.
> ...



If there was only one Camera company "Canon" we would all still be shooting 35mm film rolls.


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2017)

addola said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > addola said:
> ...


Okay! As I said before it seems that there was some missunderstanding on both sides. So let's just settle this, okay?



> Take a look at DxOMark scores for transmission (T-Stop for actual transmission as opposed to F-Stop). I noticed that with Sony FF lenses, the transmission seem higher (closer to F-Stop) than SLR counterpart (Disclaimer: this is unscientific, and I could be wrong, but it's interesting)


Honestly I don't care a &%$"! on anything DxO measueres and tries to tell us anymore. 
As their scores and conclusions are definetly far from beeing real scientific and objective I don't care a &%$"! on their measurements either because I don't know if I could trust them in any way. 
But please don't let us open this new topic again. Just search for some DxOMark score threads in this forum. 
I think they say it all.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

Owning all current 8 Canon and Nikon Tilt Shift lenses, I can reassure you that they all work great on the Sony A7R2 - AND do work even better on the Sony body as they are stabilized.
[/quote]

I think you missed his point. You stated that Canon had no advantage over SONY regarding landscape photography. Clearly they have a very large advantage over SONY in landscape photography; tilt-shift lenses. 
[/quote]

We are talking about the status of mirrorless cameras here, it doesn't matter if a lens is made by Sony, Canon, Sigma, Tamron or another brand. It only counts what you can do with the combination of camera and lens. And the fact is: There are 8 great Tilt shift options you can use on a Sony, plus stabilization. There are only 4 options each for Canon and Nikon, all without stabilization, focus peaking etc etc. Sony is the clear #1 tilt shift camera brand right now.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



And who cares what you write? Canon cameras can still be used in some limited scenarios with the same convenience as Sony cameras, and sometimes they are the better choice than Sony cameras. It doesnt change the fact that the lack of 20+ helpful features is missing in Canon cameras. For me and all Canon users out there who are wasting time because of that.


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > They waste some years with inconvenient workflows and missing features, because Canon plays it slow.
> ...



The evidence of 20+ precious features that only competitors of Canon do offer in their camera, and the knowledge that many photographers are not stupid enough to oversee these facts.


----------



## Hflm (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


I use Canon AND Sony A7rii professionally and no, I don't find the 5div is strongly compromised and missing 20+ features. I find it very capable and didn't feel limited using it at weddings. Instead I feel limited _more_ by the Sony A7rii. The 5div is an excellent camera, underestimated by many in my opinion (I shot Nikon D810 and D759 before, as well as tried Fuji and Olympus, so I think to have a very good overview).


----------



## douglaurent (May 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > *Canon losing customers to Sony or Panasonic*, and also losing reputation for their slow path innovation is a fact you can read, hear and see today. It doesn't need any apocalyptic predictions for that - and as Canon will catch up at some point, this problem might not exist anymore in the years 2020/2021/2022 to eternity.
> ...



Maybe it's better when we continue to talk in 5-10 years - and when you personally use a new Canon camera that by then will all have these common ground features. If asked if you would go back to a 5D4, you will for sure not want to do that - because you also don't want to miss the many new features that Canon competitors already do offer today.

The main question here is: why are people who don't think that anything from extremely steady sensor stabilization to seeing the actual exposure in a viewfinder and many other obvious and basic improvements do even spend time in a forum that is all about new product developments, when in fact they are not interested in any of that? Or what are the great features YOU want to see from Canon? Please send us your wish list.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

ricky_005 said:


> If there was only one Camera company "Canon" we would all still be shooting 35mm film rolls.



Stupid comment - noone is suggesting Canon should be the only camera manufacturer


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> The evidence of 20+ precious features that only competitors of Canon do offer in their camera, and the knowledge that many photographers are not stupid enough to oversee these facts.



What - you mean all competitors offer all of those features? 
If they don't then it means those competitors are, in turn, doing something wrong. 

By the way, do you still think the 1Dx is the better camera than Sony, like in the quote I posted?


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

xps said:


> I´ve seen the new Sony on an advertisement show this week. Not helding in my hands, but shown to us by an sony representative. Impressing, how fast this body is, and how accurate focussing works. And it is really silent.
> Yes, I know, the mounted lenses are not for wildlife, but for wedding photographers. But it wouled be an option for BIF mounted on Canon lenses.



You mean like the frame rate drops to 7 fps when you mount a Canon lens and the AF is compromised? 
Nope - give me a Canon body on a Canon lens for that one....


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> ....because you also don't want to miss the many new features that Canon competitors already do offer today.



I just bought a 1DX MkII, what features have I missed out on that will make an actual real world difference to my shooting?

The D5 is not 'better' anywhere and the A9 doesn't have the lens support I need today. When I want live view I use 'Live View', if the light is bad I can use an eyepiece on that larger screen with more resolution. I already have histogram's, blinkies and a host of 'must have' features, and, if early reports hold up to greater scrutiny, it appears of the high speed 'action' cameras the 1DX MkII is the outright leader in IQ.


----------



## Don Haines (May 19, 2017)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with saying that Canon has the best selling DSLRs and that overall their system is the best (and that includes things like lenses, accessories, service, and ergonomics), but at the same time saying that there are places where they can (or should) improve.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

When they introduce a mirrorless model, we can expect to see things like absolute silly burst mode speeds (at least 60FPS, my P/S does 100!, and apparently the 1DX2 can do 60 in live-view), and a combination of IBIS and lens based IS..... like Olympus is using.... They have 6 to 6.5 stops of IS and when trying one out at the local shop I did a hand-held 2 second exposure that came out sharp! I WANT THAT!!!!! If the 7D3 or 6D2 had that in live view I would break my rule about skipping models and jump on that one like a fat boy on a wedding cake!


----------



## rrcphoto (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



actually for most photographers, they don't care about your little 20+ whiny points, because they still purchase canon cameras, and enjoy using them.

perhaps they actually know something you don't.

why don't you just go - you're nothing but a troll here.

and I really doubt you have all these cameras, and as you say - use them every day. frankly I doubt you have anything other than a freaking Fischer price camera that you play with in your mom's basement.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I see nothing wrong with saying that Canon has the best selling DSLRs and that overall their system is the best (and that includes things like lenses, accessories, service, and ergonomics), but at the same time saying that there are places where they can (or should) improve.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> When they introduce a mirrorless model, we can expect to see things like absolute silly burst mode speeds (at least 60FPS, my P/S does 100!, and apparently the 1DX2 can do 60 in live-view), and a combination of IBIS and lens based IS..... like Olympus is using.... They have 6 to 6.5 stops of IS and when trying one out at the local shop I did a hand-held 2 second exposure that came out sharp! I WANT THAT!!!!! If the 7D3 or 6D2 had that in live view I would break my rule about skipping models and jump on that one like a fat boy on a wedding cake!



Agree, 100%

If you can make do with jpegs and lower resolution the 1DX MkII will already do 120 fps.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> The evidence of 20+ precious features that only competitors of Canon do offer in their camera, and the knowledge that many photographers are not stupid enough to oversee these facts.



I guess it's a good thing for Canon that even more photographers are not stupid enough to sacrifice basics like reliability, usability and customer support to get those 20+ features that only you seem to think are precious.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> The main question here is: why are people who don't think that anything from extremely steady sensor stabilization to seeing the actual exposure in a viewfinder and many other obvious and basic improvements do even spend time in a forum that is all about new product developments, when in fact they are not interested in any of that? Or what are the great features YOU want to see from Canon? Please send us your wish list.



I want a 600/4 that's shorter than my arm (i.e., DO) with a built-in, dedicated flip-out 1.4x TC. I want a high-MP sensor in a 1-series body. I want a 90mm TS-E with push-button orientation change for T relative to S. I want an OEM -RT receiver which would allow me to integrate monolights with an ST-E3/600EX-RT system. I _wanted_ DPAF in a small M form factor, Canon delivered that one already and I will be ordering an M6 before my next trip. 




douglaurent said:


> Maybe it's better when we continue to talk in 5-10 years



...when Sony has lost MILC marketshare to the point where they abandon the market completely, just as they did their dSLR lines. Yes, let's talk then…


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ....because you also don't want to miss the many new features that Canon competitors already do offer today.
> ...



Don't forget that douglaurent himself has stated that the 1Dx2 is better than any Sony camera (as I posted above)


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> ...and I really doubt you have all these cameras, and as you say - use them every day. frankly I doubt you have anything other than a freaking Fischer price camera that you play with in your mom's basement.



In a previous thread, he indicated that he owns/runs a rental business. I find that plausible. But, that would also help explain the obsessive fascination with "features." Photographers who use a camera day in and day out and rely on it to put food on the table tend to be less enamored of new features. Instead, most want a reliable tool that they are familiar with and produces predictable and repeatable results. A rental shop owner needs to provide the latest toys and tools for people to try out and to use for specialized purposes. The mistake Mr. Laurent seems to be making is thinking that his experience and preferences can be extended to a majority or even a sizable minority of photographers.


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I see nothing wrong with saying that Canon has the best selling DSLRs and that overall their system is the best (and that includes things like lenses, accessories, service, and ergonomics), but at the same time saying that there are places where they can (or should) improve.
> 
> The two are not mutually exclusive.



Agreed. I don't think I have ever read any post by any of the most ardent Canon fans here that indicated 100% satisfaction or a lack of desire for improvements. 

Rather, I think we all (and I include you in this category) have looked at our own needs and interests and made what we view to be a rational purchasing decision. What offends is when others suggest that our rational decisions are somehow invalid and caused by blind loyalty or an unwillingness to consider the many perceived advantages of a competitor. 

This is too often linked to silly, irrational claims about the future viability of a company because they aren't building a custom-designed product for one individual.

In my opinion, too many critics resort to adding up features as though the world is one giant game in which winners are determined by who has the best statistics. This is a bit like declaring a basketball team to be winners because they put the ball through the hoop the most times, while ignoring the number of 1, 2 and 3 point shots made. Not all features are equal and the relative value of each feature is a matter of personal taste. Most of the so-called advantages of electronic viewfinders for example have zero interest to me. I made my camera choice based on what works for me. It just so happens that a whole lot of other photographers apparently share similar desires, which is the message that can be gleaned from sales statistics.


----------



## Mikehit (May 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...and I really doubt you have all these cameras, and as you say - use them every day. frankly I doubt you have anything other than a freaking Fischer price camera that you play with in your mom's basement.
> ...



Then again, someone who runs a rental business and claims to have every camera available to them would know the sort of thing the general consumer wants and how it fits into the general market.
Douglaurent seems to be ignorant of both.


----------



## gregory4000 (May 20, 2017)

Wow, Iv'e been reading a lot of comments to get to this point. And I'm surprised how 95% of the readers don't get it.
Sony is a serious threat to Canon and Nikon.
Four years ago, there is on one on this forum who could care less about Sony mirrorless. Is was a sorry excuse for a full frame camera.
Four years later most here are arguing who has the more useful feature, You may like this but I don't cares the return comment, Whatever you may think, these are the facts. Sony is closing quickly on Nikon and Canon with features on the A9 where those who have used it say "they really work". The camera is getting 8000+ photos from a single battery, just one of many features that Nikon or Canon can not get close to. But remember just a month ago their battery life was terrible.
So why the change so quickly. Well I feel that Canon appreciates the potential that mirrorless technology can accomplish and doesn't wish to discover in a few years that many professionals will make a brand change for a camera body. Thus, a full frame camera in the works. But more importantly an Ef mount. Why EF. Because Canon will be purchasing sensors from Sony and a trade deal was struck. Both parties win, Canon leaps into a higher quality sensor while Sony becomes "a" major lens supplier with higher future sales.
This is a survival strategy for Canon. And a very smart one!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2017)

gregory4000 said:


> Wow, Iv'e been reading a lot of comments to get to this point. And I'm surprised how 95% of the readers don't get it.
> Sony is a serious threat to Canon and Nikon.
> Four years ago, there is on one on this forum who could care less about Sony mirrorless. Is was a sorry excuse for a full frame camera.
> Four years later most here are arguing who has the more useful feature, You may like this but I don't cares the return comment, Whatever you may think, these are the facts. Sony is closing quickly on Nikon and Canon with features on the A9 where those who have used it say "they really work". The camera is getting 8000+ photos from a single battery, just one of many features that Nikon or Canon can not get close to. But remember just a month ago their battery life was terrible.
> ...



Thanks for that, a good laugh is always appreciated!


----------



## gregory4000 (May 20, 2017)

like I said...95%


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2017)

gregory4000 said:


> like I said...95%



95% don't get your point? I'll buy that. It's because you're making no sense. 

Sony has been ahead on 'features' for years. Canon has kept right on selling even more ILCs. Now Sony has a 'pro' A9 with 'more features', seemingly targeted at a group even less likely to switch away from their known brand. 

Somehow, all of that means Canon has to buy FF sensors from Sony to survive. DPAF? Who cares. 

Still laughing. Along with the 95% of people who read your post and understand that it's nonsensical babbling.


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> gregory4000 said:
> 
> 
> > like I said...95%
> ...



You are just jealous that your 1DX2 does not get 8000+ pictures per battery.... BTW, my GoPro got about 130,000 pictures on a single battery..... but you should see the battery!!!!!!!


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > gregory4000 said:
> ...



Cut the guy some slack, boys. Don't tell him the percentage is actually 99.9999%.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> You are just jealous that your 1DX2 does not get 8000+ pictures per battery....



For that to be true, I'd first need to have a 1D X II.  Not that I've ever managed to exhaust a battery on my 1D X.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > You are just jealous that your 1DX2 does not get 8000+ pictures per battery....
> ...



I've got just under 2,000 shots with 25% left after a week with GPS in mode 1 and the camera in the 'On' position 18 hours a day, on the batteries first charge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I've got just under 2,000 shots with 25% left after a week with GPS in mode 1 and the camera in the 'On' position 18 hours a day, on the batteries first charge.



Yeah, but what happens when you need 8,000 shots in a week and you've lost the charger? Clearly, you should switch to Sony.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I've got just under 2,000 shots with 25% left after a week with GPS in mode 1 and the camera in the 'On' position 18 hours a day, on the batteries first charge.
> ...



Sorry, I was being obtuse......

Now at least we all know the answer to any question photographic, SONY!


----------



## hbr (May 20, 2017)

gregory4000 said:


> Canon will be purchasing sensors from Sonyher future sales.
> This is a survival strategy for Canon. And a very smart one!



Yeah, when hell freezes over. :


----------



## pokerz (May 20, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Adapt all Canon Nikon TS len to sony body.
ie. Clearly they are a very large advantage over CANON


----------



## pokerz (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The main question here is: why are people who don't think that anything from extremely steady sensor stabilization to seeing the actual exposure in a viewfinder and many other obvious and basic improvements do even spend time in a forum that is all about new product developments, when in fact they are not interested in any of that? Or what are the great features YOU want to see from Canon? Please send us your wish list.
> ...


True, Canon completely dumped their FD lens users 
Yes, let's talk then


----------



## Orangutan (May 20, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



That's not evidence, that's your personal assertions. Those features may be "precious" to you, and to some other photographers, but maybe other photographers have different priorities?

As to this: 



> stupid enough to oversee these facts



You are truly arrogant and childish if you think this. Most young adults grow out of this self-centered view of the world, and realize that other people have different values and experiences that lead them to make different choices.


----------



## midluk (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I've got just under 2,000 shots with 25% left after a week with GPS in mode 1 and the camera in the 'On' position 18 hours a day, on the batteries first charge.
> ...


I'm pretty sure, when you use the camera for a whole week with EVF, you will get even more than 8000 shots from the Sony!!!!! Fortunately it does not have that power hungry OVF :


----------



## dak723 (May 20, 2017)

gregory4000 said:


> Wow, Iv'e been reading a lot of comments to get to this point. And I'm surprised how 95% of the readers don't get it.
> Sony is a serious threat to Canon and Nikon.



Who cares?

Why does it matter to anyone on this forum which company is No. 1 or No. 3? These are not sports teams. These are not countries where having a serious threat may actually mean something. They are companies that sell cameras, lenses and other photographic accessories. They will continue to do so regardless if Canon is No.1 or Sony is No. 1. 

I hasten to guess what percentage of CR Rumors readers don't get it. ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2017)

dak723 said:


> They are companies that sell cameras, lenses and other photographic accessories. They will continue to do so regardless if Canon is No.1 or Sony is No. 1.



Just like Samsung continued selling cameras regardless?

Just like Sony continued selling PCs regardless?

[quote author=Sony in 2014]
Though we are discontinuing the sale of PCs, we will continue to offer after-sales support for all Sony branded VAIO PCs in accordance with local laws, regulations and warranty policies.
[/quote]

Get it?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2017)

dak723 said:


> gregory4000 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, Iv'e been reading a lot of comments to get to this point. And I'm surprised how 95% of the readers don't get it.
> ...



Oh the irony...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2017)

pokerz said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



So we're supposed to be impressed because Canon has superior lenses that go on an inferior body? Or rather, Nikon's inferior T/S lenses? What if Canon's T/S lenses couldn't adapt to Sony cameras? Ooo, then what? Seems Sony has some dependence here on Canon whereas Canon has absolutely zero dependence on Sony for anything whatsoever.


----------



## dak723 (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > They are companies that sell cameras, lenses and other photographic accessories. They will continue to do so regardless if Canon is No.1 or Sony is No. 1.
> ...



Get it?
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that you believe that Canon will get out of the Camera business if they fall to No. 3?

If not, you totally missed my point. But that is what folks on this forum do, don't they.

They don't even try to understand what someone else is saying.


----------



## mb66energy (May 20, 2017)

After reading some posts I decided to be satisfied with my inferior 5D classic and the great 70-200 f/4 IS USM, wait a little bit for a Canon FF mirrorless with DPAF or buy a 7 ii with stabilization and the chance to use FD lenses (the great 2.5 135 or the small but optically not so great 4.0 17 or ...)

Sun is coming out before sunset so I will shoot a little bit and enjoy what I have.


----------



## Pixel (May 20, 2017)

These people who tout their "XXX" brand the best over "YYY" brand should buy stock in the companies that way the trash talking actually has a purpose and not just meaningless posturing.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 20, 2017)

mb66energy said:


> After reading some posts I decided to be satisfied with my inferior 5D classic and the great 70-200 f/4 IS USM, wait a little bit for a Canon FF mirrorless with DPAF or buy a 7 ii with stabilization and the chance to use FD lenses (the great 2.5 135 or the small but optically not so great 4.0 17 or ...)
> 
> Sun is coming out before sunset so I will shoot a little bit and enjoy what I have.



That last bit is always a good idea. 8)


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2017)

actually for most photographers, they don't care about your little 20+ whiny points, because they still purchase canon cameras, and enjoy using them.

and I really doubt you have all these cameras, and as you say - use them every day. frankly I doubt you have anything other than a freaking Fischer price camera that you play with in your mom's basement.
[/quote]

I have approx 50 cameras and 300 lenses, which is why I know what I'm talking about. What do you own exactly?

It seems you will be really angry about Canon when they start to release mirrorless cameras in 2018, and starting to implement my stupid little whiny points. Sad for you that Canon turns into a mirrorless loser company like Sony in the coming years. Then you can only remember the great times between 2008 and 2018, when Canon DSLRs had hardly any significant improvements between each model.


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The main question here is: why are people who don't think that anything from extremely steady sensor stabilization to seeing the actual exposure in a viewfinder and many other obvious and basic improvements do even spend time in a forum that is all about new product developments, when in fact they are not interested in any of that? Or what are the great features YOU want to see from Canon? Please send us your wish list.
> ...



Now THESE are really things that the whole world is waiting and asking for! Congrats! Much more important than seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder or a dedicated ISO wheel!


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:
 

> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Not really. A few years ago you could have satisfied people with 100% Canon branded products. Today Canon requests are 25% and the rest is Sony, Panasonic, Sigma etc. If you don't see this shift, good luck for you.


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence of 20+ precious features that only competitors of Canon do offer in their camera, and the knowledge that many photographers are not stupid enough to oversee these facts.
> ...



EXACTLY! Nobody wants to give up the Canon advantages or leave the Canon brand. This is why Canon should simply add useful and modern features to their existing products. This is what a forum discussion about future Canon camera products is all about.

What is NOT helpful is a signal to Canon from their userbase, essentially telling them "everything is great the way it is, and nobody needs stupid new features, cheaper prices, faster product and firmware updates etc". Blind Canon Fanboyism and defending them will hurt any Canon user sooner or later, or more or less, as long as Canon keeps their path of crippled products, slow innovation and high prices.

It even hurts Sony users. If Canon would always have the same modern features as current Sony cameras, Sony wouldn't be able to charge their high prices. Not addressing the facts is a very bad thing for everyone except for the accountant of those large corporations.


----------



## Orangutan (May 20, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> EXACTLY! Nobody wants to give up the Canon advantages or leave the Canon brand. This is why Canon should simply add useful and modern features to their existing products. This is what a forum discussion about future Canon camera products is all about.



That would add to the price because Canon won't include those features for free.




> What is NOT helpful is a *signal to Canon from their userbase*, essentially telling them "everything is great the way it is, and nobody needs stupid new features, cheaper prices, faster product and firmware updates etc".



Ah, the truth comes out!

*What we say on the forums has almost zero effect on the manufacturers* -- they do serious market analysis, they don't spend time on forums infested with daydreamers and trolls. 

However, in case Canon is listening: I want the 6D MkII to be a FF version of the 80D, and have an initial retail price under $1,000...and it should come with a pony! ;D


----------



## Don Haines (May 20, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > EXACTLY! Nobody wants to give up the Canon advantages or leave the Canon brand. This is why Canon should simply add useful and modern features to their existing products. This is what a forum discussion about future Canon camera products is all about.
> ...


I want mine to come with a unicorn........


----------



## Orangutan (May 20, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I almost wrote that, but thought it might be considered sarcastic.


----------



## BillB (May 20, 2017)

[/quote]

What is NOT helpful is a signal to Canon from their userbase, essentially telling them "everything is great the way it is, and nobody needs stupid new features, cheaper prices, faster product and firmware updates etc". Blind Canon Fanboyism and defending them will hurt any Canon user sooner or later, or more or less, as long as Canon keeps their path of crippled products, slow innovation and high prices.

[/quote]

But Canon doesn't want me to be happy with the way things are. To get me to buy a another Canon camera the new one will need to do something important to me that the one I have can't do. I am not a renter, I own Canon equipment, and I am in fact pretty happy with it, and the lenses that I have as well. In an important sense, Canon, Sony and everybody else is competing against their own past, rather than with each other. That seems to be especially true for Canon. 

Stupid is your word. For me, your list has a lot of features that would not lead me to spend the money to replace the camera that I have. The question for me is not what new camera I am going to rent next week, the question is whether to stick with what I have. If I stand pat, the loser is Canon, and my guess is that they are smart enough to figure that out without my throwing a hissy fit on Canon Rumors.


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> I have approx 50 cameras and 300 lenses, which is why I know what I'm talking about. What do you own exactly?
> 
> It seems you will be really angry about Canon when they start to release mirrorless cameras in 2018, and starting to implement my stupid little whiny points. Sad for you that Canon turns into a mirrorless loser company like Sony in the coming years. Then you can only remember the great times between 2008 and 2018, when Canon DSLRs had hardly any significant improvements between each model.



I feel sorry for you. You are so wrapped up in stating what you want in a camera that you are totally, absolutely and pathologically unable to understand what we are saying.

No-one (let me repeat that so you understand) NO-ONE is saying Canon should *not *incorporate the 20+ points you mentioned. No-ONE has said they would not find them useful. In fact, everyone agrees Canon will release FF mirrorless cameras. Where people are arguing against you is your insistence that Canon have to do it immediately and that if they do not, Canon are heading for the scrapheap. 

Incidentally, the functions you mention arise out of the techology - they are installed because the technololgy make it possible. The camera is not designed to deliver them.


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



When you say 'Canon requests are 25%....' - 25% of what? 
Who is making those requests to whom?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> I have approx 50 cameras and 300 lenses, which is why I know what I'm talking about.



LOL. Is your penis bigger than his, too?

Incidentally, Canon, Nikon and Sony own inventories of thousands of cameras and lenses. All the latest models. I guess they know so much more than you, it makes you look like an idiot by comparison. 




douglaurent said:


> Now THESE are really things that the whole world is waiting and asking for! Congrats! Much more important than seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder or a dedicated ISO wheel!



You're so right. Seeing the actual exposure is what everyone needs. Who cares if it's a few milliseconds behind the real world. Who cares if it's not the actual exposure because an EVF is showing an 8-bit jpg'd version of the world and I'm capturing a RAW image. Everyone needs a dedicated ISO wheel, too. Two wheels aren't enough for anyone. Three aren't enough either. We all need a fourth dedicated wheel for FEC, and a fifth dedicated wheel for setting a bracketing sequence, and a sixth dedicated wheel for adjusting WB, and a seventh dedicated wheel for zooming in while viewing through the EVF, and an eighth dedicated wheel for picking the AF mode. 

When the A10 comes out with 8 dedicated wheels, Canon is *******.


----------



## Orangutan (May 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Now THESE are really things that the whole world is waiting and asking for! Congrats! Much more important than seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder or a dedicated ISO wheel!
> ...


In fairness, the eye/brain already have a 100ms delay; adding another 50ms (the current EVF best, I believe) is probably tolerable for most purposes. Also, if it's 50ms now, in "a few years" (I've given up predicting) it'll be low enough that it's not really noticeable.

Along those same lines, the fact that the current EVFs are limited to standardized 8-bit images does not mean it will always be so. A fully mature EVF will be configurable to meet the photographers needs; i.e., set your own curve.

I agree that EVF is not a full match for OVF, but it's getting there, and it's close enough that we can say that there's no essential quality of EVF that will prevent it from reaching the level of "fully adequate."


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


I believe that the lag time on the OM-D E-M1 II is 8ms (depending on the mode the camera is in, as low as 5!!!!!), and that the wider colour range that the sensor can capture is mapped onto the 8 bits of colour resolution of the EVF (betcha 16 bit EVF is on the way)


----------



## Orangutan (May 21, 2017)

Don Haines said:


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


That's impressive -- 8ms lag will be unnoticeable. 16-bit EVF + ability to set the EVF tone curve checks the boxes for EVF quality. So what's left to do is:


Power consumption
Low light image quality and focus
CDAF speed, accuracy and tracking

All of these continue to advance. When will it be ready? Dunno. As things stand, I agree that a hybrid OVF/EVF may be the transition step.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2017)

A few milliseconds... The baseball is in the frame with the batter, or not. The football is just brushing the receiver's fingertips, or the catch is complete. I've had my entire life to get used to my visual system's lag. 

EVFs will continue to approach OVF performance in terms of accurately representing the real world. But...we're not there yet.


----------



## Orangutan (May 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> A few milliseconds... The baseball is in the frame with the batter, or not. The football is just brushing the receiver's fingertips, or the catch is complete. I've had my entire life to get used to my visual system's lag.
> 
> EVFs will continue to approach OVF performance in terms of accurately representing the real world. But...we're not there yet.


Do you play video games? Do you get used to the lag? Does it seem like a lag, or just part of game play? Lag will come down, and EVF users will become accustomed to the residual.

We are not there yet, but this is an empirical target not a theoretical one: when photographers feel that the lag is low enough then it is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A few milliseconds... The baseball is in the frame with the batter, or not. The football is just brushing the receiver's fingertips, or the catch is complete. I've had my entire life to get used to my visual system's lag.
> ...



Agreed. But the implication that today, the features that can be implemented with an EVF come without any sacrifice in optical performance, is simply ludicrous. For some, that sacrifice is worth it. For others, not.


----------



## TAF (May 21, 2017)

There seems to be an implicit assumption that the camera will look like a DSLR, or perhaps a traditional mirrorless (Leica).

Makes sense if they are aiming for the traditional market, and thinking prosumer. But what if they have a different thought in mind?

Perhaps Canon is going to attempt to blur the border between 35mm and MF and come out with a 100-200 MP camera, using a 24x36 sensor, but in a body reminiscent of a Hasseblad 500 or Rollei SL66 (Rollei made a 35mm camera just like this, the SL2002 and SL3003; they were marvelous).

EF mount? 'Depth' is not an issue. Really large screen on top? Same. Plenty of space for batteries and memory; the attachable hand grip is a nice profit item...

If you've ever used a camera in that form factor, you know that it is much easier to stabilize it when shooting by having a taut strap around your neck.

Not great for sports, but landscapes, scenery, and models? Perfect.


----------



## douglaurent (May 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > EXACTLY! Nobody wants to give up the Canon advantages or leave the Canon brand. This is why Canon should simply add useful and modern features to their existing products. This is what a forum discussion about future Canon camera products is all about.
> ...



If nobody at Canon analyzes the most important social media websites about their products 2017, it would be another sign how much they are behind. This decade did show that Canon and Nikon are not very good in analyzing, especially in thinking mirrorless needs new mounts, small sensors and no 4k. They gave away that business to Sony, Panasonic and others = stupid move. 

The only major Canon success was the invention of the cinema camera lineup, which only came by surprise to a user base who celebrated the video function on the 5D2. 

Canon also gave away more than half of their dominance in terms of lenses in recent years. In fact you can do 90% of all imaginable shots with cheaper third party lenses, and nobody would see a difference. Do you think Canon wanted that to happen intentionally because their great reasearch teams told them so? The fact is: Canon is a really slow thinking and slow acting company, and they need to wake up.


----------



## douglaurent (May 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I have approx 50 cameras and 300 lenses, which is why I know what I'm talking about. What do you own exactly?
> ...



Nice words, just none of you and the other ultra fanboys ever wrote that all those missing features and are good to have in future Canon cameras. So if no Canon user does tell it publicly, why should Canon start to care? 

I am also not talking about releasing things over night. But Canon is slow and always limiting its products, and with this speed, they will have a mirrorless fullframe competitor with all relevant basics not before the year 2020. This means Sony already has an advantage of min. 5 years. That can be a wasted 1/8th of the whole professional work life of a photographer and filmmaker, who wants to work with Canon and needs to be up to date in terms of technology.

Large corporations are like political parties: no pressure from the outside = no change.


----------



## douglaurent (May 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


#

People who rent stuff. Years ago it was all 5D2, 5D3, C100, C300 etc - now the hot shit are FS7, A7S2, GH5 etc etc


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> If nobody at Canon analyzes the most important social media websites about their products 2017, it would be another sign how much they are behind. This decade did show that Canon and Nikon are not very good in analyzing, especially in thinking mirrorless needs new mounts, small sensors and no 4k. They gave away that business to Sony, Panasonic and others = stupid move.
> 
> The only major Canon success was the invention of the cinema camera lineup, which only came by surprise to a user base who celebrated the video function on the 5D2.
> 
> Canon also gave away more than half of their dominance in terms of lenses in recent years. In fact you can do 90% of all imaginable shots with cheaper third party lenses, and nobody would see a difference. Do you think Canon wanted that to happen intentionally because their great reasearch teams told them so? The fact is: Canon is a really slow thinking and slow acting company, and they need to wake up.



_Only_ success was Cinema EOS? Gave away lens dominance? It's you that needs to wake up. Canon has led the global ILC market for over 14 years (that's dSLRs, MILCs, and lenses combined, in case you don't understand what 'ILC market' means). Last year, Canon gained further market share at the expense of both Sony and Nikon, and Canon now holds just shy of 50% of the ILC market. The fact is: you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


----------



## BillB (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



By all means, tell Canon what you think they should be working on. It can't hurt and it might help. However saying that you are the only one who knows how to think about these things properly and that people who disagree with you are stupid Canon fanboys is not helpful in my opinion. If Canon doesn't know what is out there in the marketplace, it probably is in fact *******. 

Some elements of the Canon development strategy seem clear to me. Great UWA, normal and 70-200 EF zooms, Live View/mirrorless autofocus based on dual pixel technology, and strong APS-C offerings to maintain its market base. How many of us really need Full Frame anyway?... and how big do you print?

They may not have been cutting edge on EVF or video specs and features and this really seems to bother you. I doubt that the reason is that they don't have a clue or that they are deliberately crippling lower price products to protect higher lines. Some of the lag may be because these are areas where dual pixel technology is the key to their strategy, and that has been falling into place over the last couple of years. Also, to some extent, Canon may be letting others find the technological dead ends and marketing fizzles for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> And I fear that those who work at Canon do NOT have access to 200 other branded products and do compare. Most of all they are employed and will not have that much time to compare. Even those who work at B&H who have access to thousands of lenses and cameras will never have the same amount of time to compare.



Right. Because a multi billion market cap company doesn't have the resources to buy competitors' products, nor the resources to employ a department full of people who's job it is to benchmark those products against internal efforts. Why would a company care about what their competition is doing, anyway? :

Honestly, it's a bit sad watching you continually embarrass yourself with your posts on this forum.


----------



## Mikehit (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Nice words, just none of you and the other ultra fanboys ever wrote that all those missing features and are good to have in future Canon cameras.



I have - several times. You are just unable to comprehend that we should. It passes you by every time because all you want to do is spout your own myopic view and you love the idea of being the pariah thinking outside the box. You are not.


----------



## Orangutan (May 21, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > And I fear that those who work at Canon do NOT have access to 200 other branded products and do compare. Most of all they are employed and will not have that much time to compare. Even those who work at B&H who have access to thousands of lenses and cameras will never have the same amount of time to compare.
> ...



I think he's extrapolating his own experience: he has a small rental business, and extrapolates what people want by what they rent from him. He doesn't understand that there are at least two problems with that way of thinking: first, that his small business is not statistically representative (a larger company like LensRentals might be closer). Second, people rent from him the equipment the aren't willing to buy. A7S2 and GH5 are not terribly expensive, so anyone who rents one is clearly saying they think it has a very specific use, but they don't want to tie up money in it.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Nice words, just none of you and the other ultra fanboys ever wrote that all those missing features and are good to have in future Canon cameras.
> ...



And I and others are glad their sensors are finally greatly improving. In the meantime, though, I've been building up a stock of great lenses that will be even better when I get around to a 5D4. Or SL2. Or whatever.


----------



## Mikehit (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> This means Sony already has an advantage of min. 5 years.



This Sony advantage of 5 years...I refer (again) to an item you posted about the 1Dx2. I presume you will not comment on it, but here goes anyway ?



> But by adding a magnet viewfinder like in old 5D2 days, the 1DX2 is still a handable and can be used as one man show, with 2 outstanding advantages: 4K 60fps of course and the excellent video autofocus. If you use it right, there is no need for manual focus or focus peaking, and shooting can be done much faster than before and can be even more fun with even sharper shots.
> 
> Amazingly the video autofocus does work very good with all Canon lenses from the last years, and also selected ones like the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC or 85/1.8 VC. Without any logical pattern, other Tamron or Sigma lenses don't do video focus at all. A Tamron 16-300 superzoom doesn't work although it has great stabilization paired with the 1DX2, a Sigma 18-300 does have video focus but weak stabilization. Crop lenses don't seem to vignette with the 1.3x 4K video crop of the camera.
> 
> ...



So it seems you prefer Canon after all...


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2017)

transpo1 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you can't seem to accept the objective reality that Canon is the most popular global brand for dSLRs. How sad.
> ...



I agree with you. Defence of Canon needs to come from strengths like service, reliability, glass etc NOT it being market king. That is a function of marketing and bandwagon etc. 


It's always funny to me how anytime someone on this forum has the temerity to criticize Canon for not offering the reasonable features they want, the answer always seems to be "marketshare and sales." It's like there's a whole forum of marketing professionals not photographers and artists 
[/quote]


----------



## rrcphoto (May 21, 2017)

sanj said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



the exception is that the one user in question has 350 posts of nothing but canon whining.

it's also a counter that canon is "losing tons of business" to the likes of Sony Panasonic,etc .. well no they are not, and there is hard cold factual numbers to prove that. versus someone's bashing opinion.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 21, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> People who rent stuff. Years ago it was all 5D2, 5D3, C100, C300 etc - now the hot S___ are FS7, A7S2, GH5 etc etc



sure you do.

I still think all you have is a fischer price camera and live in your mom's basement. words mean nothing, and you have a distinct lack of understanding of alot of things.

your little video rental business if that's what it is assuming it even exists outside of the dusty corners of your head - is a water drop on the ocean of where canon sells it cameras.

Something just about everyone else comprehends that - but you.

I'm sure canon does look at social media quite a bit, however, this isn't a major forum, nor site in which canon would even care about monitoring.. so your "high road" of doing this so that canon can improve, is nothing but adolescence crying that a big corporation doesn't do what you want it to do.

grow up and move on .. you're nauseating.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 21, 2017)

sanj said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



To use, probably inadvisedly, the fall back car analogy. 

If you want a car you can buy a Toyota or an Alfa Romeo, the Toyota will always get you there, always, it will get your kids there when you give it to them too, it will never set you on fire but it will never let you down. Or you can buy an Alfa Romeo, you will love it like you never did the Toyota. You can enjoy driving it like you never could the Toyota but you will never be able to rely on it, it will let you down, more than once! 

People have different reasons for getting what they do, I'd never critisize anybody for getting an Alfa Romeo, indeed I'd smile at the sound as they pulled away at the lights. But I, personally and in a professional environment, value reliability as a must have feature, I often travel with one body and Canon have never let me down. For me that is more valuable than a hint more dr, or any other specific IQ related feature.

All that doesn't mean I wouldn't like the driving experience that Alfa Romeo would give me, and if a company that made that as well as the proven dependability made a model combining both I'd take a serious look at it, but they don't, yet. Pointing that out about 

Canon products is not being defensive or delusional, it just means people have different priorities. As for Canon's sales success, it seems to me that is mainly down to extremely rigid cost controls and value for money in the lower order models. At this point mirrorless can't compete cost wise, so it doesn't.


----------



## gregory4000 (May 21, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


----------



## hbr (May 21, 2017)

Technology is steadily advancing and in the end we all benefit from it and the competition between manufacturers. Over the past 10 years I have read that Canon is ******* by every new model released by Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc., that I just disregard all that nonsense. It hasn't happened yet and I doubt if it will happen in the near future.

I agree with the car analogy - customer satisfaction with a brand or product often is more important than which product has the best features. My Hondas and Toyotas have lasted me 20 years and have all given me over 200k miles of relatively maintenance free service. Reliability and customer satisfaction are very important - Guess what brand of car I will purchase next.

Good for Sony. Good for Nikon. I am happy for them. We need the competition, but guess which brand of camera I will purchase next.


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2017)

sanj said:


> I agree with you. Defence of Canon needs to come from strengths like service, reliability, glass etc NOT it being market king. That is a function of marketing and bandwagon etc.



Interestingly enough, the two ends of the Canon spectrum are represented by "the pros and fanatics", with the other end being "the great unwashed masses"....

For the pros and fanatics, things like service, reliability, and glass are critical to the decision making process, yet to the masses, price and getting a "name brand" are the biggest factors.

And features and specs? We forum members will hotly debate them! Every little difference means YAPOD (Yet Another Prediction Of Doom) for Canon and in the midst of all this we loose track of the interesting statistic that the bulk of DSLRs are very seldom used outside of "green box mode"


----------



## hbr (May 21, 2017)

There a lot more of us out there that photograph as a hobby over those that are pros that need the latest and greatest technology. While we may drool over the "big whites" and the professional cameras, we simply can't justify the expense. We are Canon's bread and butter from a profitability standpoint.


----------



## johnhenry (May 21, 2017)

Just more noise from Canon trying to keep dangling a carrot in front of people on the fence about getting a FF but not actually WANTING to release one, just to keep them from migrating to Sony/Nikon

They leave OUT 4K video so to keep flogging their expensive 4K video cameras and just leave the rest of us hung out to dry with their inept marketing ploys.

Just seems to be more Vaporware from a company who is getting good at it.


----------



## Rocky (May 21, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> 
> Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D


Right on +1


----------



## davidhfe (May 21, 2017)

johnhenry said:


> Just seems to be more Vaporware from a company who is getting good at it.



Not announcing products until they are ready to ship (ok, a little longer with the 1 series, but basically true) is, like, the exact opposite of vaporware.


----------



## Don Haines (May 21, 2017)

Rocky said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> ...


This is based on the assumption that a mirrorless flange distance has to be tiny. That may well be a flawed assumption as narrow bodies have drawbacks as well as advantages.... We do not have the data to guess which way it will go....


----------



## rrcphoto (May 21, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
> ...



bumping this .. this is too true. also when canon had the FD mount and minolta came out with their AF system, canon fell to #3 in marketshare. They had to do something and fast. EF was a gamble (the project manager put his career on the line to convince the higher ups) that paid off in spades. but the scenario is nothing close to the same as it is today.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 21, 2017)

johnhenry said:


> They leave OUT 4K video so to keep flogging their expensive 4K video cameras and just leave the rest of us hung out to dry with their inept marketing ploys.



Right. you sure about that?


----------



## gmrza (May 22, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So now you're speaking for millions of customers, and claiming to have knowledge of what drives their purchasing decisions? Talk about delusional… Millions of people don't buy new cameras and lenses because 'the workflow completely sucks'? Completely asinine. It's far more likely that in most cases, the camera and lens(es) they have are meeting their needs perfectly well.



I can only speak for myself, but what I am finding is that my wife and I are purchasing gear (specifically bodies) less frequently - mainly because the ones we have are doing what we require. To put it in a more concrete perspective: my wife seldom, if ever, gets a request for a print more than 1m (40") across. 95% of prints she sells are 50cm wide across or less. Those requirements can be achieved perfectly by a 5DIII. True, if my wife were shooting billboards, a 5DSR would make sense, but she isn't.
Whenever my wife is shooting for a client, she uses a portrait grip. The ergonomics of a body with a portrait grip are superior. Thus, for professional use, including events and studio work I see little use for a mirrorless body, unless a mirrorless body becomes able to do something that a DSLR cannot.

Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.

The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.

Where I would like a smaller camera is for holidays, but there I am also prepared to compromise on sensor size.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



short registration distance cameras especially full frame depend on:

a) a relatively good sensor filter stack that doesn't distort light rays too much at the periphery, or the lenses have to be custom designed for that sensor stack.

b) related patents surrounded one of two things (offsetted microlenses and the such which also limit longer focals, or BSI based sensors).

canon right now has no BSI related sensors or technology, they haven't even prototyped it as far as we know. we have seem offsetted microlenses, but their use for telephotos would be suspect even if it does help with shorter focals.

the M5/M6 work "okay" as far as periphery - however, I think there's some magic happening in the camera, because I see casting in special filter cases with the M5.

however that's only APS-C. the world is a harder place for short registration full frame sensors.

It's entirely likely that canon will develop a BSI sensor just for this camera, or they will continue to use their existing R&D and sensors and leave the registration distance at 44mm.

If I'm a betting man, the cost of new R&D for lenses and the cost of developing an entirely different process to make sensors is not something that sounds too palatable when the market continues to contract.


----------



## digigal (May 22, 2017)

gmrza said:


> Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.
> 
> The main use for a smaller camera body thus seems to be the sum of the use cases where the lenses are sufficiently light that the camera body weight makes up a significant portion of the overall system weight. Even with a lens of moderate weight, like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 24-105 f/4 I would probable find a body much smaller than a 5D or a 7D would result in an unbalanced combination.


 From my frequent international photo travels over the last 5 yrs with high end photography groups (everywhere but snow leopards!), I think the biggest market I've seen for mirrorless which has just occurred in the last year is in the skilled aging baby boomer who has been carrying around a 500-600 lens and 5D or 1 series cameras and now has had the back, hip, shoulder, or knee surgery and just can't carry all that stuff anymore but still wants a really capable set up for wildlife/birds and has been desperate for a lighter equally capable setup with smaller/lighter lenses to fill the bill and have been hoping mirrorless would fit the bill. Some have temporized by switching down to the 7DM2 and 400 lenses to get a lighter rig but still are looking for the next step. I've seen 2 guys switch completely to Olympus and another to Sony because they could no longer carry their heavy rigs around and they said they couldn't wait any longer for Canon.
Was just in Namibia with a guy who was shooting a Fuji mirrorless with telephoto+TC along side his Canon 7DM2 with 70-200 f2.8 +1.4lll and he got absolutely great stuff and said there was no difference and felt he didn't miss anything switching from one rig to the other. Another guy was using the Olympus E M1 II + 300 and also had his 1DX2 + 100-400 II and felt with the animals and action we had, there was no advantage to either camera and he didn't miss a shot because of switching between the equipment. DON'T GET ME WRONG--fast moving tiny swallows you are going to miss with a mirrorless and some other really split second stuff. Unless you are sure you are going to get those pictures no matter what the conditions with a top of the line fast shooting Canon/Nikon, some of the mirrorless are now getting "good enough" for the weight trade off for a lot of people. 
Catherine

Catherine


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2017)

digigal said:
 

> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.
> ...


Yes!

If I was going to jump systems to get a smaller camera, it would be to Olympus. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have nothing in that form factor that even remotely competes.....


----------



## digigal (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Yes!
> 
> If I was going to jump systems to get a smaller camera, it would be to Olympus. Sony, Canon, and Nikon have nothing in that form factor that even remotely competes.....



I've got about 1-2 more years left of being able to lug that Canon stuff around before I've got to figure out that menu system of Olympus! LOL. Hope Canon comes up with something by then that competes. Not hopeful though.
Catherine


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2017)

digigal said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Where a smaller form factor comes into its own is for travel, but only where there is no need to use very large lenses. For example, a wildlife photographer has little use for a smaller camera body. Similarly for sports. I would probably also struggle with anything smaller than a 5D or 7D with gloved hands.
> ...



That is about as sensible a comment as I have read in these discussions.
In my late 50s, my next DSLR will probably be my last and on the current products my preference would be to Fuji - nice retro styling with dials to cover most used operations and some reputedly beautiful native glass. But 5 years is a long time in this business and the future looks very interesting.


----------



## ewg963 (May 22, 2017)

sanj said:


> CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.


 Hello Sanj you have some great stuff on your website.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 22, 2017)

digigal said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Yes!
> ...



Canon will never compete with olympus though.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 22, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon will never compete with olympus though.



Never is a _long_ time.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 22, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon will never compete with olympus though.
> ...



yes it is .. but can you see canon going m43's .. it's not happening. Olympus will always have that niche, and frankly with olympus struggling to sell 500,000 units, canon probably doesn't care.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 22, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Oh, I thought you meant in terms of "quality of mirrorless offerings" not "directly in the m43 product space". They still might, though I agree that's less likely than sticking to FF and APS-C for their ILCs.


----------



## digigal (May 22, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I agree that Canon will never compete in the m43 market but I'd be supremely happy if they produced an APS-C camera that was as good as the the Oly -EM1-II with new small teles that are 400 mm for a crop mirrorless. That would certainly get me by for a while and keep me from looking elsewhere for weight savings which I think a lot of people are going to start doing in the next few years
Catherine


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....



Why would you group all the crop cameras together regardless of crop factor but leave FF separate? I could see that for the 1.5x of Nikon vs the 1.6x of Canon, but m43 is different from APS-C, even if they're both "crop".


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon M series are APS-C crop cameras.... m4/3 is also a crop camera... They already are competing in the same segment. Feature wise, Olympus spanks Canon in just about every spec and feature, yet Canon outsells them. Never underestimate to effect of being one of the two big names (Canon or Nikon) on consumers....
> ...



Because they are cropped


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Because they are cropped



So is 35mm compared to Pentax 645


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Because they are cropped
> ...


so is Pentax compared to the old 8X10..... which weighs way too much and fortunately she has no digital back for it.....


----------



## Mikehit (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



as for the camera obscura....fancy that in your back pocket?


----------



## 100 (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



An Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II is a $2,000 camera
A Canon EOS M5 is a $1,000 camera
Sure, they’re both crop and mirrorless but that doesn’t mean they are competing in the same segment.


----------



## dak723 (May 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > LonelyBoy said:
> ...



I have both an Olympus E-M1 and the new Canon M5. Spec wise, you may be correct, Olympus has more, plus their lenses are far more Pro level than the M lenses. But lumping all the crops together is a mistake, in my opinion. APS-C is still a bit larger than M4/3 and the difference is noticeable, especially in low light. (More noticeable than the difference between FF and APS-C, in my opinion). I really love my E-M1, but find that it is being left home now for all my landscape shots. The M5 just produces better pics, in my opinion. I realize that my opinion is subjective, but if someone were to ask me what mirrorless camera I would recommend, I would say the M5.


----------



## Don Haines (May 22, 2017)

100 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



But it does show some of what is possible.....

As thing stand now, If I were going to get a tiny ILC, it would be the E-M1 Mark II. That's what you can do now with a mirrorless camera....

Now imagine if you took those features, the superior ergonomics from Canon and the light gathering advantages of a FF sensor and larger glass..... That would be one kick-ass camera!


----------



## gmrza (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> To use, probably inadvisedly, the fall back car analogy.
> 
> If you want a car you can buy a Toyota or an Alfa Romeo, the Toyota will always get you there, always, it will get your kids there when you give it to them too, it will never set you on fire but it will never let you down. Or you can buy an Alfa Romeo, you will love it like you never did the Toyota. You can enjoy driving it like you never could the Toyota but you will never be able to rely on it, it will let you down, more than once!
> 
> ...



Rightly or wrongly a lot of us are also very invested in the EOS system. The collection off Speedlites, lenses and other accessories that many of us have makes changing brands a major and costly exercise - something not to be taken lightly.

The reality is that many of us have got into that position because of the reasons you cite. Lenses generally last decades, and are a considerable investment - especially if your vices include things like photographing sport or wildlife.
If you need specialised equipment like tilt-shift lenses, there isn't much choice in the market anyhow.

When you consider the cost of putting together a camera system consisting of at least 2 bodies, multiple lenses, flash units etc. you want to go with a brand that has the likelihood of being around for a while, and which has the breadth of equipment you are looking for. You can be sure that Toyota (or was that Canon) will have the right tool for pretty much any need, that will get the job done reliably, even if not with the greatest excitement (although Toyota doesn't only sell boring cars), and you will be able to get parts for the Hilux for decades to come.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The E-M1 Mark II is a nice camera but if you want some reach an ED 300mm f/4 is not exactly light and cheap with almost 1.5 kilo and a $2500 price tag. Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens. 

E-M1 Mark II specs on a full frame mirrorless camera will require a lot of power and generate a lot of heat. We’ll have to wait and see how the new full frame Sony A9 will perform but on paper the specs look impressive.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



It's an arbitrary distinction, though, of which sensors get groups together. FF isn't a special category of its own.


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

100 said:


> Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.



Compared to which FF camera? Not the 5DSR 
And f2.8 DOF does not become f8 DOF - you don't magically de-blur that background just because you are magnifying the image.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.
> ...



E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
5DSR sensor is 24 x 36 mm = 864mm2
864 / 226.2 = 3.81 to be exact so the 5DSR gathers 3.81 times the light of the E-M1 which is 1.95 stops difference (let’s call that 2 stops).
The question “which FF camera?” is irrelevant when it comes to the amount of light hitting the sensor. I’m not talking about resolution in this case. Higher resolution will get you less light per pixel, but the total amount of light is the same because you have more pixels. 

The Olympus ED 300mm is an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8. Add 2 stops to f/4 and you get f/8. 
No, you don’t magically de-blur that background, it will be the same as long as you use the same lens, 300 f/4 on 5DSR cropped to MTF will get you the same (with 13mp compared to 20 on MFT). But I compared it to a 600mm lens on FF. The argument was smaller/lighter but with the same reach. 300mm on E-M1 will get you about the same FOV as 600mm on a 5DSR but you have to factor in the 2 stops difference as well, so 300 f/4 becomes 600 f/8


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

100 said:


> E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
> 5DSR sensor is 24 x 36 mm = 864mm2
> 864 / 226.2 = 3.81 to be exact so the 5DSR gathers 3.81 times the light of the E-M1 which is 1.95 stops difference (let’s call that 2 stops).
> The question “which FF camera?” is irrelevant when it comes to the amount of light hitting the sensor. I’m not talking about resolution in this case. Higher resolution will get you less light per pixel, but the total amount of light is the same because you have more pixels.



So if you are not talking about resolution, what are you talking about? I the 5DSR has about the same resolution as the E-M1.2 (I call a 25% difference pretty much equal in resolution terms) then how is shooting 300mm on a MFT like shooting 600mm on 5DSR.




100 said:


> The Olympus ED 300mm is an f/4 lens, not an f/2.8. Add 2 stops to f/4 and you get f/8.
> No, you don’t magically de-blur that background, it will be the same as long as you use the same lens, 300 f/4 on 5DSR cropped to MTF will get you the same (with 13mp compared to 20 on MFT). But I compared it to a 600mm lens on FF. The argument was smaller/lighter but with the same reach. 300mm on E-M1 will get you about the same FOV as 600mm on a 5DSR but you have to factor in the 2 stops difference as well, so 300 f/4 becomes 600 f/8



Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
FOV is irrelevant if you are focal length limited. 

But... are you talking same framing or focal length limited? The former has some merit, the latter definitely not.


----------



## Don Haines (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
> FOV is irrelevant if you are focal length limited.



Exactly!

Look at the 1DX2, the 5DSR, and the 7D2....

Slap a 400F5.6 on each body, stand in the same spot and take a picture of the same object at F5.6.... 

Let's call the 1DX2 shot the "standard image" to compare against.....

The 5DSR image will have an identical field of view as the 1DX2 image and the DOF will be identical, but the image will be sampled more densely.

The 7D2 image will have only 62% of the field of view of the 1DX2 image, the DOF will be identical, and the image will be sampled more densely.

The fun part is the comparison between the 5DSR and the 7D2..... both cameras have the same pixel pitch and are approximately at the same level of sensor technology... If you crop the 5DSR image to the same field of view as the 7D2 image, the two images should be identical. Same DOF, same sampling density......

Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....

DOF does not change because you have moved between crop and FF. DOF changes when you walk closer (or further) from your subject (framing) or when you change the aperture of the lens.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > E-M1 sensor is 17.4 x 13 mm = 226.2mm2
> ...



I told you what I what talking about, light gathering, a FF sensor gathers 3.81 times as much light.

The difficulty with linear resolution is there is a difference in aspect ratio (4:3 compared to 3:2) so it’s apples to oranges. Let’s just compare megapixels: 20.1 versus 13.2 (50.3/3.81) so the E-M1 Mark II has 65% more megapixels and that’s not even close to equal. It’s about the same difference as between the original 5D and the 5D Mark II.

DOF is another thing where you need to factor in the 2 stops difference. Use the DOF calculator of your choice and compare 600mm on full frame to 300mm on MFT. You’ll see 600 f/8 on full frame has about the same DOF as 300 f/4 on MFT.

The E-M1 Mark II is a 15 fps camera (18 fps electronic with 60fps burst mode) why do you want to compare that with a high resolution slow camera like a 5DSR anyway? With that kind of speed, you’re in 1DX, Nikon D5 or Sony A9 territory which all have similar resolution. The discussion was about people wanting a smaller/lighter system compared to flag ship high speed full frame camera’s. I’m not saying a 2k MFT camera is in the same class as a 6k FF DSLR, but for a lot of people an E-M1 Mark II like system is good enough with the benefit of size/weight. The price you pay for equivalence is a two stops difference.


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
> ...


DOF is nothing physical in itself. It depends on viewing size, too (i.e. size of COC), besides distance and focal length. Look here, equation 9 and 12: http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html .
As the COC is differently taken for both formats, DOF decreases for APSC in case of same focal length, aperture and distance, as we want the same relation between diagonal and COC, which is confirmed by a dof calculator, as long as you print to the same sized image!
Zeiss: "The size of the object field is reduced by the crop factor while the object-side light cones remain the same, as long as we use the same lens and do not change the aperture setting. That is why the points of the light cones may not be located so far from the focal plane if we want to maintain the same ratio of diagonal to circle of confusion. Reducing the size of the film format therefore reduces the depth of field by the crop factor." 
Use http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to check it: e.g. 85mm/f2 at 5m distance. DOF = 27.2 cm (APSC) and 40.9cm (D800).

Only when viewing the APSC image at a smaller size related to the crop factor, your DOF will be the same. The important thing is the size of the COC relative to the size of the sensor, to get the impression that a point on the object side is projected within the COC to be still seen as a point in the image plane. 

If you crop the FF image to APSC, you change the magnification which goes into the DOF equation as 1/M^2, influencing the perceived DOF (for same output size). The larger you display the image, the more obvious it will become that deviations from the "plane of perfect focus" are out of focus, and the smaller you display the image, the less obvious it will be. So what is appearing to the human eye to be in focus is dependent on viewing size (and therefore cropping and magnification) and distance to the print/image, which is used to define COC, which then determines the DOF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Because a full frame sensor is 4 times bigger than the M 4/3 Olympus, you’ll have the equivalent of a 600mm f/8 lens.
> ...



@Mikehit, he's talking about equivalence, which is the proper way to compare sensor formats. Sensor area impacts lots of important factors, including image noise and magnification (which, along with aperture, determines depth of field). Moreover, he's correctly stated the equivalence – a 300/4 on m4/3 is equivalent to a 600/8 on FF. Many people in this forum and elsewhere fail to grasp the concept, notably including Panasonic...well, I'm sure they _do_ get it, but for marketing reasons they chose to lie and print 25-600mm *f/2.8* on the barrel of the FZ200. Somehow, I don't think Panasonic made a superzoom P&S with a 214mm/8.4" front element. 




Mikehit said:


> And f2.8 DOF does not become f8 DOF - you don't *magically* de-blur that background just because you are magnifying the image.



You're right, it's not _magic_…it's physics. DoF is a function of aperture and magnification, and if you increase magnification, you increase DoF. A DoF calculation assumes a fixed output size and viewing distance. For subjects framed identically, the image projected on to a m4/3 sensor will be half the physical size of the same image projected onto a FF sensor, so to achieve the same output size the image from the smaller sensor must be magnified twice as much. Conceptually though, it's easier to phrase that using the other side of the equation…aperture. Thus, we say that f/4 on m4/3 gives equivalent DoF to f/8 on FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....
> 
> DOF does not change because you have moved between crop and FF. DOF changes when you walk closer (or further) from your subject (framing) or when you change the aperture of the lens.



Sorry, but you're out of your depth (of field) on this one, Don. I think you are trapped within the circle of confusion… 

Speaking of which, if you actually change nothing else, i.e. keep subject distance and aperture the same, use the same lens and focal length, and only swap out the camera…the depth of field will actually be _shallower_ with the smaller sensor. So yes, either way sensor size absolutely affects DoF, whether you change magnification by changing the subject distance, or whether you merely change the sensor behind the lens.


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....
> ...



This is why I asked 



> But... are you talking same framing or focal length limited? The former has some merit, the latter definitely not


.

A 300mm lens will project the same image size onto the sensor irrespective of sensor size. If you need to crop and MFT image you will need to crop a FF image as well. And if you crop to the same FOV, the DOF for both formats will be dependent on pixel density (not sensor size).

If you are talking about a frame-filling image then that is a different thing.


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

100 said:


> I told you what I what talking about, light gathering, a FF sensor gathers 3.81 times as much light.
> 
> The difficulty with linear resolution is there is a difference in aspect ratio (4:3 compared to 3:2) so it’s apples to oranges. Let’s just compare megapixels: 20.1 versus 13.2 (50.3/3.81) so the E-M1 Mark II has 65% more megapixels and that’s not even close to equal. It’s about the same difference as between the original 5D and the 5D Mark II.



That is what confused me.
You said you are not talking about resolution - but pixels give resolution. More pixels = more resolution = effect on DOF.
I am not sure what effect 'light gathering' has on it. Or were you not talking about DOF at that point (most people refer to 'equivalence regards DOF but maybe you were not in this case?


----------



## Orangutan (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....
> ...



Are you talking about equal framing or equal distance? This discussion is meaningless unless we're talking equal distance, in which case I believe Don is correct. This can be seen trivially in that a FF sensor can be viewed as containing within in it smaller sensors of any size, and the DoF is the same (aside from lens distortions) across the sensor. If you want to discuss equal framing then please be explicit about that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Sorry if that was unclear. When I said "Change nothing else but the camera," I meant change nothing else. If all you change is the sensor size, then obviously you are changing the framing. In that case, depth of field is shallower with the smaller sensor because the circle of confusion is smaller. If you change the subject distance to match the framing, i.e., moved further away with the smaller sensor, then depth of field is deeper with the smaller sensor. But either way, depth of field is changing with sensor size. 

Don's point was that sensor size does not affect depth of field, only lens and subject distance parameters do so. He's wrong.


----------



## BurningPlatform (May 23, 2017)

The crop-DoF debate finally reaches CanonRumors. The discussion here (and Don, specifically), is about visible DoF when you have the same framing with different crop factors. That is also what you use when you say that a mFT 100mm is FF 200mm equivalent. 

If you photograph a subject from the same distance with an mFT camera with aperture 4 and 100mm lens (200mm FF equivalent), you get (approximately) the same number of circles of confusion across the frame on the out-of-focus background objects as you get from a real 200mm lens with aperture 8 on an FF camera. 

So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

BurningPlatform said:


> So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?



My guess is because DOF is not just sensor size but pixel density as well. And at the end of the day, people care more for 'reach' than they do about DOF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?
> ...



Well yes, it is affected by subject distance, focal length, aperture, and magnification. That's where the sensor size matters.


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Why is the circle of confusion changing? Isn't the only thing changing the size of the COC relative to the sensor size (but not the absolute size of the COC)?


----------



## Orangutan (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> If all you change is the sensor size, then obviously you are changing the framing. In that case, depth of field is shallower with the smaller sensor because the circle of confusion is smaller.



Please explain this: I can convert a FF to a smaller sensor by putting tape over the outer edges. Are you saying that this would affect the circle of confusion, and therefore the DoF? If so, I've got some reading to do.


----------



## midluk (May 23, 2017)

Of course the usual equivalence breaks down when you begin to not look at complete pictures but crops thereof (e.g. on a monitor zoomed in at 100%). You of course have to do the calculations for the new modified crop factors.

And the usual equivalence assumes your resolution is high enough to be invisible at the usual size of the prints and viewing distance.


----------



## BurningPlatform (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?
> ...



But many people think they get equivalent bokeh from a severely cropped 2.8 lens than they do from an FF equivalent 2.8 lens. As bokeh is really the reverse of DoF, that is really not the case. Bokeh is not related to pixel pitch, but is related to the whole frame.

Also, giving the equivalent aperture would also make it more clear how much less light the sensor in total has to work with with a cropped sensor. E.g. a 20 megapixel FF sensor gets 4 times more light per pixel than an mFT 20 megapixel sensor, and this does mean that either the sensor has to be much more efficient, or you get more noise and less high ISO performance. As there is not too much room to increase the Quantum Efficiency of sensors any more, this problem with crop will not disappear.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

As an example, suppose I am using a 7D with a 100mm lens set at f/4, and my subject is 25 meters away. My DOF is 9.81 meters. If I don't do anything else at all, and simply swap out to a 1Dx, my DOF changes to 16.4 meters. All I changed was the sensor. And this has to do with magnification. DOF calculators of course assume the same output size and same viewing distance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?
> ...



I think the obvious answer is marketing. 25-600mm f/2.8 sounds good. 25-600mm f/16...not so much (it's a 5.6x crop sensor). But if you want to rationalize it, while sensor size affects DoF, it doesn't affect 'exposure'. In other words, for a given scene such that 1/100 s, f/2.8, ISO 400 gives the desired exposure, those same camera settings will give the same exposure (in terms of image brightness) whether you're using a FF sensor, m4/3, or Panasonic's FZ200. But that's a red herring, because in addition to DoF, the level of _image noise_ is determined by the total light gathered, which is proportional to the sensor size. So, an image taken with those settings on the Panasonic 5.6x crop sensor would have the same brightness as an equivalent image taken on a FF sensor, but the DoF would be equivalent to f/16 on FF, and the image noise would be equivalent to ISO 16,000 on FF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If all you change is the sensor size, then obviously you are changing the framing. In that case, depth of field is shallower with the smaller sensor because the circle of confusion is smaller.
> ...



When these discussions about sensor size and DOF take place, seems some get lost whirrrrrrring round and round in the circle of confusion.


----------



## Sporgon (May 23, 2017)

BurningPlatform said:


> So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?



Because of exposure. From an exposure point of view an f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens irrespective of what sized sensor it is put in front of, it just produces a different optical effect depending on sensor size. Just because a FF f/2.8 lens produces a DOF on crop closer to an f/4 lens on FF doesn't make that an f/4 lens in any way, shape or form. To put a different f stop on a lens from the one it really is could lead to exposure confusion. 

Of course you can say the same thing about focal length, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens ! However in this case it is harmless enough to give it's FF equivalent focal length, or FOV, as it is not effecting anything else, and can be a benefit in understanding what FOV the lens will be equal to on a given sensor size.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

romanr74 said:


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



If you assume the same output size and viewing distance, the smaller sensor's "image" had to undergo a larger enlargement to get to that same size, vs. a larger sensor's image. The enlargement ratio is larger.


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



But through magnifying to same picture size...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If all you change is the sensor size, then obviously you are changing the framing. In that case, depth of field is shallower with the smaller sensor because the circle of confusion is smaller.
> ...



That's exactly what I'm saying. In practical terms, sensor size (i.e. the physical area used to capture an image) determines circle of confusion. 

In technical terms, it's more complicated than that because CoC is really about 'acceptable blur' which is also a function of output size, viewing distance, and the visual acuity of the viewer. But when talking about depth of field, we hold all of those at a constant value (fixed and arbitrary), so the only thing that determines CoC is the physical size of the image on the capture media (the sensor), because that determines how much you have to enlarge it to achieve the chosen (fixed) output size.


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



So, but this changes the size of the COC on the output through different magnification, but not the absolute size of the COC at the point the light reaches the sensor.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

romanr74 said:


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



The size on the sensor is irrelevant. It is the size as it appears to your eye that is relevant.

That implies that reproduction size and viewing distance all change dof, and they do.

There are only two things that create dof, the magnification (to your eye whilst viewing the output not the size on the film/sensor) and the size of the hole the light went through in the lens, the aperture (the physical size not the f number). If the magnification is bigger the dof is narrower, if the aperture is bigger (actual size not number) then the dof is narrower.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?
> ...



NO! Pixel density has nothing to do with depth of field, nothing.

Only two things create dof after you define what is 'acceptable', the apparent magnification to you in real time of the output and the size of the aperture in the lens at capture, not the f number, the actual size.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



there's also pixel pitch in there as well.


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Perfectly agree. I believe the confusion between Don, Neuro, Orangutan was on if, how and why changnig the sensor would do anything to the size of the COC the lens produces. And we seem to agree that it doesn't do anyhting at this level.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who cares? Pixel pitch doesn't matter at all.


----------



## midluk (May 23, 2017)

rrcphoto said:


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


Pixel pitch only enters through the maximum magnification you can do to the output until you start to see single pixels.


----------



## Mikehit (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> NO! Pixel density has nothing to do with depth of field, nothing.
> 
> Only two things create dof after you define what is 'acceptable', the apparent magnification to you in real time of the output and the size of the aperture in the lens at capture, not the f number, the actual size.



The number of times I have been corrected on that! As I understand it, higher pixel sensors of the same size can resolve more and so reduce the circle of confusion which means you can magnify the image further and have an 'acceptably sharp' image.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NO! Pixel density has nothing to do with depth of field, nothing.
> ...



We could argue that with a thousand sensor/lens combos with varying resolving power.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

romanr74 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



But the coc size on the sensor is irrelevant, it is the coc size at the given output magnification ( print/screen size and viewing distance). The issue is that for a comparable constant output size a smaller sensor has to be enlarged more, therefore the smaller sensor 'on sensor' coc must be a smaller number. Ergo sensor size, as we equate the concept into actual images, does impact dof for comparative purposes.

Look at it another way, we all know by now that a crop camera is just a crop of a ff camera it just has a smaller sensor. Put a 300mm lens on a tripod and take a picture with a ff camera of a bird on a fence, then take the body off and do the same with a crop camera. Now make two prints the same size of the full output, the bird is bigger in the print from the crop camera, that isn't because the lens magnified the bird more, it is because the crop image is enlarged more, ergo it has less dof. Then make two prints where the bird is the same size, the dof is identical, the only difference is you get more fence in the ff image because the ff print is bigger, however the magnification of the subject is the same so the dof is the same even though the output is from different sensor sizes. 

Third scenario, 300mm f 2.8 lens on the ff camera, Sigma 120-300 f2.8 zoom on the crop camera. Take the same framed image as before with both. Print both the same size, now the earlier scenario would suggest the crop image would have less dof because it is magnified more, and the coc on the sensor is smaller, however to get the same framing you had to zoom to 190mm. As we already laid out a smaller physical aperture makes dof deeper, a 190mm f2.8 has an aperture opening of 67mm, a 300mm f2.8 has an aperture opening of 107mm, ergo the crop camera image has a much smaller actual aperture and the deepening of the dof is greater than the narrowing of the dof due to the additional enlargement. The crop camera same framed image has more dof because it was taken through a smaller sized aperture.

These are the three posiblilities we have, a crop camera can be used to get more dof, less dof or the same dof. The camera in and of itself doesn't change anything, what we do with the output especially when used for comparison purposes does.

Incidentally, you can always emulate a crop camera with a ff one, you can't always emulate a ff camera with a crop one.


----------



## Sporgon (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NO! Pixel density has nothing to do with depth of field, nothing.
> ...



I think what you have said here explains why higher density, smaller pixel sensors suffer more from diffraction at smaller apertures.


----------



## romanr74 (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



We are in agreement... Yet if you decompose what's going on, then changing the sensor size does NOT change the size of the COC produced by the lens, but only what you do with the recorded information in terms of magnification does.


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



"The issue is that for a comparable constant output size a smaller sensor has to be enlarged more, therefore the smaller sensor 'on sensor' coc must be a smaller number. Ergo sensor size, as we equate the concept into actual images, does impact dof for comparative purposes."
That is the film concept. In digital you don't need to enlarge an image of an equal MP APSC or FF sensor more.
It is the relative size of the COC to the dimension of the sensor which is important. The light cone coming from an object needs to lie within the COC, to be still envisioned as a point in the final image for a certain viewing distance. In the DOF formulas the COC stays the same when cropping, but magnification m changes (1/m^2 in the formula), thereby leading to the observed changes. Mathematically the result is similar.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > NO! Pixel density has nothing to do with depth of field, nothing.
> ...



No that isn't the way to look at it. Resolution allows you to resolve the coc, not exceed it.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> "The issue is that for a comparable constant output size a smaller sensor has to be enlarged more, therefore the smaller sensor 'on sensor' coc must be a smaller number. Ergo sensor size, as we equate the concept into actual images, does impact dof for comparative purposes."
> That is the film concept. In digital you don't need to enlarge an image of an equal MP APSC or FF sensor more.
> It is the relative size of the COC to the dimension of the sensor which is important. The light cone coming from an object needs to lie within the COC, to be still envisioned as a point in the final image for a certain viewing distance. In the DOF formulas the COC stays the same when cropping, but magnification m changes (1/m^2 in the formula), thereby leading to the observed changes. Mathematically the result is similar.



Don't be rediculous, that the information is digitized doesn't negate the fact that it is a digital representation of a physical optical projection onto that digital medium. The dof characteristics are identical for film and digital sensors, if they are the same size thos echarachteristics are the same, if they are different sizes they have different dof characteristics.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

So. Much. Misunderstanding. Of. Optics. 







;D


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > "The issue is that for a comparable constant output size a smaller sensor has to be enlarged more, therefore the smaller sensor 'on sensor' coc must be a smaller number. Ergo sensor size, as we equate the concept into actual images, does impact dof for comparative purposes."
> ...


I am just a bit picky, since it is important to define what one is speaking about. To say an APSC image has to be magnified more compared to a FF image is not correct, if it has the same amount of pixels. The size of an output image is determined by the pixels, contrary to film. Optically speaking it boils down to the relative size of the sensor to the defined COC.


----------



## Sporgon (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...





What about the size of the original capture ?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



You aren't being picky, you are being wrong.

The pixels represent a digital version of a physical reality, that reality contains the coc so the digital information contains that abstract 'limitation' of "acceptable sharpness".

Open a film camera back and you see what the film 'sees', if you could open the back of a digital camera (medium format) you can see what the pixels 'see'. 

Dof is determined by two factors alone after you personally decide what is 'acceptably sharp'; 1, subject magnification to you in real time looking at the output, 2, the size of the aperture the light passed through. 

Pixel size is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> I am just a bit picky, since it is important to define what one is speaking about. To say an APSC image has to be magnified more compared to a FF image is not correct, if it has the same amount of pixels. The size of an output image is determined by the pixels, contrary to film. Optically speaking it boils down to the relative size of the sensor to the defined COC.



Ermm...no. As PBD says, it boils down to you being wrong. The size of an output image is determined by the size of the output image – the picture printed at a given size (e.g. 8x10" which is the standard assumption for DoF calculators, or A2, or whataver you pick) or digitally viewed at a given size (e.g. the 14" digital picture frame on my desk, which is a screen size of 12.2x6.9", or the full screen mode of the 14.4x9" display of the 17" MacBook Pro on which I'm typing this post). The pixels are irrelevant - the image will be scaled to fit the output size. The 'input size' is the physical size of the imaging medium – in the case of a digital sensor, that's approximately 36x24mm for FF and 22x15mm for Canon's APS-C. Simple math will tell you that to go from an APS-C sensor to an 8x10" print or a 14" digital frame will require a greater increase in magnification than to go from a FF sensor to an 8x10" print or 14" digital frame.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



Not to pile on, but the output size of a digital image is no more determined by pixels than film was by grain. What you should be thinking of, to understand this whole process, is a system like OLAF over at LensRentals, which can evaluate a lens without a sensor. The lens projects an image onto the sensor area; the sensor samples that image at its resolution. Images do not have to be viewed at 100% zoom. A smaller area (sensor) has to be magnified more to reach an arbitrary output physical size, no matter what form that physical output is (screen, print, billboard). Specifically, an m43 image has to be magnified 3.8x more than FF, even if you compare a high-density m43 sensor and an old, original 5D. This is true no matter what the final output size is.


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > I am just a bit picky, since it is important to define what one is speaking about. To say an APSC image has to be magnified more compared to a FF image is not correct, if it has the same amount of pixels. The size of an output image is determined by the pixels, contrary to film. Optically speaking it boils down to the relative size of the sensor to the defined COC.
> ...


 I think we speak about the same thing just looking at it differently. I look at it at the sensor level following the light cones behind and in front of the object plane to the image plane. I compare the relative size of the COC to the sensor size or object COC to object size, as mentioned several time in my posts above. This _factor_ between COC and sensor size doesn't change when scaling the COC and sensor both to some virtual output size. It is this factor which is important, not the output size. My interpretation of what you mean with magnification is that when cropping for example, the relative size of the object COC (stays the same) to image size now changes, the factor increases. The blur is magnified and DOF decreases. So your notion that the crop image is magnified more for me is just that the relative size of the COC to image changes due to a crop or when using a crop sensor. I decouple that from the size of an image based on pixels when viewing on a monitor, maybe I expressed myself not correctly here.

See here about the magnification myth:
https://luminous-landscape.com/dslr-magnification/


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > I told you what I what talking about, light gathering, a FF sensor gathers 3.81 times as much light.
> ...



More pixels = more resolution => True
more resolution = effect on DOF => False

It’s like privatebydesign says in his reply from 10:23:57 AM: 
_Only two things create dof after you define what is 'acceptable', the apparent magnification to you in real time of the output and the size of the aperture in the lens at capture, not the f number, the actual size._

Just check any DOF calculator if you doubt that. Compare a Nikon D700 (FF 12mp) to a Nikon D800 (FF 36mp) and you’ll see the DOF is exactly the same.


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

100 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



The DOF equation shows it depends on f#, magnification (involves distance), focal length (term in the denominator, could become negligible in some cases) and COC (http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html eq. 12).


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


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



I can't take it anymore. No offense but you are really being foolish.


----------



## Hflm (May 23, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


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


Being rude doesn't help. Read the Zeiss document on DOF (https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf) or the link above on the derivation of the DOF equation, if you understand it at all (http://toothwalker.org/optics/dofderivation.html).


----------



## BillB (May 23, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> So. Much. Misunderstanding. Of. Optics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have to say that at this point I am a little unclear as to what the subject is, exactly. It seems to me that at least one element of the discussion is what effect the size of the capture sensor (measured either as physical size or as the number of pixels) has on the quality of a final image of a given size.

Factors influencing final image quality can be divided in to factors present before sensor capture and factors occurring during or after sensor capture. It seems clear to me that factors present before sensor capture (lens accuity, motion blur etc.) will be magnified in proportion to the physical scaling to produce the final image. These factors are baked in at sensor capture and they are affected by the physical crop factor, rather than the number of pixels in the sensor.

I have no idea how factors occurring during and after sensor capture are influenced by the amount of physical scaling or the number of pixels. Nor do I have any idea how significant factors occurring during and after sensor capture are to the quality of the final image.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I’m sorry, I don’t see the point you are trying to make.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2017)

Hflm said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



Read this.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2017)

BurningPlatform said:


> The crop-DoF debate finally reaches CanonRumors...



You are obviously new around here. This debate has been hashed and rehashed to death before. But that isn't going to stop people from doing it once again.

Welcome to a debate over one of the most obscure and insignificant characteristics of photography.



BurningPlatform said:


> So the question is, why does e.g. Panasonic quote the FF equivalence when talking about the focal length but not when talking about the aperture?



Well, I think the last several pages should answer that. Too confusing and too insignificant. 

This is the kind of debate that has virtually no use in the real world. Whatever camera and lens combination you are using, you should compose the image for that combination. If depth of field matters to you, take that into account for the equipment you are using.


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > The crop-DoF debate finally reaches CanonRumors...
> ...



OK! THAT'S IT!!!! THIS IS YOUR THIRD WARNING!!!!

You are using common sense on the web.... This is neither the time nor the place for it!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> This is the kind of debate that has virtually no use in the real world. Whatever camera and lens combination you are using, you should compose the image for that combination. If depth of field matters to you, take that into account for the equipment you are using.



I disagree, understanding how it all works is very important for some people to understand how to get what they want. 

For instance if you run a combination crop and ff camera kit you instantly understand how your lens stable interacts with them and what you can use to get a look you want.

Sure for many people it is irrelevant, so what? If it helps anybody then the discussion has value. But what drives me to post in threads like this is when people give out information that is factually wrong, I try hard to correct that misinformation for the good of all.


----------



## Orangutan (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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


I think my confusion here is that we're holding different things constant. You're starting with the presumption that the output size must stay the same between FF and crop, while I'm assuming that the objects in the respected outputs stay the same size. E.g. if the central subject is a tree 10cm tall in the FF print, it's also 10cm tall in the output of the crop print. I don't see that either of us is objectively correct, just different assumptions. As you describe the test, it looks like a series of changes to me, and the reverse to you; e.g.

Framing: Keep the distance to subject equal, then framing changes. (and reverse)

Print: Keep the overall print size equal, then object size changes. (and reverse)

I think the point is that there is no such thing as "all else kept equal," we just need to be explicit about our conditions. The one point on which I'll hold on to a small piece of pride is that Don's statement was, ultimately, about the behavior of the lens. He was not talking about the final print, but about what happens to light as it passes through the lens. Changing subject distance invalidates that comparison.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


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



Please just read this.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/


----------



## Orangutan (May 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


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



Sure, when I have time. But remember that this was never a question about equivalence, but about the behavior of the lens. This is the key statement from Don's original post. It is correct.



> Lenses do not magically change properties when swapped onto different bodies. The optics do not change. The photon entering the lens does not know what sensor is at the far end of the lens and can not change it's path based on that.....



Somewhere the thread was hijacked to become a discussion of CoC.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> I think my confusion here is that we're holding different things constant. You're starting with the presumption that the output size must stay the same between FF and crop, while I'm assuming that the objects in the respected outputs stay the same size.



Sure, you can vary whatever you want. But when discussing DoF, in particular when calculating it, by convention we hold output size, viewing distance, and visual acuity constant. Check the fine print of various DoF calculators.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2017)

In this thread I have already explained the three possible comparison scenarios.

The link explains everything being discussed in more detail and more logically.

The lens doesn't change, the output for equal and relevant comparison purposes does. In and of itself the sensor size does not dictate dof, only two things do. 1, the magnification in real time of the output as you are viewing it. 2, the size of the entrance pupil in the lens or pinhole you capture the image with in the first place.

If you fully understand that the dof in a print changes as you move closer or further from it then you know what you are talking about, if you can't get your head around that concept then you really need to read the link.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> But remember that this was never a question about equivalence, but about the behavior of the lens. This is the key statement from Don's original post. It is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Context is important. 



> The moon can appear white and cratered.....



The preceding statement is correct. Is this following statement also correct?

The moon can appear white and cratered, therefore it is made of Swiss cheese. 

Don made a correct statement about lens properties, and then concluded that sensor size does not affect DoF. So, if you believe he was correct, I look forward to your fondue made from moon rocks. 

Sensor size _does_ affect DoF, and it does so because CoC affects DoF, and CoC varies with sensor size. The discussion of CoC wasn't a hijack, it was the _explanation_. 

Earlier, I believe you suggested that if you were interpreting my statements correctly, you had more reading to do. I suggest you do some of that reading before continuing this discussion…


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


> I think we speak about the same thing just looking at it differently. I look at it at the sensor level following the light cones behind and in front of the object plane to the image plane. I compare the relative size of the COC to the sensor size or object COC to object size...



I don't speak about 'object CoC' because it doesn't exist. All pun intended, you are clearly confused about circles of confusion. At least you have plenty of company...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> If you fully understand that the dof in a print changes as you move closer or further from it then you know what you are talking about, if you can't get your head around that concept then you really need to read the link.



Mind. Blown.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you fully understand that the dof in a print changes as you move closer or further from it then you know what you are talking about, if you can't get your head around that concept then you really need to read the link.
> ...


----------



## Hflm (May 24, 2017)

100 said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...


The point is, DOF depends NOT only on two things, as you claim, as the DOF formula I linked to shows.


----------



## Hflm (May 24, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


I know this. What I am talking about is scale invariance. Looking at the ratio of COC to image size is equivalent to the notion of magnifying a crop image more, as the ratio stays constant.


----------



## Hflm (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > I think we speak about the same thing just looking at it differently. I look at it at the sensor level following the light cones behind and in front of the object plane to the image plane. I compare the relative size of the COC to the sensor size or object COC to object size...
> ...


No. As I said above defining a COC (i.e. maximum blur circle for the light rays penetrating the image plane to be still envisioned as being a point for a certain output size and viewing distance) defines an object and image side COC (via ray tracing, as Zeiss mentions in their document, too). Scale invariance now shows, that the ratio of image height to this COC changes when cropping or changing the sensor. Your notion of needing to magnify a crop image more is mathematically equivalent to looking at this ratio, because it stays constant, as you scale the blur circle and image height by the same factor. It cancels out. So it is just a matter of perspective. You can say you need to magnify the image more thereby increasing the blur circles (resulting in a change of DOF), I say the size of the blur circle relative to the image size increases.


----------



## romanr74 (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > But remember that this was never a question about equivalence, but about the behavior of the lens. This is the key statement from Don's original post. It is correct.
> ...



It appears to me that you are both right, yet apply different assumptions re output size/magnification. This is what matters, not the sensor size as such. The lens indeed doesn't care...

Also, please don't be simplistic about Swiss cheese.


----------



## BurningPlatform (May 24, 2017)

unfocused said:


> BurningPlatform said:
> 
> 
> > The crop-DoF debate finally reaches CanonRumors...
> ...




Thank you for setting me straight. Time to change my diapers, I guess.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


> > It’s like privatebydesign says in his reply from 10:23:57 AM:
> > _Only two things create dof after you define what is 'acceptable', the apparent magnification to you in real time of the output and the size of the aperture in the lens at capture, not the f number, the actual size._
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, but with respect, it's obvious you're having quite a bit of difficulty understanding these concepts. One of the wonderful things about math is that you can reduce equations by combining terms, rearrange terms to suit, etc. In this case, three of the four terms you list – subject distance, focal length, and CoC – are used as part of the derivation of the apparent output magnification, and thus the equation for DoF can be appropriately reduced to just output magnification and physical aperture.


----------



## zim (May 24, 2017)

Well my takeaway from all this is that ignorance really IS bliss :'(




privatebydesign said:


> If you fully understand that the dof in a print changes as you move closer or further from it then you know what you are talking about, if you can't get your head around that concept then you really need to read the link.



How do my prints know I'm looking at them.... now I'm just scared


----------



## Orangutan (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don made a correct statement about lens properties, and then concluded that sensor size does not affect DoF.





> Earlier, I believe you suggested that if you were interpreting my statements correctly, you had more reading to do. I suggest you do some of that reading before continuing this discussion…


I thought you were going to cite some odd quantum effect similar to two-slit experiments that would suggest that a single photon would behave differently depending on whether it lands on a photosite near an "edge" of the sensor.



> Sensor size _does_ affect DoF, and it does so because CoC affects DoF, and CoC varies with sensor size.


It certainly can, if certain parameters are varied. Let's try again.


Let's assume it's a studio, and it's a photo of a plastic flower. (light and subject constant)
Both shots taken from the same tripod, at a fixed location; i.e. no change in distance to subject. (distance to subject constant)
The final prints are done so the flower appears as the same absolute size in all three prints. (object-level magnification constant)
Three prints are made: the FF print, the crop print, and a central crop of the FF print corresponding to the the crop-sensor print.

Is the CoC different between any two of these prints?


----------



## Hflm (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > > It’s like privatebydesign says in his reply from 10:23:57 AM:
> ...


No. What you do (basically eq. (12) which is easily derivable) means you neglect the term involving the exit pupil diameter/entrance pupil diameter, which has an impact for example in the macro regime. Furthermore COC is part of the equation, explicitly. If you make these assumption you are right, but that was not set as an assumption in the beginning, instead it was _generally_ just said, by you, too, that only two parameters are important.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> It certainly can, if certain parameters are varied. Let's try again.
> 
> 
> Let's assume it's a studio, and it's a photo of a plastic flower. (light and subject constant)
> ...



All three are the same. The magnification is the same, the aperture was the same, ergo they are the same.

The point is different sized prints are not a 'relevant' comparison. If you start changing parameters to make one the same as another then you are DXOing the results. The standard for comparisons and conclusions is same sized output, for coc calculations that standard is an 8"x10" print viewed from 12" by a human with 20/20 vision.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


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



Sorry, I'm going to give up at this point...it's clear that the explanations by me, PBD and others just aren't sinking in, and I suspect no amount of further attempts will improve the situation. I hope that you gain a better understanding of the principles underlying DoF at some point in the future.


----------



## Hflm (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Dito. Neglecting terms in an equation and saying that the other one doesn't understand the issue is silly. The equation, even in the form you prefer involving magnification and aperture involves additionally COC and the 
exit pupil diameter/entrance pupil diameter =P. you cn't simply ignore that. Your arrogance is ridiculous.


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2017)

zim said:


> Well my takeaway from all this is that ignorance really IS bliss :'(
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just think about a print size of 6x4", where your image is super sharp and in focus. You're happy. Then you print it 10x8", and think "damn, my subject's not as sharp as I though it was". Then you print it A3 and realise you actually missed focus of your subject. 

It's the same with dof in terms of magnification and viewing distance. If you have an image with shallow or shallowish dof, the dof that you see will vary depending on print size / viewing distance. 

Clear as mud


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


> Dito. Neglecting terms in an equation and saying that the other one doesn't understand the issue is silly. The equation, even in the form you prefer involving magnification and aperture involves additionally COC and the
> exit pupil diameter/entrance pupil diameter =P. you cn't simply ignore that. Your arrogance is ridiculous.



The entrance pupil (which is not the same as the exit pupil, even though you're lumping them together) is the optical representation of the physical aperture, the term which I used. You don't understand basic terminology, state that I am ignoring terms becuase you fail to recognize them, and accuse me of arrogance. There's really no point in responding to your ignorance and rudeness further.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Well my takeaway from all this is that ignorance really IS bliss :'(
> ...



I thought he was talking about those pictures where the eyes seem to follow you. Creepy!


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



;D Ha Ha

Looking at your GIF it is apparent that Mona is having a look around her own painting to assess the DOF. From that viewing distance on (in) the original sized painting I hope Leo got all his important bits in sharp focus !


----------



## zim (May 24, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



LOL good one

Actually Sporgon, thanks for that explanation what you describe does make sense now using those terms! 
I appreciate your attempt at educating one of the great unwashed


----------



## 100 (May 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


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



Sure, in macro photography DOF is also influenced by pupil magnification because there it might not be equal to 1. 
Why do you think that’s not covered by the term “_magnification_”?

What else? 
_define what is 'acceptable'_
CoC is arbitrary, so it’s covered by defining what is acceptable.
The Wikipedia definition: _In photography, the circle of confusion (CoC) is used to determine the depth of field, the part of an image that is *acceptably sharp*. A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format, but the most appropriate value depends on visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount of enlargement._

And the last term: 
“_aperture_”. 
Let’s take the definition of “entrance pupil” (again from Wikipedia): _In an optical system, the entrance pupil is the optical image *of the physical aperture stop*, as 'seen' through the front of the lens system_.
You still don’t think this is covered by: “_the size of the aperture in the lens at capture_”? 

No one is saying the formulas are incorrect and no one is ignoring them or parts of them.


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > It certainly can, if certain parameters are varied. Let's try again.
> ...



Exactly. Now please go back and read Don's post. Notice the following quotes:



> Slap a 400F5.6 on each body, stand in the same spot and take a picture of the same object at F5.6....


so the subject distance is invariate, and



> The fun part is the comparison between the 5DSR and the 7D2....If you crop the 5DSR image to the same field of view as the 7D2 image, the two images should be identical. Same DOF, same sampling density......



so the framing is identical, within reasonable tolerance of the hypothetical.

Don can speak for himself, but as I read his post, your observation that the images are "the same" is exactly the point he was making. Then, somehow, the discussion was diverted away from the point Don was making, and into the land of pedantry. Don, wise scholar that he is, appears to have recused himself from the pointless banter. 

PBD, for the scenarios you describe I have no doubt that you are correct; however, that was not the scenario that Don described, nor what I have been commenting on since the beginning of this diversion.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2017)

Look you can spin this any way you want. You are saying if you make an unequal comparison the results from two different sensors are equal; I, and the rest of the world that is describing what is actually going on, say if you make your comparison equal (same sized output, as all dof calculators do) the results are different. Duh! 

If you crop a ff camera output down to a crop camera size and make the output of the two the same the results are the same, we know that. Only an idiot wouldn't get that.

But that isn't what we have been saying, we have been saying same lens, same place, different sensor, size same sized output, equals different result.

P.S. I don't recall taking exception to you or Don's comments.

P.P.S. As for your second quote from Don. Look at the second paragraph of my reply here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32600.msg665367#msg665367


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> You are saying if you make an unequal comparison the results from two different sensors are equal;


Please read more carefully, I've tried to be explicit about this. You and I are describing very different scenarios, and you're berating me for not reaching the same conclusion from a different premise.



> If you crop a ff camera output down to a crop camera size and make the output of the two the same the results are the same, we know that.


(edit)This was the whole point of the original statement...it's really no more complicated than that.




> But that isn't what we have been saying, we have been saying same lens, same place, different sensor, size same sized output, equals different result.


In that scenario you would be correct, but that was NEVER the original premise, it was the mutated premise. The original premise was same lens, same place, different sensor, *different sized output*, equals *same *result (within the cropped area).



> P.P.S. As for your second quote from Don. Look at the second paragraph of my reply here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=32600.msg665367#msg665367



Yes, I've never had a problem with that explanation. The problem is that you keep insisting on making the output prints the same size, which was not the original premise. The original premise was same scaling, not same final size. I.e., an object within the frame would have the same absolute size.


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2017)

My previous reply was not very good, so I'll try again. I generally don't like to delete posts, so I'll leave it unless it becomes a distraction.



> If you crop a ff camera output down to a crop camera size and make the output of the two the same the results are the same, we know that.



OK, we're off to a good start. 

Now, Don essentially set up that very scenario to explain that the lens does not change its behavior if it's moved to a crop camera, but then added a throwaway line that could have been a bit ambiguous.



> DOF does not change because you have moved between crop and FF



Neuro decided to "correct" this statement by saying this:



> if you actually change nothing else, i.e. keep subject distance and aperture the same, use the same lens and focal length, and only swap out the camera…the depth of field will actually be _shallower_ with the smaller sensor. So yes, either way sensor size absolutely affects DoF



Which is correct, assuming the final output sizes are the same between the FF and crop. However, as you note above, if you scale the same rather than print the same absolute final output size, then the two are the same; more precisely, they are identical by definition. 

Now, since Don's statement was about the behavior of the lens, rather than the printer, I chose to be charitable in my reading, and assumed that Don (an obviously intelligent person), would select the print option that made his statement correct, and pointed out to Neuro that has was making assumptions that were not explicit in Don's setup.

And then the thread descended into people talking past each other, and not listening.

In summary, this whole tempest in a flea's anus was over a throwaway line that made an assumption about print size, and whether "all else being equal" is possible in these scenarios. It really was a trivial thing.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2017)

If you go back to the post of Don's you keep mentioning, the original premise of that was nothing to do with output size, it was all about reach being a function of pixel density, which is also a seriously flawed concept.

Neuro's correction was in line with accepted terminology with regards dof calculations, Don's comment needed a "charitable" addition to make any sense, that that addition meant his suggestion fell outside the standard accepted terminology is not Neuro's or my fault.

You gave Don a pass on an ambiguous statement that fell outside standard calculation practices, others didn't.


----------



## Hflm (May 25, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > Dito. Neglecting terms in an equation and saying that the other one doesn't understand the issue is silly. The equation, even in the form you prefer involving magnification and aperture involves additionally COC and the
> ...


Again selectively neglecting information.
The ratio of exit pupil diameter/entrance pupil diameter =P is part of the eq., even if we express the entrance pupil diameter in terms of the aperture, you still have the exit pupil diameter. This relation is different for different lenses, so a parameter to incorporate. Fixing magnificaton (M) and aperture (A) furthermore means that you get a linear relationship between focal length and object distance. So you have the freedom to change object distance v and focal length f if desired, as long as you follow the linear relation. so DOF = f(M,A,P,COC). Only if you make certain assumptions (e.g. fix the format, fix P), then you can reduce the dependency on two parameters, alone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Now, since Don's statement was about the behavior of the lens, rather than the printer, I chose to be charitable in my reading, and assumed that Don (an obviously intelligent person), would select the print option that made his statement correct, and pointed out to Neuro that has was making assumptions that were not explicit in Don's setup.
> 
> And then the thread descended into people talking past each other, and not listening.
> 
> In summary, this whole tempest in a flea's anus was over a throwaway line that made an assumption about print size, and whether "all else being equal" is possible in these scenarios. It really was a trivial thing.



Sorry, but no. Perhaps your objections to my correction of Don's erroneous information could be termed a "throwaway," but the salient bit is that Don made an incorrect statement which I corrected. Perhaps it's worth revisiting Don's original post, which to avoid any confusion I will include in its entirty, even though only the last part is relevant to this discussion:



Don Haines said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Reach is a function of pixel pitch not sensor size. If the pixel density of 5DSR is (give or take) pretty similar to EM-1.2 they both have the same 'reach' with a 300mm lens.
> ...



He has two main points. First, that "reach" is a function of pixel density. No argument there. His second point, which I highlighted, is that depth of field does not change merely by swapping cameras with different sensor sizes. That's wrong. He's absolutely correct that significant effects on DoF come when you compare crop and full frame and alter other parameter(s) to make the framing identical. You change the subject distance, or the focal length, and obviously you have changed DoF. But if all you do is move between crop and full frame (his words), the CoC changes and therefore, the DoF changes. 

His point about sensor size and DoF is straightforward, it's just incorrect. Even if you don't understand the math or the concepts, all you have to do is go to your favorite online DoF calculator (e.g., DOFMaster), pick a focal length, aperture, and subject distance, then change only the camera choice between a full frame sensor camera and a crop sensor camera, and see what happens to the DoF that the calculator reports. If it remains the same, Don is correct. If it changes, he's wrong. 

If you want to charatibly believe that Don is correct because he was assuming the crop sensor image would be viewed on an iPad while the FF sensor image would be viewed on a 19" monitor, and that such an assumption is so inherently logical that there was no need to even state it, that's your business...although frankly, it's quite an asinine assumption. 

Ps. As for it being a trivial thing, let's take Don's example of crop versus full frame and a 400/5.6. A typical use case for me would be a small perched bird at about 6 m distance. In that case, the DoF calculator reports DoFs of 7.1 cm and 4.5 cm for FF and crop, respectively. To me, having the entire bird versus only half the bird in focus is not trivial.


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> If you go back to the post of Don's you keep mentioning, the original premise of that was nothing to do with output size, it was all about reach being a function of pixel density, which is also a seriously flawed concept.


It would have been fine to point that out, rather than start a diversion on CoC. It would have been more useful and more charitable...and less wasteful of time and energy.



> Neuro's correction was in line with accepted terminology with regards dof calculations, Don's comment needed a "charitable" addition to make any sense, that that addition meant his suggestion fell outside the standard accepted terminology is not Neuro's or my fault.
> 
> You gave Don a pass on an ambiguous statement that fell outside standard calculation practices, others didn't.



Again, rather than say "that's WRONG," he could have simply said "standard DoF comparisons assume the same output size, so maybe you should tighten up your terminology here." or "this is only true if you print at the same scale." Instead, he tried to make it a fundamental issue of misunderstanding. In Don's case, I think it's more likely he was focusing on the point of his explanation, and was a bit too casual for Neuro's territorial peer-review. As an example, suppose someone wrote that the area of a circle is given by

A = πR2

The appropriate response is not to say "that's wrong!" and then give a lecture on how the area of a circle is known. The appropriate response is to say "yes, that's correct, but the convention is to use a lower-case r to refer to the radius, and that capital R often refers to something else.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2017)

Orangutan said:


> Again, rather than say "that's WRONG," he could have simply said "standard DoF comparisons assume the same output size, so maybe you should tighten up your terminology here." or "this is only true if you print at the same scale." Instead, he tried to make it a fundamental issue of misunderstanding. In Don's case, I think it's more likely he was focusing on the point of his explanation, and was a bit too casual for Neuro's territorial peer-review. As an example, suppose someone wrote that the area of a circle is given by
> 
> A = πR2
> 
> The appropriate response is not to say "that's wrong!" and then give a lecture on how the area of a circle is known. The appropriate response is to say "yes, that's correct, but the convention is to use a lower-case r to refer to the radius, and that capital R often refers to something else.



As I pointed out above the difference is not merely a convention, nor is it trivial. Try this:

_"If you change the focal length with a zoom lens, the subject framing does not change."_

That's a simple, straightforward statement that is manifestly wrong. What you're suggesting is such a statement is correct if phrased as:

_"If you change the focal length with a zoom lens, the subject framing does not change assuming you change the subject distance by moving closer or having the subject move further away by a distance that exactly negates the change in focal length, or that you crop the image taken with the shorter focal length so that the framing is the same."_

Sure, if you slap enough assumptions onto a false statement you can make it true, in a very specific set of circumstances. But that's rather silly...and doesn't change the fact that the original statement as written is incorrect.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 25, 2017)

wow... 

someone really spiked this thread.

to be honest, it's a far more complicated subject than most give it credit for, and it's going to be even far more complicated when high mp cameras get out in the wild such as the 120MP DSLR that canon will release sooner or later - which will have a *higher* pixel density than any m43's, asp-c or full frame camera body.


----------



## Mikehit (May 25, 2017)

I went away for a couple of days and this damned discussion exploded. So rather than wade through pages of counterclaims and varying assumptions, which in true internet fashion it is hard to tease out fact, misunderstanding and opinions, I found this article if it helps:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/



> The Canon 1D mark II camera has a pixel pitch (pixel spacing) of 8.2 microns. The Canon S70 pixel pitch is 2.3 microns. The ratio of the pixel pitches is 8.2/2.3 = 3.56. *If we keep the f/ratio constant between the two cameras (see Figure 1, bottom two frames, images at f/3.5), the larger pixel camera has a much smaller depth of field. But if we equalize the apertures, and and exposure times (1/8 second, top two frames in Figure 1), the two cameras record the same depth of field* and collect the same number of photons in the pixels in each camera. To make the depth of fields equal, the focal lengths have the same ratio as the ratio of the pixel pitch, and the f/stop changes by 3.7 stops (f/3.5 on the small camera to f/13 on the large camera: f/3.5 * 3.56 = f/12.5). The ISO on the large pixel camera was increased by the same factor as the reduction in light due to the small aperture to give the same relative intensities in the image (ISO 50 * 3.56 * 3.56 = 634, close to the nearest available ISO of 640). Note: changing ISO does not change the number of photons recorded, only how the signal is amplified.



It shows the complexity of the discussion where when talking about aperture are you referring to the f/ratio (f stop value, AFAICT) or the physical aperture size. And pixel density may or may not come into it.

Bleah!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> I went away for a couple of days and this damned discussion exploded. So rather than wade through pages of counterclaims and varying assumptions, which in true internet fashion it is hard to tease out fact, misunderstanding and opinions, I found this article if it helps:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dof_myth/
> 
> ...



You can look at it as complicated, or really simple. Look at it like this:-

The two rulers are the same size to you in real time in both pictures, ergo magnification is the same; the actual physical aperture opening in the S70 image is smaller than the one from the 1DMkII, ergo the 1D MkII image has less dof. Simple.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 25, 2017)

I am really glad that I don't have to understand the last several pages to take pictures!

What I really want to know is whether my next camera should be mirrorless.


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 25, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> What I really want to know is whether my next camera should be mirrorless.



Yes. No. Maybe. Sure. Or not.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> I am really glad that I don't have to understand the last several pages to take pictures!
> 
> What I really want to know is whether my next camera should be mirrorless.



Well, some might think having a mirror in the camera or not changes the DOF. I mean, it's as bat crap crazy as thinking pixel pitch affects DOF.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 25, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I am really glad that I don't have to understand the last several pages to take pictures!
> ...



Ha - agreed!

I use my viewfinder. I don't have tiny hands, so I don't want a small camera; my 80D is about as small as I want. Gravitation lensing is the only thing that really impacts DOF.


----------



## okaro (May 26, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ps. As for it being a trivial thing, let's take Don's example of crop versus full frame and a 400/5.6. A typical use case for me would be a small perched bird at about 6 m distance. In that case, the DoF calculator reports DoFs of 7.1 cm and 4.5 cm for FF and crop, respectively. To me, having the entire bird versus only half the bird in focus is not trivial.



The only reason you have more of the bird in focus with FF is that the both is smaller so it looks to be in focus. If you were to crop the image you would get exactly same results (ignoring things like the pixel density).

There seems to be two ways too look at the depth of field: abstract and concrete. The abstract view focuses of the formulas. It totally ignores subject as it is not relevant to the calculations. The concrete view starts with the subject and the person using it wants it in same size so he may say that it is not the sensor size but the fact that one has to change the distance that counts. That makes no sense to the one having the abstract view (like someone calculating DoF markings on lenses) as he does not care about the subject but for him distance is a fundamental parameter. The skill is to move between these views. Your example hinted a difficulty from moving from the abstract to the concrete. Someone with a cop body would have to use 250 mm f/3.5 for the same. In reality he would probably use 250 mm f/5.6 and get more DoF but also more noise. But then his lens would cost only a fifth of what 500 mm f/5.6 costs.

When comparison crop and FF one has to decide what to keep same and what to change. The view changes depending this. The reality does not. It is like the blind men touching an elephant. Two different views can be correct. On the other hand this does not mean that everything is correct. Simply put to get identical results on crop one has to divide the focal length and aperture by 1.6 and the ISO value by 2.56. In many cases the result especially with aperture falls outside what normal lenses can produce. If they did not there would be little sense in having a FF body.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 26, 2017)

<The only reason you have more of the bird in focus with FF is that the both is smaller so it looks to be in focus. If you were to crop the image you would get exactly same results (ignoring things like the pixel density).> 

You're missing the point. There is only ONE way too look at it. One correct way and why nobody can understand this simple concept is well beyond me. Same lens, same aperture, same subject distance, using a MF, FF, and crop body, all yield different DOF. Period. That's all you really need to understand: sensor size affects DOF all else equal.

Why can't anybody get this simple point? Why do you think the subject appears smaller the larger the sensor you go?


----------



## okaro (May 26, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....
> 
> We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....



FF cameras are not for average consumers. FF is for serious hobbyist and professionals.


----------



## okaro (May 26, 2017)

bdunbar79 said:


> <The only reason you have more of the bird in focus with FF is that the both is smaller so it looks to be in focus. If you were to crop the image you would get exactly same results (ignoring things like the pixel density).>
> 
> You're missing the point. There is only ONE way too look at it. One correct way and why nobody can understand this simple concept is well beyond me. Same lens, same aperture, same subject distance, using a MF, FF, and crop body, all yield different DOF. Period. That's all you really need to understand: sensor size affects DOF all else equal.
> 
> Why can't anybody get this simple point? Why do you think the subject appears smaller the larger the sensor you go?



I am not missing anything. I know the math. I have calculated these. You started talking about practical situations of shooting a bird at six meters. Then you have to step outside the formulas an think what they mean in that practical situation. They mean just that the bird is smaller and therefore looks sharper. You could just as well shoot from further back to get similar result. 500 mm f/5.6 at 6 meters on FF gives DoF 7 cm. With crop it gives only 5 cm but if you move back to 9.6 meters you get 12 cm DoF. Similarly if you reduce the focal length to 250 mm and shoot at 6 m you also get 12 cm. (This is not to imply that they are always same though they seem to be very similar). Of course the perspective changes if you change the distance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2017)

okaro said:


> I am not missing anything. I know the math. I have calculated these. You started talking about practical situations of shooting a bird at six meters. Then you have to step outside the formulas an think what they mean in that practical situation.



I know the math. Having shot both crop and full frame cameras on lenses from 11 to 1200 mm for many years, I know the practical applications as well. What I am missing is the point of your reply to my post, but I'm ok with that.


----------



## Don Haines (May 26, 2017)

okaro said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....
> ...



One would like to think so, but there are a number of people out there who buy the best without knowing how to use them.....


----------



## dak723 (May 26, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I would consider myself a serious hobbyist - and I don't understand why so many folks care if it is a DSLR or Mirrorless. And I never shoot in green box mode. I have owned both DSLRs and Mirrorless at the same time, there are advantages to both, but for the shooting I do (no action) it hasn't mattered very much which camera I have used. I am glad we have the choice, but as Mirrorless continues to make advances, it really shouldn't matter that much which type becomes more popular, in my opinion.


----------



## ecka (May 26, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



So, if you are not a professional driver, then you must be driving cheap, uncomfortable, boring, and $H!tty cars. Same deal, right? How about food? Are you a professional food taster? ...


----------



## LonelyBoy (May 26, 2017)

okaro said:


> FF cameras are not for average consumers. FF is for serious hobbyist and professionals.



FF is for anyone who wants it and can afford it. That's as absurd as saying "i7s are not for average consumers, they're for serious hobbyists and professionals". Or the same about V8s. Or fancy bicycles. Or anything else. There certainly wasn't an exam when I bought my 5D3, nor a credential check.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2017)

ecka said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > okaro said:
> ...



Actually, I am a professional driver..... it is part of my job and my training.....

I am trained and certified to drive a Genie-lift.....
I professionally drive several work vehicles, large vehicles with racks of electronics and 55 foot antenna masts....
I am trained and certified to drive a forklift....

And like most professional drivers, I do not drive $10,000,000 F1 cars, I drive vehicles that are suited to the task at hand. Being a professional photographer does not involve always buying the best, it involves getting the best combination of tool and price for the task at hand.

FF is not for average consumers? ? ? No, it is for consumers with a bit more disposable income.


----------



## ecka (May 27, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Are you comparing FF to $10,000,000 F1 cars? Really? Well, FF is not the best... There are $50k+ cameras with much larger sensors, which are not that popular among professionals. And there's luxury stuff made for wealthy non-professional consumers too.
I wasn't talking about you specifically. But, would it change anything, if you wasn't a pro driver? Would you restrict yourself to a lesser car? (Or maybe you would buy a $10,000,000 F1? Which is what all those silly non-pros must be doing.  Right?) And I don't mean your work vehicle. You don't have to own a plane to be a pilot.
FF is not an overkill for an average consumer anymore. Because on modern big UHD+ displays, crop sensor images are starting to look like $#%@ (not good enough) and you can't do anything about that. Buying expensive optics for it is madness, because FF is a much cheaper solution these days. Cheap lenses on FF produce much nicer images than on crop cameras. So, believe it or not, but in many cases, FF is the best combination of tool and price. Crop and kit lenses can still be perfectly usable, but if you feel like it is not enough anymore, then there is no reason why you should not get a FF straightaway. Seeking better quality or light gathering on crop will simply cost you more money. It's not worth it. Crop potential will never catch up with FF, because size matters. The market is getting oversaturated with crop sensors and manufacturers are being pushed to put better sensors in consumer products. Do you remember what happened with cheap P&S? Same thing. You can blame smartphones for all you want, but "everyone" has or had a cheap P&S camera and now you can get one used for peanuts or free or find some in trash cans. It doesn't really matter if they put cameras in phones, or phones in cameras. It's a superior symbiote. Why all (most) phones have cameras? - Exactly ... Maybe the next question we'll ask in 5 five years will be - "Why all ILCs have FF sensors?" - and the answer will be the same.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2017)

I don't think Don is saying amateurs can't buy and use expensive gear. He's saying people often buy the best because they think that helps them take better photos, those that don't really know anything about photography that is. I know plenty of amateurs who are much better than some "pros" I know.


----------



## dak723 (May 27, 2017)

ecka said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Wow, what a lot of hot air over an obviously correct statement. Perhaps the poster should have said "The target market and the typical buyer of a FF camera is a professional or serious hobbyist."

Since virtually everyone who visits this site probably falls into that category - and recent polls on the subject showed that almost everyone responding owned an FF camera, this seems to point out the truth of that statement. Especially when any check of the sales figures on Amazon any time of the year show the vast majority of cameras sold are crop. So the average consumer is buying a crop camera.

Plus, the idea that FF is far superior for everyone is a vast overstatement, in my experience. If you don't shoot in low light, you don't need FF. If you don't need narrow DOF, you don't need FF. Crop sensors are constantly getting better and have narrowed the gap in terms of noise significantly over the years. Even some pros are choosing M 4/3rds and getting professional results. Yes, most pros will probably continue to use FF cameras, but for even a serious hobbyist like myself, I have sold the FF and now use one crop and one m4/3 camera. For prints up to 8" x 12" you can't tell the difference between crop and FF in almost every case. No one knows what the future holds, but as crop sensors continue to improve, it might just be FF that goes begins to be phased out, being sold to the select few that visit CR!


----------



## rrcphoto (May 27, 2017)

holy crap. is this forum getting as bad as dpreview?


----------



## ecka (May 27, 2017)

dak723 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Wow . You should read it in a context of the thread. Not as a reply to a single sentence.

Most average consumers don't buy ILCs at all. Average photographers already have a few of those. And enthusiasts aiming for advanced, more expensive cameras, actually are considering FF and 2nd-hand FF prices just make it a no-brainer.
Mantras like - "If you don't shoot in low light, you don't need FF" - are pointless. Most people don't even need APS-C, because they don't utilize the potential of such cameras. And most of them are fine using smartphones. FF is better, regardless, much better, for many things, not just low light or narrow DoF. Perhaps you are just not capable of seeing it. If crop camera is more than enough for you, that doesn't mean it is as good as FF. It means that you are posting in a wrong forum thread.
Now, it is silly to expect each new APS-C camera to be vastly superior to the one (or two, or more) you already have, at least in terms of still image quality potential. I don't know how many cameras you need to buy to understand that, I had two, your mileage may vary. But some people never grow up.
"the vast majority of cameras sold are crop" - the majority of cameras sold are inside smatphones, and the majority of people buying them are not even smart people (not judging, just statistics). It is only logical that most "me too" camera purchases are the cheapest crop cameras.
"Crop sensors are constantly getting better" - so does FF!
"and have narrowed the gap" - no, the gap is just being dragged along, in between .
"professional results" have little to do with sensor size. If a tool is good enough for the job, then it's good enough. If it's not - you are not getting paid. As a non-pro, I don't have a separate optimal camera format for every situation possible, I just need one camera to cover all of it and the APS-C is not good enough.
"you can't tell the difference between crop and FF" - and you own both APS-C and m4/3 because there is one? It is a silly argument. Nowadays, it may be hard to tell the difference between a girl and a boy  you must always check the "EXIF" to be sure. Are you saying there is no difference if you cannot see it in a snapshot?  The point is not in telling the difference. The point is the potential, the quality, the price, the post-processing routine and the pleasure of using it. The difference is always there. And you can shoot bad images on FF too.
Don't you know that printers and LCDs are constantly improving and growing as well? Clearly your cameras are overkill for 8"x 12", because my FF gets me 24"x 36", which is 9 times larger. I suggest you try 1" , because you won't tell the difference anyways.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2017)

As much as I hate to further this discussion, I have to ask.

Are people suggesting that if you take a 7DII and a 5Ds, mount them side by side on tripods, place a 200mm lens on each body, take a picture at f8 and then crop the 5ds image to exactly the same framing as the 7DII, that there will be a difference in depth of field between the two images? 

I find that hard to believe. I'd like to see sample images.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> As much as I hate to further this discussion, I have to ask.
> 
> Are people suggesting that if you take a 7DII and a 5Ds, mount them side by side on tripods, place a 200mm lens on each body, take a picture at f8 and then crop the 5ds image to exactly the same framing as the 7DII, that there will be a difference in depth of field between the two images?
> 
> I find that hard to believe. I'd like to see sample images.



I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I can say for certain that I'm not.


----------



## dak723 (May 27, 2017)

ecka said:


> Wow . You should read it in a context of the thread. Not as a reply to a single sentence.
> 
> Most average consumers don't buy ILCs at all. Average photographers already have a few of those. And enthusiasts aiming for advanced, more expensive cameras, actually are considering FF and 2nd-hand FF prices just make it a no-brainer.
> Mantras like - "If you don't shoot in low light, you don't need FF" - are pointless. Most people don't even need APS-C, because they don't utilize the potential of such cameras. And most of them are fine using smartphones. FF is better, regardless, much better, for many things, not just low light or narrow DoF. Perhaps you are just not capable of seeing it. If crop camera is more than enough for you, that doesn't mean it is as good as FF. It means that you are posting in a wrong forum thread.
> ...



You are certainly entitled to your opinion that FF is so much better than crop. The fact that you believe so, does not make is so. The fact that I believe that there is not that much difference in most shooting situations, is my opinion based on my experience. I suggest you read more photographers blogs and articles. You will find that I am not the only one who finds that crop sensors have closed the gap between crop and FF. You can agree or disagree, but there is nor reason to continually insult me or insult my photographic knowledge and experience. Unless, of course, you insult me because you really have no evidence to back up your opinions. 

Here's an article by someone far more knowledgeable than I that talks about gear. In many cases - as you read the article - you will see that the camera type matters little, but the most important aspect in regards to noise and IQ is the lens used and how much light it can gather. There are numerous such articles on the net if you care to learn more about it.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.gear.matter/


----------



## Mikehit (May 27, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Are people suggesting that if you take a 7DII and a 5Ds, mount them side by side on tripods, place a 200mm lens on each body, take a picture at f8 and then crop the 5ds image to exactly the same framing as the 7DII, that there will be a difference in depth of field between the two images?



I don't think so. The complications come when you use different lenses and/or change position to frame them the same in each camera. Or try to make sweeping statements about focal length 'equivalence' of the two formats.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate to further this discussion, I have to ask.
> ...



Ditto.

Further, any camera shot from the same place and shot with the same lens then cropped to the same output will have the same dof irrespective of pixel numbers. Pixel numbers or density has zero to do with dof.

If the magnification is the same, in your scenario it is, and if the size of the aperture the comparison images are shot with are the same, in your example they are the same lens so they are, the the dof is the same.


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate to further this discussion, I have to ask.
> ...


Okay good. With all the claims flying back and forth I was a little concerned that I had entered an alternative reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ...I was a little concerned that I had entered an alternative reality.



I don't think that can be conclusively ruled out.


----------



## ecka (May 28, 2017)

dak723 said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Wow . You should read it in a context of the thread. Not as a reply to a single sentence.
> ...



You don't need expensive cameras for snapshots. That's a fact.
You don't need FF, because even your current crop cameras are overkill for what you do with them.
I don't print small. I don't shoot snapshots. I don't need special 'good enough' camera systems for snapshots (like m4/3). If a picture doesn't deserve great quality, then most likely, it is not worth shooting at all. It may be acceptable to shoot worthless snapshots for money. But not for pleasure.
Get over it.
"Photographic knowledge" (rather ignorance) like - "Crop sensors are constantly getting better and have narrowed the gap ..." - is an insult by itself.
APS-C is too small for me. Perhaps because I'm not rich enough to buy cheap things. And when you buy good optics for it to get closer to FF, it just gets more expensive than the actual FF, while still not as good. I'd rather have 70-200/4 on FF, than 70-200/2.8 on crop, for the same price. And something as simple as 50/1.4, does not exist in crop-world.


----------



## okaro (May 30, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> okaro said:
> 
> 
> > FF cameras are not for average consumers. FF is for serious hobbyist and professionals.
> ...



Nobody is saying you cannot buy a FF camera for any reason you choose. The point is that they do have a certain target group and those mostly buy them. Strangely there are no statistics on cameras based sensor sizes. There are stats about lenses and about a quarter of lenses shipped is for FF but people buy them for crop cameras. Also FF users probably buy more lenses than crop users.


----------



## stefang (Jun 6, 2017)

ecka said:


> .... It may be acceptable to shoot worthless snapshots for money....


Now that's pedantic. I would guess something that sells for money is not worthless to at least the buyer...


----------



## ecka (Jun 7, 2017)

stefang said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > .... It may be acceptable to shoot worthless snapshots for money....
> ...



Well, I was talking about "worth" as a photographic value , not money. Everything is worth something and you have to decide if it's worth your time and effort, you must draw the line. You can shoot nice pictures with your phone, but in the end, better camera adds more value to the image. FF isn't really that much more expensive or larger than crop systems, specially the glass. So, all that FF-fobia is just unreasonably silly.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2017)

ecka said:


> FF isn't really that much more expensive or larger than crop systems, specially the glass. So, all that FF-fobia is just unreasonably silly.



sorry, but I cannot follow you here. My APS-C EOS-M gear with lenses from 11-200mm [eq. 18-320mm on FF] is roughly a quarter of the weight, bulk and cost of my EOS FF DSLR [5D3] + EF-lens setup. 

And look at Fuji X-system [APS-C] ... compared to Sony A7/A9 FF lineup with FE glass. Both in terms of size, weight and cost. 

APS-C is the absolute sweet spot in terms of "bang for the buck" and "weight/size to technical-photographic capability of gear". For both DSLRs and MILC systems. 

Of course, FF has advantages in some/many specific situations. But those added capabilities do come at a fairly steep price and with quite some bulk and weight.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > FF isn't really that much more expensive or larger than crop systems, specially the glass. So, all that FF-fobia is just unreasonably silly.
> ...



I agree with your sentiments in many respects, AvTvM (is it me or you feeling a bit weird today ;D), certainly in respects of image quality. But a camera system is about one you enjoy using and this is where it becomes personal choice. I preferred the xxD models to the xxxD because of things like the second wheel which simplified on-the-fly adjustments. I much prefer models with VFs (OVF or EVF I am quite ambivalent). The reason I went to MFT instead of M system was because, at the time, no M system had a VF and real estate on the back meant buttons were awkward to manage. Nowadays, the cost of the M series I would buy are as expensive as the MFTs I would buy, and for the purpose I would use them changing from MFT now to M series does not really offer any significant advantages to switching. If I were buying now I may well go to M series.

On the other hand, ecka is correct if the discussion is limited to DSLR.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 7, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...


I'm in the same boat.... if I am deciding what to get and if the major criteria is small and light, I would go for micro 4/3 cameras..... but if image quality (particularly in poor light) and ergonomics (well spaced and fairly complete set of controls) are the important factors, its FF in a 5D sized body....

I think there is a market for both!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I'm in the same boat.... if I am deciding what to get and if the major criteria is small and light, I would go for micro 4/3 cameras..... but if image quality (particularly in poor light) and ergonomics (well spaced and fairly complete set of controls) are the important factors, its FF in a 5D sized body....
> 
> I think there is a market for both!



I agree, and clearly for something in between, which is why the M series is popular. The biggest-sensor-smallest-package is why I chose the M over m4/3, and it's why I'll go with the M6 (perhaps with hotshoe EVF) over the M5.


----------



## K (Jun 7, 2017)

I'm thinking and hoping Canon will be the first to really offer a practical mirrorless camera in a DSLR sized package. The benefits of mirrorless, with the controls and practical use of a real sized camera.

$4,500 for a Sony with the ergos of a travel point and shoot? Pathetic.

Just buy a Fuji and be done with it. 

"But mirrorless is so much more compact and lightweight" yeah...until they start slapping 2.8 zoom glass on there LOL.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2017)

K said:


> "But mirrorless is so much more compact and lightweight" yeah...until they start slapping 2.8 zoom glass on there LOL.



correct. LOL
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2973316535/samyang-targets-sony-e-mount-users-with-new-35mm-f2-8-af-lens







;D


----------



## K (Jun 7, 2017)




----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > "But mirrorless is so much more compact and lightweight" yeah...until they start slapping 2.8 *zoom* glass on there LOL.
> ...



Are you saying the focus breathing on the Samyang 35/2.8 prime lens is so bad you consider it a zoom lens? Or is it just that you don't read well? LOL.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2017)

I indeed overread the word zoom. 

But it does not matter. Just can't hear the constant refrain of "mirrorless size advantage is gone as soon as you slap ... BIG FAT LENSES ... blablabla" 

Why do we need to discuss this at nauseam. Why can people not get their mind around the fact, that mirrorless systems - as opposed to DSLRs ("mirrorslappers") - allow for both, 
1) BIG FAT cameras and 
2) ULTRA-COMPACT ...
and that we can mount big fat glass on them OR ultracompact lenses. Depending on what we want and need in a specific situation?

And why oh why does Canon not finally offer mirrorless FF cameras? In both shapes: 
1. big fat chunky bodies with native EF-mount trunk up front ... for all who prefer it that way. And 
2. at least one ultracompact, but fully capable camera with a new, short FFD mount plus an assortment of new native ultracompact lenses and an EF adapter for those who prefer it that way. 
And for everybody who wants a small backup camera in addition to their large main camera! 

win - win, would be really easy in this case


----------



## K (Jun 7, 2017)

While there's been great improvements in smaller lenses by various brands, especially Fuji ...

There are certain physical realities about light and the properties of glass that means that big glass is needed to get certain results. If they could be made smaller, they would be. Primarily for the manufacturers to save money, secondly for you the user to benefit from lighter weights. But they can't. These are currently the limit of engineering designs and materials in our era.

Losing a mirror is pointless when the best results require huge glass anyway. I would also argue the small grip and crappy buttons/control placement is a hindrance to longevity in pro shooting.

The Sony mirrorless cameras handle like travel point and shoots. Awful. It's ok for travel point and shoots, because these are not being used non-stop for hours of intensive shooting. They sacrifice that size and buttons and controls for convenience of the traveler on the move.

For a pro camera, its more convenient to have a larger body.

Not only are the Sony bodies awful to grip, try holding on to those for 8+ hours with BIG glass attached. Be sure to bring 4-5 batteries with.

Sony is not ready for PRO primetime. No matter how many DPR trolls there are extolling their greatness. 


I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....

But these benefits are in their infancy. EVF is far from ideal or perfected. Until they reach extremely high resolutions with massive dynamic range and undetectable latency - OVF has an edge. Yes, I know - EVF allows for "real time chimping"


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> Why do we need to discuss this at nauseam.



We don't need to - it's simply a fact, viewed in the context of the equally frequent claim that one of the benefits of mirrorless is smaller bodies.

If one, then the other.

It's not the only story in town, but whenever someone mentions the size advantage of mirrorless, expect someone to point out the big lens counter-argument.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 7, 2017)

I cannot understand why some posters keep on using "PRO" as focal point. Is there really a difference in the usage of camera between a"PRO" and a "serious" shooter and a " for fun" shooter ? Everyone have their own requirement or preference in camera. If everybody agree on the same requirement, there will be only ONE camera to be made. Neuro is a living example. His equipment ranges from 1Dx to M. Every camera has it own place to a particular person at a particular situation.. So we cannot say that FF must be big and chunky for the PRO.


----------



## K (Jun 7, 2017)

Rocky said:


> I cannot understand why some posters keep on using "PRO" as focal point. Is there really a difference in the usage of camera between a"PRO" and a "serious" shooter and a " for fun" shooter ? Everyone have their own requirement or preference in camera. If everybody agree on the same requirement, there will be only ONE camera to be made. Neuro is a living example. His equipment ranges from 1Dx to M. Every camera has it own place to a particular person at a particular situation.. So we cannot say that FF must be big and chunky for the PRO.




The A9 is being marketed as a Pro camera by Sony.

A7 is also considered Pro.


Sure, you can use anything you want for Professional purposes. When I see the NFL sidelines filled with A9's and wedding pros across the nation running Sony -- then I'll say they're now the new pro standard.

Sony, for now, is for hobbyists with cash to burn. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## ecka (Jun 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > FF isn't really that much more expensive or larger than crop systems, specially the glass. So, all that FF-fobia is just unreasonably silly.
> ...



Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF? And such FF lenses would be just as small/light or even smaller/lighter and would cost even less, because of those unattractive F-numbers. Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter. Canon could make big money by selling that kind of optics for dummies, but they don't and (IMHO) they deserve a lot of respect for that. Take a look at Tamron's new 28-300mm. Maybe it's just as bad as your 11-200 M (which is exactly my point), but it gathers twice as much light and weights only 540g. However, I'd rather just crop some FF images or use a TC to get that 300mm FL out of something much sharper and still get similar quality, instead of buying a dedicated lens or a whole crop system for snapshots. Seriously, the EF 200F2.8L'II can give you a decent 400F5.6 crop image, or 300F4.2 crop image, or even 600F8.4 crop image, depending on what camera you are using.
Talking about mirrorless vs DSLR, you will need like 3 times as much batteries, which have their cost, weight and volume as well.
How much is your Fuji XF35/1.4(F2.2 FF equivalent) smaller and cheaper than FE50/1.8?
XF56/1.2 vs FE85/1.8?
XF50-140/2.8 vs FE70-200/4?
Any FF F1.4 pushes APS-C into blurry F0.9 territory.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2017)

ecka said:


> Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?



Do you realize that's a load of crap?

Sorry to pick on you ecka, but I am sick and tired of people misrepresenting equivalency in crop sensors. An EF-M lens of f3.5 has exactly the same light gathering capability of an EF lens of f3.5. There is a reason why f-stops are standardized and that is so that they render the same exposure regardless of the size of the sensor.

It is ONLY in terms of depth of field that there is a difference, and that difference is completely the result of point-of-view, not sensor size. Stand in the same position and shoot the same subject with a 200 mm lens at f8 on a crop body and a 200 mm lens on a full frame body at f8 and then crop the full frame image to the same identical field of view and there will be no difference in depth of field. Differences arise only when you move the camera to try to create a similar field of view from two different vantage points.

Now, if you want to argue that EF lenses tend to be faster than EF-M lenses and that that increase in f stop contributes to the weight difference, that is legitimate. But, if the user doesn't need the faster glass and isn't all that concerned about shallow depth of field, then crop sensor lenses do offer significant size and weight advantages for equivalent focal lengths.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?
> ...



Are we going to have to discuss equivalence yet again? :

Sure, it's true that light gathering is the same as far as the lens goes. But we're comparing sensors of different size, so the same 'exposure' (light per unit area) falling on a smaller sensor, means less total light is captured, which means more noise for the same image...and _that_ difference is completely the result of sensor size.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Are we going to have to discuss equivalence yet again? :...



I'd rather not. This topic has been beat to death and I would be more than happy if people would just stay away from simplistic claims.

To be accurate, the quote said "Do you realize that your 11-200 M *glass *is equivalent to 18-320 f5.6-10 FF?"

Sensor noise was never part of the discussion. 

But, if we must talk about sensor noise, I will once again, use the 5D S vs. 70D example, since they have very similar pixel size and density. Are you saying that the pixels of a 5DS have more light gathering ability than the pixels on a 70D, if we assume that the 5D S is simply an upsized 70D sensor (I know that the jury is still out on whether that is truly the case, but for purposes of this example, let's assume it is)?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2017)

K said:


> I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....



To me and many others [e.g. all Sony and Fuji customers], SIZE and WEIGHT and UNOBTRUSIVENESS of gear is a major benefit, which can only be gained by dumping the mirror. SIZE is the main rreason, my 5D3 + assorted L glass are sitting back at home in a cupboard, whereas my EOS M + EF-M lenses are with me most of the time. Roughly 6x more clicks on the M than on the 5D 3. 

And as I said before, Canon could and should make both LARGE and SMALL mirrorless FF bodies. It would be quite easy to satisfy both camps.


----------



## ecka (Jun 7, 2017)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Are we going to have to discuss equivalence yet again? :...
> ...



It is all about the amount of light. Not light intensity, which is what the F-number represents.
More light = more information = better image quality.
Different DoF and ISO noise are just the obvious consequences of comparing different amounts of light gathered by different sensors. Equivalence makes everything equal for different format systems - similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight, etc. Except the price and those exposure numbers you get on your crop toys. FF ISO400 = crop ISO160. Same settings on both FF and crop do not produce similar images.
FF 200mm F8 ISO400 ~ crop 135mm F5 ISO160. If you crop FF 200mm F8, you get 320mm F12 equivalent image and FF 320mm F12 is equivalent to crop 200mm F8. Capeesh? You need faster and shorter lens for crop to produce the same image and that's where the rip-off begins. Because m4/3 12-35/2.8 ~ FF 24-70/5.6 in everything - similar FL, similar DoF, similar noise, similar size, similar weight. People are buying expensive F2.8 m4/3 zooms just to resemble small and cheap FF zooms. Isn't that silly? (OK, maybe for videos it's not, I'll give you that,  Panasonic, but only because we have no choice.)


----------



## unfocused (Jun 7, 2017)

I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation. 

Once again, here is the challenge:

Take two cameras, one with a 20 mp. crop sensor, and one with an identical 51 mp full frame sensor (20 x 1.6 x 1.6). Mount them side by side and place a 200mm lens on each one. Shoot the same subject at the same shutter speed and fstop and the same ISO. 

Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image. 

Post them side by side and show the difference.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 7, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....
> ...



they should do so now. agreed. especially if they end up going mirrorless, a EF body the size of the T6 and the rest of the normal ergonomic lineup.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless....
> ...



This perfectly illustrates at least one reason why Canon (or Nikon) has not jumped into full-frame mirrorless. Niche market where the customer base has conflicting priorities. 

Add to that the fact that there remain serious technical challenges. Then throw in the whole debate about the EF Lens mount. Finally, add to the mix that APS-C sensors are improving with each subsequent generation.

It's not that Canon is "stupid." It is that what looks easy on the surface is in fact very hard.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


> Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.



More utter crap right here.

Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras _because_ of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 8, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.
> ...



I think what Ecka is trying to say is that it is possible to mimic the effect of a crop sensor camera by cropping a full frame image but it is not possible to mimic the effect of a full frame camera by expanding a file from a crop sensor camera.
At the end of the day they are just tools that we use to do a specific job. I happen to use a full frame camera because I want the additional control over depth of field and because I find they perform slightly better when the light is very poor. For me it is worth the additional size weight and cost of full frame equipment to achieve these benefits. However I know plenty of excellent photographers for whom the size and weight of their equipment is particularly important and so they tend to choose APS-C cameras and lenses. It does not make them a better or worse photographer. They have just chosen the equipment that best meets their particular needs.
On the point about cost - I have never thought that crop sensor equipment was over priced. In fact it is almost always a lot less expensive than similar full frame equipment.


----------



## BillB (Jun 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> K said:
> 
> 
> > I really hope Canon goes with a larger body for mirrorless. The benefit of mirrorless is NOT space or size savings within the pro realm. The benefits are the possibilities that a live view finder gives, higher FPS and much more....
> ...




At this point Canon seems to have defined a couple of mirrorless design concepts at the APS-C level. One concept is minimum size (M10), The other trades off size and functionality (M5 and M6). 

What next? There seem to be several choices. One choice might be a "FF M5", with a trade off between size and functionality. Another could be a "mirrorless 6D, 5D, or 1D" emphazing functionality using a FF sensor and EVF. A third choice might be a "mirrorless 7DII" which would emphasize functionality while continuing to use an APS-C sensor.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 8, 2017)

You don't think he's condescendingly suggesting that people who choose crop cameras do so because they don't know any better? 

And that by extension, 'togs who choose full frame sensors are "obviously" more knowledgable and worth listening to?

He's clearly trying to say that camera makers are able to milk crop gear prices because crop buyers are too stupid, as a breed, to know better than to suck up whatever price they're presented with, Ian.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.
> 
> Once again, here is the challenge:
> 
> ...



Exactly. APS-C is just a piece of FF and everything about it should be 60% cheaper. I don't see how this "challenge" is supporting your idea. This is exactly how the equivalence works.



Keith_Reeder said:


> You don't think he's condescendingly suggesting that people who choose crop cameras do so because they don't know any better?
> 
> And that by extension, 'togs who choose full frame sensors are "obviously" more knowledgable and worth listening to?
> 
> He's clearly trying to say that camera makers are able to milk crop gear prices because crop buyers are too stupid, as a breed, to know better than to suck up whatever price they're presented with, Ian.



No. I'm saying you are not willing to learn how it works and instead you accept whatever salesman's story tales and delusions, because it seems easier that way.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Most crop optics are overpriced because there are millions of ignorant people, who were fooled into thinking that sensor size doesn't matter.
> ...



You are contradicting yourself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.



Then please, stop doing it. 




unfocused said:


> Once again, here is the challenge:
> ...
> Crop the full frame image to be identical to the crop-sensor image.



In that case you are, in effect, comparing sensors of identical size, rendering the debate moot. There are two situations where that scenario is relevant: 1) when you're 'reach limited' – your subject is too far away and you can't get closer or use a longer lens, and 2) when you're deliberately obfuscating by using an artificial argument for an internet debate. In _most_ real world use, you choose a focal length and subject distance to fill the frame with your desired composition, the larger sensor gathers more total light and the resulting image will have ~1.3-stops less noise for a given exposure at the same ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras _because_ of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.



So, you're saying a 7D is better for wildlife/sport photography than a 5Ds because of the sensor size difference? By that logic, m4/3 is even better...but the real winner would be an SX-series superzoom, because that 2/3" sensor offers great 'reach'. 

No, you're not alone – there are lots of people who don't fully understand the relevant concepts.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Careful who you call ignorant, princess - I'm a wildlife/sport photographer who uses crop cameras _because_ of the sensor size difference, and I'm by no means alone there.
> ...



Thank you Neuro


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Honestly, for me, DoF difference is just a side effect of the amount of light being gathered. In theory you can get the same thing on both systems, only the crop is unreasonably priced to go there. Low light or good light, FF is superior in most situations, except when there is not enough resolution to crop efficiently. I rarely use my flash, I don't even put it in my small bag, but I couldn't do without it when I used my 7D indoors or outdoors (like macro). FF gives me the image quality, the details, the information, more contrast, less aberrations, etc. while crops quality in many situations is just sad without artificial lighting. Just think about the size/weight/cost savings . There is no huge size difference, it's a myth. Sony A7 with cheap, small and slow(ish) primes is just as fine as some Fuji with fast and expensive ones.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

Regarding the cost difference, I'd say _generally_ APS-C is the cheaper option. For example, landscapes: 6D + 16-35/4L vs. 80D + 10-18mm; at f/8 and ISO 100, the IQ differences will be minimal. For birds/wildlife: 7DII + 100-400 II vs. 5Ds + 600/4; the FF option will yield better IQ, but at a significant cost premium. OTOH, for outdoor portraits: 6D + 135/2L vs. 80D + 85/1.2L II; the FF option is actually cheaper.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I get so tired of this deliberate obfuscation.
> ...



Because statements like the following are misleading:



ecka said:


> Do you realize that your 11-200 M glass is equivalent to 18-320 F5.6-10 FF?



The clear implication (and when placed in context with your other statements, it affirms this) is that placing a lens on a crop sensor camera will somehow magically reduce its effective aperture. And that is simply not true and misleading.

If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.

Or, if you wanted to say that, in terms of noise, sensor size matters and you need to use either a faster lens or a lower shutter speed coupled with a lower ISO to achieve the same level of noise, I would accept that as a generally true statement. (Although there are several caveats. In practical terms, is is often irrelevant at low to mid-range ISOs and is heavily dependent on the final size of the image and how that image was post-processed. It is also true, only if the pixel density of the two sensors is different. But this has more to do with pixel density, not the size of the sensor).

But, a broad-brushed statement that a lens on crop sensor camera is "equivalent" to a smaller f number is too easily read as meaning it somehow loses its light gathering abilities when mounted on a crop sensor camera. 

Every time someone makes that kind of broad-brushed statement, it results in page-after-page of irrelevant and psuedo-technical debates that mislead and confuse people. That is why I insist on trying to stomp out this sort of sloppy and fuzzy writing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Because statements like the following are misleading:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point is that there is no free lunch. Regarding depth of field, when discussing the effect of sensor size, the most logical and relevant comparison is 'the same picture', which of course means that with a smaller sensor you must either use a shorter focal length or move further away. Similarly for aperture - the smaller sensor gathers less total light, meaning if you keep aperture and shutter speed the same, the ISO (the 3rd leg of the exposure triangle) is effectively higher on the smaller sensor. 

Your contrived, artificial scenario of cropping the FF image to APS-C size is technically true but practically misleading. For generally applicable real world comparisons, switching a lens from FF to APS-C means a longer effective focal length and a narrower effective aperture. 

You seem to think comparing the two pictures below is the most applicable and logical way to compare FF to APS-C. I suspect most people would disagree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and *everything to do with where the photographer is standing.*



By the way, since you seem to enjoy overinterpreting things, I should point out that highlighted portion of your statement above is misleading and not true. If I change sensor sizes, and simply use a different focal length to acheive identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera (which could be as simple as moving the zoom ring on my 70-200 from 135mm to 85mm, for example), I have not changed where I am standing, nor have I changed the relationship between the foreground and background (i.e., the perspective). But the DoF is still different.


----------



## okaro (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Because statements like the following are misleading:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is just as misleading as to say that it changes the focal length. Yet the equivalent focal lengths are widely used especially in relation to fixed lens cameras. The equivalent aperture is no different. Many people do no seem to get the term "equivalent". 



> If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.



You cannot get similar framing if you shoot at a different position. The background will be different. You need to reduce the focal length. This increases the depth of field. To compensate this you need to open up the aperture. This increases the light so to compensate you need to drop the ISO. The factor for the two first is 1.6 and for the ISO 1.6^2 i.e 2.56. You can get relatively close if you just open up one fstop and cut ISO by half (makes more intuitive).

A 50 mm f/1.8 on a crop behaves like 80 mm f/2.8 on FF. You can do exactly same as long as you do not go below ISO 250 on the FF.

Your problem seems that you cannot think these in an abstract way. You have an idea that you want to shoot something an you have a lens and then you think different bodies. This is a pretty natural for a photographer to think so. Yet the formulas used to calculate the depth of field do not care of what you intend to shoot. They object just is not in them.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > K said:
> ...



have to disagree here. mirrorless is no niche market. and if canon and nikon are able and willing to make and sell FF-sensored DSLRs in 3 (nikon: 4) different current models ranging in size and price from 6D/D610 to 1DX II/D5, then they outta be able to make at least 1 chunky and 1 skinny mirrorless cam. the chunky one with native EF (F) mount and the skinny one with new short ffd mount for new lenses or use of existing lenses with EF (F) adaptor.

given Canon' innovation and engineering prowess, i see no major technical difficulties in this. given their marketing genius and financial strength i can see no commercial obstacles either.

further delaying the conversion from current "semi-analog/mechanical" photo gear technology to fully electronic digital imaging devices is ... counterproductive ... and plain stupid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

AvTvM said:


> given Canon' innovation and engineering prowess, i see no major technical difficulties in this. given their marketing genius and financial strength i can see no commercial obstacles either.
> 
> further delaying the conversion from current "semi-analog/mechanical" photo gear technology to fully electronic digital imaging devices is ... counterproductive ... and plain stupid.







Yes, they could do it from a technical standpoint. But they haven't. The fact that you see no commercial obstacles doesn't mean they don't exist – you're just blindly unable to comprehend them.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 8, 2017)

I'm not going to go into one format over another regarding pixel size , field of view, noise etc. but I will say this:- 
Ive owned an used M4/3rds since Olympus brought out there first camera. Ive owned Canon APS-C cameras and currently have the 760D, Ive owned the 6D since 2013 and the 5DS since it came out. So what I hear some say. 

Well pull those shots into LR or PS and work on them. The m4/3rds fall apart fairly quickly when cropped and especially when were talking about skin. APS-C is better especially the newer 24MP sensors but pull up an image from either the 5D MKIV or even better the 5DS and you soon realise how much better the image looks and how far you can enlarge onscreen to edit small details and how well the edited shot holds up. 
In a way its not rocket science visual effects in movies have always preferred larger formats and the different apparent depth of field. In stills fashion photographers don't use medium format because they want to pay 6X the cost of 35mm they want it because of the greater information. 

On a flip side the APS-C format is ideal in say a game reserve, yes Ive cropped images from the 5DS in South Africa but had more noise in low light performance than the 760D. The effective field of view brings the subject closer and trust me animals that look close to the eye look further away in the viewfinder. 

Get out and take more photos and understand the limitation of each sensor size.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2017)

okaro said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Because statements like the following are misleading:
> ...



I'll respond to you, because it sounds like you sincerely want to have an intelligent discussion, as opposed to others.

Yes, it is misleading to say that it changes the focal length. But, it is much easier for people to understand the term equivalent when used with focal length. It's very straightforward math. An APS-C (Canon) camera crops a full frame image to the equivalent to what the image would look like if you used a full-frame camera in the same position and cropped it down. Multiply your focal length by 1.6 to get the equivalent. Very easy to understand. 



okaro said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > If you wish to say that an identical framing of an image using a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera will result in differences in depth of field because you have to shoot from a different position and that changes the relationship between the foreground and background, thus changing the depth of field – that would be a true statement. It has nothing to do with sensor size, and everything to do with where the photographer is standing.
> ...



Yes, of course. In fact, your example illustrates the difficulty of trying to achieve equivalent depth of field. Unlike focal length, as a practical matter you have to introduce additional elements, such as -- as you correctly state -- the distance to subject. This is why I object to people flippantly using equivalence when discussing depth of field or aperture. Most people -- as least most rational people -- think of the f stop as one of three elements controlling the intensity of the light that hits the film or sensor. (Time and ISO being the other two).

For the average person, depth of field is generally a secondary consideration. If I am shooting a soccer match, I need to set my shutter speed to stop the action. Only after setting that shutter speed will I worry about fstop and ISO. If the lighting is poor, I may need to boost my ISO. If the lighting is good, I will set a moderate ISO and then try to get an fstop that will give me a little more leeway in focus, but only after setting the shutter speed high enough to stop the action.

The problem, and my objection, is because it is far too easy to confuse people when you talk about equivalency in fstops. That is because the primary function of an fstop (controlling exposure) is fixed across all formats. A lens set at f8 is f8 no matter what the lens, focal length or sensor size may be.

So, when someone says a lens on a crop sensor camera set at f4 is "equivalent" to a lens at f5.6 on a full frame camera, the vast majority of people equate that with the exposure. Which is just plain wrong, grossly misleading and unnecessarily confusing. In my experience, people who do this are, too often, trying to show off their supposed technical superiority, instead of trying to be helpful to those with less understanding or experience. 

That was precisely my objection to the original statement. 



okaro said:


> Your problem seems that you cannot think these in an abstract way. You have an idea that you want to shoot something an you have a lens and then you think different bodies. This is a pretty natural for a photographer to think so. Yet the formulas used to calculate the depth of field do not care of what you intend to shoot. They object just is not in them.



That's more than a little condescending and offensive, but I will let it slide. Perhaps English is not your first language and I certainly admire anyone who can write in a non-native language.

Your final statement is correct: the formulas do not care what you intend to shoot. In fact, that affirms exactly what I said. Two cameras: identical shooting positions, identical lenses, identical settings. Once cropped to identical framing, the depth of field does not vary.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regarding the cost difference, I'd say _generally_ APS-C is the cheaper option. For example, landscapes: 6D + 16-35/4L vs. 80D + 10-18mm; at f/8 and ISO 100, the IQ differences will be minimal. For birds/wildlife: 7DII + 100-400 II vs. 5Ds + 600/4; the FF option will yield better IQ, but at a significant cost premium. OTOH, for outdoor portraits: 6D + 135/2L vs. 80D + 85/1.2L II; the FF option is actually cheaper.



Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
"IQ differences will be minimal" - are sure about that?  If the L is more than you need, that doesn't mean they are equal.
"For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
maybe even better.

There are many better, cheaper and unparalleled (F1.2-1.4) FF lens options. Even the 22F2 ($250) M pancake is not as good as the EF40F2.8 ($200) on FF (25/1.8 crop equivalent). My old EF100F2 on FF is like 63F1.2 on crop. How much would such lens cost? Well, Fuji asks $1000 for their XF56F1.2, which is twice the price, and $1500 for the APD version. Of course the old Canon lens is not that great by today's standards, so maybe there is no big FF IQ advantage, but it is muUuUch cheaper. I don't like zooms ... not a fan. But something like Sigma 24-35F2 ($900) is equivalent to a freaking 15-22F1.2 on crop! Can you imagine Fuji selling something like that for at least $1200? No? Me neither. Maybe for $2200? - I don't believe they would. I think $3500 could be realistic (in Fuji reality). How about MFT 12-18F1.0? Sky is the limit?  Back to Earth ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> This is why I object to people flippantly using equivalence when discussing depth of field or aperture. Most people -- as least most rational people -- think of the f stop as one of three elements controlling the intensity of the light that hits the film or sensor. (Time and ISO being the other two).
> 
> So, when someone says a lens on a crop sensor camera set at f4 is "equivalent" to a lens at f5.6 on a full frame camera, the vast majority of people equate that with the exposure. Which is just plain wrong, grossly misleading and unnecessarily confusing.



There you have it, three elements...shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Probably the best way to think of it is that sensor size impacts ISO, in that total light captured impacts image noise, as does ISO. When discussing equivalence, the point is that focal length is *not* the only difference with a smaller sensor. Phrasing it as 'effective aperture times 1.6' is arguably a less confusing way of incorporating the idea that sensor size affects image quality. Well, less confusing to rational people, at any rate.

As for most rational people thinking of aperture mainly referring to controlling the amount of light, and depth of field being of secondary importance, consider that in the Canon T7i/800D manual, the section header for Av mode is, "Av: Changing the Depth of Field." I guess Canon is irrational, and they should have titled the section, "Av: Changing the Amount of Light Reaching the Sensor." Or maybe Canon doesn't expect rational people to read their manuals. :

Incidentally, this is an excerpt of my 175th post on this site (my oh my, that was a few posts back):



neuroanatomist said:


> Lots of people say they're waiting for a FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The thing is, they forget that the camera is part of the equation. In fact, there's already a *better* lens than the 17-55mm for FF - it's the 24-105mm f/4L IS. *Keep in mind that the crop factor applies to aperture (in terms of depth of field for equivalent subject framing) and to ISO noise as well. *So, the FF-equivalent numbers for the 17-55mm would be 27-88mm f/4.5 - i.e., the 24-105mm is wider, longer, and faster, and still has 3-stop IS. Yes, you lose a full stop of light (*the crop factor does not affect exposure*), but if you need the shutter speed to be higher, you can just bump up the ISO since noise is 1.33 stops better on FF as well.



But, that's a little wordy...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


> Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
> "IQ differences will be minimal" - are sure about that?  If the L is more than you need, that doesn't mean they are equal.



The most significant lens design benefits for crop sensors are for ultrawides. Look at the 17-40L...even stopped down, the image quality suffered pretty badly, but for years it was a go-to lens. In practice, at low ISO and stopped down, the IQ advantages of FF are not really that significant. The benefits of a larger sensor really come into play when you want shallow DoF, low light shooting, etc.

I've shot urban landscapes with an M + M11-22, and the results hold up favorably to similar shots with my 1D X and TS-E 17. But the former combination is _significantly_ cheaper than the latter (not to mention much smaller and lighter!). 




ecka said:


> "For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=972&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=1
> maybe even better.



Why? Here's why.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ...


Doesn't matter what you say. I'm sorry, I can't help you. You just don't want to learn or understand anything. You only accept what's easy, even if it's an absolute BS.
Thinking is hard. Good luck.


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Well, for landscapes, I'd say that EF-S 10-18mm at F8 is kind of ... sort of ... OK (I mean it is definitely a very nice crop lens for the price). But is it anywhere close to the 16-35/4L? One is a tiger ... other one is a kitten. For a fair comparison, we would need something like 16-30mm F7.1-9 and I don't think it would play well with DSLR AF system (but it could with mirrorless , specially for landscapes).
> ...



I know that 600/4 is amazing. I don't see why we should compare it to 100-400 II on crop 
Why not 7D II + 400/2.8 vs FF + 600/4 ? And the price is "similar" 
Why not 100-400 II vs Sigma 150-600 C ?

I think that EF-M 11-22 is considerably better than EF-S 10-18. But if 11-22 results hold up favorably to TS-E 17, then maybe there is something wrong with your copy of ST-E 17? Because this is weird. I know 11-22 is good, for the price (maybe even the best there is), but it's not thaat good.
I tried to like the 17-40L, but those blurry corners are a no-go for me, even past F8. However, I don't really need AF for UWA and there are some really nice and affordable prime options for FF - Samyang 14, Irix 15, Irix 11, Laowa 12 Zero-D, Laowa 15 Macro, Laowa 24F14 Relay Weird Macro (aka.Really Weird Macro) , etc. - they are not small, but they are good and fun to use . The problem is I cannot decide which one I like the most, the Sigma 14F1.8ART "unicorn" seems reasonable, heavy though.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


> "For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:



Given similar levels of technology, a prime is ALWAYS sharper than a zoom. The zoom will be optimized for the best balance of performance across the entire zoom range, while the prime is optimized for one focal length.

Adding a teleconverter to any lens increases distortion and looses an F-stop or two.....

So we have a 600 F4 prime..... against a 100-400 zoom at 400mm plus a 1.4X teleconverter, which gives you a 140-560MM zoom being shot at 560mm and F8, and keep in mind that we are at the end of the zoom range and the zoom is not at it's best performance there...

The prime wins hands down!


----------



## ecka (Jun 8, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > "For birds/wildlife: ..." - Why 600/4? You can just use the same 100-400 II and crop it or use a TC. Seems fine to me:
> ...



Well of course prime is better. How does it prove that APS-C is significantly cheaper or smaller?
I say it doesn't and that's the whole point.
Why not 400/2.8 on APS-C vs 400/2.8+TC OR 600/4 on FF?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


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



Oh God, I should have checked your profile. I forgot you were the "buying lenses for the camera bag" guy. I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion. I apologize to the other forum members for what has been a colossal waste of effort.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 8, 2017)

ecka said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...


If you are focal length limited, it becomes a question of pixels on the target, and the quality of those pixels....

Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better. Change to a FF camera like the 5D4 ad the quality of the pixels goes up considerably, but the number of pixels on target drops.... Interestingly enough, if you resemble the crop image to the same number of pixels on target as the FF camera, the pixel quality improves to about the same....... in other words, it becomes a wash as to if FF or crop is better....

Remember, this is only when you are focal length limited..... if you are not, then the FF camera and the top camera will both have approximately the same number of pixels on target and the FF pixels are of better quality.

So yes, crop is cheaper, Under really good lighting can be better, but most of the time is not.....

An interesting variation comes when you are severely focal length limited and you have good lighting conditions. In that situation an SX60 can put 12 times as many pixels on target as a 5DX and a 100-400 II and assuming it can AF and stabilize properly, can return a better picture!


----------



## ecka (Jun 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Why not 5DsR + 500/4 vs 7DII + 400/2.8? Should be enough pixels on target for the same price


----------



## ecka (Jun 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



No, I'm the opposite guy, who buys bags for the lenses 
"I should never have tried to engage you in a rational discussion" - And you didn't, unfortunately. I tried to pull you towards the rational side of things, but you resisted strongly, so I've failed . This is sad and hopeless, because there are millions of others like you. The world is *******!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...



Don, not sure I understand your reasoning. Why do you feel the quality of the pixels would be a bit better with the 100-400 II vs. the 400 f5.6.? Is that because you feel the new zoom is sharper at 400 than the prime? I'm not disagreeing, I just am not sure I'm following the reasoning.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Staying within the Canon ecosystem, for the best bang-for-the-buck, a crop camera (80D) and the 400F5.6 will probably give the best overall results at a reasonable price, when the lighting is excellent........ for a bit more money, swap in a 100-400 II And you get the same number of pixels on target, but the quality of the pixels is a bit better...
> ...


In general, a prime beats a zoom, but the 100-400 II is a whole lot newer than the 400F5.6 with better glass and more precise manufacture. The prime has a lot of copy variation (got a bad one at work).... an updated 400F5.6 would be a completely different story.....


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 9, 2017)

ecka said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



It is always difficult to compare like with like in these situations, but I suggest we take one of the better Canon APS-C cameras with a magnesium alloy body (such as the 7D mark 2) with one of the best Canon EF-S lenses (the 17-55 F2.8) and compare it with a similar full frame set up - such as a Canon 5D mark 4 with a 24-70 F2.8L ii then there is actually not much difference in the size/weight.
7D mk 2 weight 910g
5D mk 4 weight 890g
EF-S 17-55 F2.8 645g
EF 24-70 F2.8L ii 805g
So overall the full frame setup is around 150g heavier - I would not even notice that in my kit bag.
However the difference in price is colossal:
7D mk 2 + 17-55 F2.8 in the UK is £2,198
5D mk 4 + 24-70 F2.8 ii is £5,248
a difference of over £3,000
Yes I know that the 24-70 F2.8L ii is a more recent lens and the 5D mk 4 is probably a better camera than the 7D mk 2 but even so the difference in price is huge. You could buy the APS-C setup twice and still save £800 on the price of the full frame system.


----------



## ecka (Jun 9, 2017)

Ian_of_glos said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



The truth is they are not similar.
Maybe close to similar are:
70D/7D/7D2 + 17-55/2.8 ~ 6D/5D2/5D3 + 24-105/4L
But, honestly, I would prefer 70D over the 7D2 and 6D over any crop. There is no APS-C version of 5D4 and there is no EF-S version of EF 24-70/2.8L II. What you are trying to compare is just wrong.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 9, 2017)

All
Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 9, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> All
> Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.



best comment in 5+ pages.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 9, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> All
> Its the weekend go and shoot some photos this thread is now boring and counter productive.



But I don't have a FF mirrorless camera! I am *******!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 9, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can compromise by using your 7DII in Live-view mode.


----------

