# There will be no mirrorless camera body announced ahead of Photokina



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 26, 2018)

> *Update here:* We were wrong, all of your Canon mirrorless dreams are likely coming true soon
> We continue to see and receive reports about a Canon full frame mirrorless camera being announced on or around September 4, 2018. We’re pretty confident that no ILC cameras with or without a mirror will be announced ahead of Photokina next month. We expect to see some lenses announced, but no camera bodies.
> As we’ve mentioned previously, there is always a possibility of a “development announcement”. These type of announcements are usually quite hard to get wind of in advance.
> We think the first half of 2019 is when we’ll start getting new camera bodies. The EOS 90D, EOS M5 Mark II and a full frame mirrorless camera are the obvious models to be announced next.
> We had to address this again, as I continue to get questions from readers.



Continue reading...


----------



## Yasko (Aug 26, 2018)

After all this "Nikon failed" discussions, may be they thought about a prolongation of their mirrorless development? 
Well - let's see. As long as it's focussing correctly I think Canon is in for a good release of a mirrorless fullframe camera.


----------



## WilliamJ (Aug 26, 2018)

I can’t help but feel the whole buildup for canon’s FF mirorless will be possibly even worse than Nikon. Given that Nikon are generally a lot more generous with features compared to canon (take D850 vs 5D iv/5dsr for example), canon is surely going to cripple theirs in quite a few ways compared to the ‘gold standard of specs’ Sony A7III.

In worst case scenario I’d personally predict no ibis, no full frame 4K or no dpaf in 4K (or both), no dual card slots, no on sensor adc, no eye af, no tilty or flippy screen. Sadly deep down many of us know this could in fact be the reality, even if they perfect ergonomics, menu systems and skin tones as always.

Yet, if it had a native EF Mount it would probably still manage to become the best selling ff mirorless, just because it’s canon.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Aug 26, 2018)

WilliamJ said:


> I can’t help but feel the whole buildup for canon’s FF mirorless will be possibly even worse than Nikon. Given that Nikon are generally a lot more generous with features compared to canon (take D850 vs 5D iv/5dsr for example), canon is surely going to cripple theirs in quite a few ways compared to the ‘gold standard of specs’ Sony A7III.
> 
> In worst case scenario I’d personally predict no ibis, no full frame 4K or no dpaf in 4K (or both), no dual card slots, no on sensor converter, no tilting screen.
> 
> Yet, if it had a native EF Mount it would probably still manage to become the best selling mirorless, because it’s canon.



Well the rumors point to two Canon full-frame mirrorless bodies. One prosumer, and another entry level. I'd expect the prosumer model to have dual card slots, and full sensor 4k with DPAF. I think both the prosumer and entry level will have an articulating screen, but I don't think either will have IBIS. Not sure if Canon has patents for IBIS, or if they do, it may not be at a production-ready state.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2018)

NNNOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

But I have a severe case of Gear Acquisition Syndrome!!!

Don’t make me go out and take pictures with my phone........


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2018)

I doubt it will be worth the wait at this point. Nikon's Z6 and Z7 will be out, Sony has the A7 III and A7r III, and the A7s III will probably beat Canon's first FF mirrorless to market. The chances of Canon catching up and surpassing all of these options are pretty slim IMHO, and to find out you'll have to wait another year, by which time the Sony A7r IV will probably be released.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I doubt it will be worth the wait at this point. Nikon's Z6 and Z7 will be out, Sony has the A7 III and A7r III, and the A7s III will probably beat Canon's first FF mirrorless to market. The chances of Canon catching up and surpassing all of these options are pretty slim IMHO, and to find out you'll have to wait another year, by which time the Sony A7r IV will probably be released.



The thing is, it’s not their first mirrorless..... the M series has been out for quite a while.... As a minimum, it’s just a case of using a larger sensor. The fact that they are taking a while to release it implies that it will be a significant improvement in features over the M... WiFi, articulated touchscreens, or any of the existing features are easy, they already have proven code for them.

My suspicions are either QPAF, or hybrid OIS/IBIS.... either of which would make this a force to be reckoned with...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2018)

Etienne said:


> The chances of Canon catching up and surpassing all of these options are pretty slim IMHO...


Probably about the same chance as the EOS M line had of surpassing all the other APS-C MILC options. Since that happened, it seems quite reasonable for it to happen again in the FF MILC subsegment. 

That's assuming you mean 'surpass' in terms of something that can be evaluated objectively. If you mean it in terms of which one _you_ like better, that's your choice of course, but essentially irrelevant.


----------



## JBSF (Aug 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The thing is, it’s not their first mirrorless..... the M series has been out for quite a while.... As a minimum, it’s just a case of using a larger sensor. The fact that they are taking a while to release it implies that it will be a significant improvement in features over the M... WiFi, articulated touchscreens, or any of the existing features are easy, they already have proven code for them.
> 
> My suspicions are either QPAF, or hybrid OIS/IBIS.... either of which would make this a force to be reckoned with...



Canon’s FF will not be a Sony killer, but it will be a body blow.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 26, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Probably about the same chance as the EOS M line had of surpassing all the other APS-C MILC options. Since that happened, it seems quite reasonable for it to happen again in the FF MILC subsegment.
> 
> That's assuming you mean 'surpass' in terms of something that can be evaluated objectively. If you mean it in terms of which one _you_ like better, that's your choice of course, but essentially irrelevant.



I think he meant catching up and surpassing in terms of competitive specs and features- maybe this lack of announcement of camera bodied means Canon’s not impressed with Nikon’s entry and don’t feel pressure to release anything at this point. Shame, because the consumer loses if they don’t enter the game and compete.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2018)

Guys, given the time forums on the internet have been running, and over that time the amount of cameras and lenses that Canon have introduced, it's pretty clear the way things will go when Canon finally introduce their FF Mirrorless: initial howls of derision and despair will, after nine months or so turn in grunts of respect.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Guys, given the time forums on the internet have been running, and over that time the amount of cameras and lenses that Canon have introduced, it's pretty clear the way things will go when Canon finally introduce their FF Mirrorless: initial howls of derision and despair will, after nine months or so turn in grunts of respect.


I agree. It is obvious that whatever they introduce will be a piece of useless junk that for some mysterious reason sells well and takes great pictures....


----------



## PerKr (Aug 26, 2018)

Funny how quick some have been to dismiss Nikon. The review I saw of the autofocus was pretty good but if images still come out being out of focus that's probably a matter of fixing the firmware to deal with what happens during exposure. I think when it finally hits the shelves with proper firmware reviewers will have a more positive opinion.

Canon have been able to keep the lid on. That's fairly impressive.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 26, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Funny how quick some have been to dismiss Nikon. The review I saw of the autofocus was pretty good but if images still come out being out of focus that's probably a matter of fixing the firmware to deal with what happens during exposure. I think when it finally hits the shelves with proper firmware reviewers will have a more positive opinion.
> 
> Canon have been able to keep the lid on. That's fairly impressive.




Sony and Canon have a lot more experience with video, which I think helps them with this issue. This is the first Nikon camera with decent video features (usability in addition to being 4K), so I don't think they'll get it this iteration. It took Sony until iteration 3 to get there and they had a better more videocentric experience. Take a look at the dpreview critique of the AF for someone running toward the camera. This is a basic and fundamental feature. It should have worked by now before samples were provided to pros/reviewers to critique.


----------



## Romz26 (Aug 26, 2018)

JBSF said:


> Canon’s FF will not be a Sony killer, but it will be a body blow.



thats what i am thinking also. it wont be like nikon's love tap, but a right hook to the ribs. I think they canon will have a sony killer by gen 3. 

At this stage I would be worried going nikon, the nikon 1 didnt do so well. Should of read the market and brought out a apsc mirrorless instead.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The thing is, it’s not their first mirrorless..... the M series has been out for quite a while.... As a minimum, it’s just a case of using a larger sensor. The fact that they are taking a while to release it implies that it will be a significant improvement in features over the M... WiFi, articulated touchscreens, or any of the existing features are easy, they already have proven code for them.
> 
> My suspicions are either QPAF, or hybrid OIS/IBIS.... either of which would make this a force to be reckoned with...



My comment specifically refers to FF mirrorless. Anyway, I hope Canon goes all in, but the wait has already been excruciating, and compounded by Canon's failure to up their video game in DSLRs and in the low end video market (C100, XF400 etc).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2018)

Etienne said:


> My comment specifically refers to FF mirrorless.


I got that, but my point was that their experience in crop mirrorless paves the way for getting into FF mirrorless.... It's not like they are jumping in cold.

That said, I'm with you about the wait.... they could have been in two or three years ago, so let's hope the wait is worth it....


----------



## Etienne (Aug 26, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> I think he meant catching up and surpassing in terms of competitive specs and features- maybe this lack of announcement of camera bodied means Canon’s not impressed with Nikon’s entry and don’t feel pressure to release anything at this point. Shame, because the consumer loses if they don’t enter the game and compete.



I mean an overall superior product, and of course like everyone else here, it is of course my opinion. Canon's DPAF is already the best AF system, but Canon's video performance has been among the worst for years now (cinema line excepted). Some of Canon's omissions are perplexing, like no focus peaking in some cameras while it is added to others lower down the lineup (M6), adding C1 and C2 modes to the M but not to the 77D. A lot of us need an all around photo/video solution in a small package. Nikon's Z6 may be the ticket, but reviews will tell the story. If Canon can add the a full articulating screen, DPAF, video tools (zebra, peaking, 120p, 4K ... all should be considered standards today), color science to the Z6 that would be awesome.
When Canon gets it right, they can hit it out of the park, some of their lenses for instance are awesome, the 5D2 set a new standard at the time, but they appear to be dragging their heels on the FF mirrorless, even the M series doesn't appear to be a fully-committed effort so far but maybe the mark II rounds will tighten that up.
I will probably need a lightweight full frame package by the end of this year, and I had been hoping that Canon would be in the mix. I am not comfortable jumping in on the Z6 prior to full reviews, so that leave Sony A7 III, or a possible A7s III if it gets released really soon. 
I'll buy the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 for sure, but the M series isn't that great in low light, which is important to me. But the M6 is handy has a cheap pocket camera that I don't worry about.
Anyways, rambling thoughts


----------



## Adelino (Aug 26, 2018)

Yasko said:


> After all this "Nikon failed" discussions, may be they thought about a prolongation of their mirrorless development?
> Well - let's see. As long as it's focussing correctly I think Canon is in for a good release of a mirrorless fullframe camera.



Canon doesn't even care when there are "Canon failed" comments and discussions so they REALLY don't care about Nikon failed comments.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 26, 2018)

WilliamJ said:


> I can’t help but feel the whole buildup for canon’s FF mirorless will be possibly even worse than Nikon. Given that Nikon are generally a lot more generous with features compared to canon (take D850 vs 5D iv/5dsr for example), canon is surely going to cripple theirs in quite a few ways compared to the ‘gold standard of specs’ Sony A7III.
> 
> In worst case scenario I’d personally predict no ibis, no full frame 4K or no dpaf in 4K (or both), no dual card slots, no on sensor adc, no eye af, no tilty or flippy screen. Sadly deep down many of us know this could in fact be the reality, even if they perfect ergonomics, menu systems and skin tones as always.
> 
> Yet, if it had a native EF Mount it would probably still manage to become the best selling ff mirorless, just because it’s canon.



Yeah. Skin tones shouldn't be the priority. Neither should ergonomics or easy to navigate, logical, menu systems. Sony the gold standard? I guess # of paper specs make Sony the gold standard.  Specs don't take photos. Specs don't make them good photos either. Good photos are your job. For all the "crippled" remarks about Canon, there's a reason Canon is #1... and it isn't because of the name label. It isn't "just because it's Canon."

I'm not defending Canon so much as expressing disdain and frustration with silly remarks and threads that seem to have had no thought behind them other than to %@#&* and moan. I am far from being a good photographer, but I don't sit around and hope that a camera "better" than what I have in my chosen system is going to somehow make me better. Apparently that is what most of the gearhead whiners must think.

Your opinion is that Sony is the "Gold Standard". My opinion is that nobody besides Sony (up to now) has had a FF camera in the FF mirrorless playground until now. It is easy to be the best screwdriver maker when nobody else is making screwdrivers. So, in my opinion, Sony and its FF mirrorless camera sucks. Without ever seeing one and without ever trying one I make that statement because, the truth is, that is the same experience of most people crying for a camera like the Sony. No first hand experience at all.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 26, 2018)

WilliamJ said:


> Given that Nikon are generally a lot more generous with features compared to canon (take D850 vs 5D iv/5dsr for example),



The 5Ds bodies came out 3 years ago. Their competitor was the D810. They pretty much matched the D810 spec wise with the one obvious gain of 50 vs. 36 MP.

The D850 is also one year newer than the 5D IV. One could argue Nikon had to jump in hard with specs because the 5Ds/5Dsr/5DIV were doing so well.


----------



## tamahome5555 (Aug 27, 2018)

I think the reason Canon isn't announcing mirrorless on photokina is because they saw Nikon Z Series and Canon's are probably underwhelming compared to Nikon's offering. So they're taking their time to improve their FF mirrorless before they announce it.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2018)

tamahome5555 said:


> I think the reason Canon isn't announcing mirrorless on photokina is because they saw Nikon Z Series and Canon's are probably underwhelming compared to Nikon's offering. So they're taking their time to improve their FF mirrorless before they announce it.


You realize that the specs for this camera were probably set three years ago? Also, Canon, Nikon, and Sony do industrial espionage on each other.... they probably know what is coming out several years ahead of release....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You realize that the specs for this camera were probably set three years ago? Also, Canon, Nikon, and Sony do industrial espionage on each other.... they probably know what is coming out several years ahead of release....


Most people have little to no understanding of how corporations operate.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most people have little to no understanding of how corporations operate.



much less hardware development


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah. Skin tones shouldn't be the priority. Neither should ergonomics or easy to navigate, logical, menu systems. Sony the gold standard? I guess # of paper specs make Sony the gold standard.  Specs don't take photos. Specs don't make them good photos either. Good photos are your job. For all the "crippled" remarks about Canon, there's a reason Canon is #1... and it isn't because of the name label. It isn't "just because it's Canon."
> 
> I'm not defending Canon so much as expressing disdain and frustration with silly remarks and threads that seem to have had no thought behind them other than to %@#&* and moan. I am far from being a good photographer, but I don't sit around and hope that a camera "better" than what I have in my chosen system is going to somehow make me better. Apparently that is what most of the gearhead whiners must think.
> 
> Your opinion is that Sony is the "Gold Standard". My opinion is that nobody besides Sony (up to now) has had a FF camera in the FF mirrorless playground until now. It is easy to be the best screwdriver maker when nobody else is making screwdrivers. So, in my opinion, Sony and its FF mirrorless camera sucks. Without ever seeing one and without ever trying one I make that statement because, the truth is, that is the same experience of most people crying for a camera like the Sony. No first hand experience at all.



WilliamJ clearly said A73 is gold standard for specs never said Sony is gold standard for cameras. Sounds like you have issues with comprehension skills.

True, Specs don't don't take photos. Specs helps to get better pictures with ease and often saves time with post processing. e.g. instead of taking 3 shots and to process that in a software to get a picture with good dynamic range that can be achieved with one shot in a camera that has better dynamic range. Canon fan boys can never understand these things. So don't even try to understand that.

*Skin tones*, I have been using A9 and A7R3 for last 6 to 9 months and I have no complaints on the skin tones or colors on the Sony models I am using. I process pics to my liking using PS

*Menu*, unlike Canon and Nikon Sonys have more custom buttons and it is fairly easy to customize the buttons and menu . I have nothing to complain here either.

Yep from your dum post it is so clear *you are not defending Canon. *It it pretty foolish to assume that people who are not using Sony Cameras are commenting. Just because you have not used them. You fan boys have closed your eyes and swearing the world is dark. It is not dark just open your eyes.

His remarks are not silly it is your response that is silly and not thought out. IMO all fan boys (not just Canon, that applies for anything) are just dum heads which appears to be synonymous in your case.

Now before you say I am a troll, I have invested more in Canon than Sony. I did not buy a Sony out of excitement, I bought Sony with hesitation. In fact even today if Canon can release competitive cameras I would get rid of Sony. It was Canon's attitude of not even willing to compete forced me to buy a Sony mirroless camera with lots of hesitation but today I am happy with them I also bought a few E mount lenses to go with them. Today I grab the Sony Cameras more often than 5D4 because they are better tools for me and I enjoy using them. The only reason I still have Canon is 600 f/4. I have started to get rid of my Canon stuff at this point because I have no hope Canon will ever compete especially when they gain market share with lackluster cameras. It is just Canon' luck, marketing and their strategy of pretty giving away cameras works in their favor. I have explained Canon' strategy here

The Sony Cameras A9, A7r3, A73 are not just specs on paper as most Canon and Nikon fan things. They are serious tools. By no means I am Sony fan. Like I said above if Canon can deliver a camera that competes head on with a7r3 (5DsR is not that camera. Yes I have used that and felt thank God I did not buy this crap instead rented to see how it performs. Couldn't stand the noise and worst DR) I will buy in to that but there is no hope.


----------



## Deleted member 380306 (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Your opinion is that Sony is the "Gold Standard". My opinion is that nobody besides Sony (up to now) has had a FF camera in the FF mirrorless playground until now. It is easy to be the best screwdriver maker when nobody else is making screwdrivers. So, in my opinion, Sony and its FF mirrorless camera sucks. Without ever seeing one and without ever trying one I make that statement because, the truth is, that is the same experience of most people crying for a camera like the Sony. No first hand experience at all.



Apart from the Leica SL (Typ 601) was a FF mirrorless!


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 27, 2018)

tamahome5555 said:


> I think the reason Canon isn't announcing mirrorless on photokina is because they saw Nikon Z Series and Canon's are probably underwhelming compared to Nikon's offering. So they're taking their time to improve their FF mirrorless before they announce it.


OR.... Canon were confident enough to let Nikon go first because they believe their camera will be better?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The thing is, it’s not their first mirrorless..... the M series has been out for quite a while.... As a minimum, it’s just a case of using a larger sensor. The fact that they are taking a while to release it implies that it will be a significant improvement in features over the M... WiFi, articulated touchscreens, or any of the existing features are easy, they already have proven code for them.
> 
> My suspicions are either QPAF, or hybrid OIS/IBIS.... either of which would make this a force to be reckoned with...



Canon is into it's 5th generation of liveview, which is essentially the same as mirrorless from camera perspective sans EVF.

They are also in their 5th generation of EOS-M mirrorless and 3rd generation of EVF's, 3 generations of liveview in their full frame DSLR's as well.

The idea that they are starting from scratch with no prior experience is rather puzzling, but the negative narrative always seems to come from the same 2 or 3 people.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> e expect to see some lenses announced, but no camera bodies.
> As we’ve mentioned previously, there is always a possibility of a “development announcement”.



This is rather dissappointing. it's is well time for a M5 Mark II to be released.

The DSLR's are probably held up waiting for DIGIC 8 to be designed into them and 4K h.264 added to the DSLR ecosystem. but there's no real reason why an M5 with updated AF, faster processor, 4K,etc isn't out the door yet, IMO.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> Specs helps to get better pictures with ease and often saves time with post processing. e.g. instead of taking 3 shots and to process that in a software to get a picture with good dynamic range that can be achieved with one shot in a camera that has better dynamic range.



Which current camera has sufficient Dynamic Range to replace a 3-shot bracket of another current camera (same market, not like a MF digital versus an iPhone)?



goldenhusky said:


> *Menu*, unlike Canon and Nikon Sonys have more custom buttons and it is fairly easy to customize the buttons and menu . I have nothing to complain here either.



Agreed. I’m not fond of any camera menu system I’ve used, but with the 3rd gen Sony alpha cameras, the ability to map almost any function to almost any button is pretty powerful. Also, they added something akin to the MyMenu function which is the only place I ever go in my canon menus, so after the initial setup it’s basically square footing as far as I’m concerned.

The notion that sony’s interface sucks is as antiquated (refer to the 3G cameras: A9, A7iii, A7Riii) as the notion that canon can’t deliver near class-leading Dynamic Range (refer to DCRAW from the 5Div).


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah. Skin tones shouldn't be the priority. Neither should ergonomics or easy to navigate, logical, menu systems. Sony the gold standard? I guess # of paper specs make Sony the gold standard.  Specs don't take photos. Specs don't make them good photos either. Good photos are your job. For all the "crippled" remarks about Canon, there's a reason Canon is #1... and it isn't because of the name label. It isn't "just because it's Canon."
> 
> I'm not defending Canon so much as expressing disdain and frustration with silly remarks and threads that seem to have had no thought behind them other than to %@#&* and moan. I am far from being a good photographer, but I don't sit around and hope that a camera "better" than what I have in my chosen system is going to somehow make me better. Apparently that is what most of the gearhead whiners must think.
> 
> Your opinion is that Sony is the "Gold Standard". My opinion is that nobody besides Sony (up to now) has had a FF camera in the FF mirrorless playground until now. It is easy to be the best screwdriver maker when nobody else is making screwdrivers. So, in my opinion, Sony and its FF mirrorless camera sucks. Without ever seeing one and without ever trying one I make that statement because, the truth is, that is the same experience of most people crying for a camera like the Sony. No first hand experience at all.


Sorry!
But Sony is in fact the Gold Standard since:
-Their handling is the worst
-Their menus are horrible
-They offer the poorest wheatherproofing of all "professional" FF cameras

I often get the feeling that Canon should stop producing reliability and excellent handling in favour of beautiful spec-sheets.
Spec-sheets really are a huge help in the wilderness...


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most people have little to no understanding of how corporations operate.



Some product specs can be tweaked and changed in 6 months if need be. Most people don’t understand how Agile product development and iteration works


----------



## Respinder (Aug 27, 2018)

I think Canon made the right move here. Nikon seemed to get everything right with the Z-series, but with the omission of a "minor" component that clearly has major implications; the second memory card slot. As a result, they are now facing an unprecedented backlash - the likes of which I've never seen applied to even the worst Canon releases, and that negative backlash has spilled over into other gripes concerning the camera (i.e. pre-production issues with AF, lack of eye-AF, and now the new thing being lack of buttons on the unreleased battery grip, meaning no vertical orientation). I feel pretty bad for Nikon right now. But at the same time, I think Canon needs to ingest all of this and realize that they cannot simply come to the market with another "just okay" mirrorless - they've got to be serious and put all their cards in.

I also feel that Nikon got a lot of backlash over their lenses - namely the lack of native ones, despite the fact that there is an adapter that works very well with F-mount lenses. So clearly, even with an adapter, people just looked at the native lenses. I think this further substantiates the argument that Canon must stick to a native EF mount for the mirrorless.

One suggestion I've seen around these forums is to make a mechanism that accepts two styles of EF lenses - one with the normal distance from lens to sensor (i.e. 44mm) and the other; a sharper form of EF lens for mirrorless, with a distance of 16mm or shorter between lens to sensor, and the mechanism would automatically adjust the flange focal distance depending on what lens is inserted into the camera. The question is how reliable would this mechanism be over time?

Unlike Nikon, who had a definitive need to move on from the F mount, due to a number of practical limitations, I do not think Canon needs to do the same with the EF mount, which is similar in diameter to Nikon's new Z mount. Canon needs to think carefully of their next move, and if it means more time before release, then thats what they should do. I'd rather have them put in the time/effort rather than release a rushed job, knowing that they too, like Nikon, will be getting one chance to get it right (first impressions clearly DO matter).


----------



## nchoh (Aug 27, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I mean an overall superior product, and of course like everyone else here, it is of course my opinion. Canon's DPAF is already the best AF system, but Canon's video performance has been among the worst for years now (cinema line excepted). Some of Canon's omissions are perplexing, like no focus peaking in some cameras while it is added to others lower down the lineup (M6), adding C1 and C2 modes to the M but not to the 77D. A lot of us need an all around photo/video solution in a small package. Nikon's Z6 may be the ticket, but reviews will tell the story. If Canon can add the a full articulating screen, DPAF, video tools (zebra, peaking, 120p, 4K ... all should be considered standards today), color science to the Z6 that would be awesome.
> When Canon gets it right, they can hit it out of the park, some of their lenses for instance are awesome, the 5D2 set a new standard at the time, but they appear to be dragging their heels on the FF mirrorless, even the M series doesn't appear to be a fully-committed effort so far but maybe the mark II rounds will tighten that up.
> I will probably need a lightweight full frame package by the end of this year, and I had been hoping that Canon would be in the mix. I am not comfortable jumping in on the Z6 prior to full reviews, so that leave Sony A7 III, or a possible A7s III if it gets released really soon.
> I'll buy the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 for sure, but the M series isn't that great in low light, which is important to me. But the M6 is handy has a cheap pocket camera that I don't worry about.
> Anyways, rambling thoughts



The EF-M versions of the 28 f3.5 macro and one other lens came out before the EF-S version leads me to believe that Canon is serious about the M.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 27, 2018)

Seems like there is still a lot of conflicting information out there- my guess is, anything can still happen.

https://www.canonwatch.com/some-new-canon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-talk-28mp-1900-ibis/


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Product specs can be tweaked and changed in 6 months if need be. Most people don’t understand how Agile product development and iteration works



Very few major corporations practice Agile for hardware. Bosch does with some of its product. Does canon?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 27, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Product specs can be tweaked and changed in 6 months if need be. Most people don’t understand how Agile product development and iteration works


Product specs can change every day, if you product specs team is agile enough.

The product itself cannot, if it is an electronic hardware product.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Nikon seemed to get everything right with the Z-series, but ... negative backlash has spilled over into other gripes concerning the camera (i.e. pre-production issues with AF...



That their issues with AF (and the small buffer) are limited to pre-production is merely an assumption. Given that the Z7 is due to be available in September, it’s unlikely that the camera is not in production now. Software may still be in work, but how long do they have to wrap it up before they must get it loaded, QC the cameras, and ship them out?

It’s entirely possible that the AF and buffer nuances aren’t software-related and will exist on production cameras. They act much like the Sony 2G cameras (A7II, a7rii, a7sii), which isn’t bad for Nikon’s first attempt in the market.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2018)

WilliamJ said:


> canon is surely going to cripple theirs in quite a few ways



Yawn.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> instead of taking 3 shots and to process that in a software to get a picture with good dynamic range that can be achieved with one shot in a camera that has better dynamic range.



Aside from your personal attacks on other forum members' intelligence (which is crossing a line in my opinion), this bears scrutiny. The difference in DR between current Canon and Sony bodies is (someone chime in with the exact figures please) about 1 stop at base ISO, correct? As people have said on these forums for a while, the number of shots that will make a difference is pretty small. It's better to have more, but most high DR scenes still have _far more than any current sensor can record in a single shot_. So you're considerably overstating Sony's advantage.


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

Was this Canon's plan all along or did they see the Nikon Z6 and Z7 and decided to go back the drawing board? Just kidding (95% kidding)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It’s entirely possible that the AF and buffer nuances aren’t software-related and will exist on production cameras. They act much like the Sony 2G cameras (A7II, a7rii, a7sii), which isn’t bad for Nikon’s first attempt in the market.



AF nuances on the N7 would appear to be a certainty. 

What I'd like to know is what this means:

From Nikon: AF sensitivity is -1 to +19 EV (-4 to +19 EV with low-light AF)


From DPR (I believe pulled from the launch day materials): "the Z 7 offers subject tracking (though it doesn't behave in the same way as the 3D Tracking system that we enjoy in Nikon's DSLRs) and it's sensitive down to -3EV on lenses with apertures of F2 and faster"
Without a manual, we can't confirm (a) what low-light mode is and its requirements are (native lenses? fast lenses? etc.) and (b) what happens when you use something slower than f/2, i.e. any zoom. Does the focusing fall off a cliff? 

What does the wedding photographer do who is packing a 24-70 f/2.8 and doesn't want to / cannot fire a flash? AF assist from the speedlite apparently does not work with this camera. 

So.... yeah. Nuances. Curious to see what those look like in real life use-cases.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> Was this Canon's plan all along or did they see the Nikon Z6 and Z7 and decided to go back the drawing board? Just kidding (95% kidding)



If Canon wasn't planning on releasing until 9-12 months from now, small things could still be folded into the camera based on the Nikon tell. Think firmware, think price, think kitting strategies (2nd battery or adaptor in the box) -- that kind of stuff.

But I don't think they could reverse course like any of these:

Go from 'all in on full EF body' to a thin mount design
Jam a second card slot in
Go from an EVF free design to an integral EVF design
Put a higher grade shutter inside to unlock higher fps
...all of the above would likely represent a major expense and (more importantly) a major delay to market to pursue.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Aside from your personal attacks on other forum members' intelligence (which is crossing a line in my opinion), this bears scrutiny. The difference in DR between current Canon and Sony bodies is (someone chime in with the exact figures please) about 1 stop at base ISO, correct? As people have said on these forums for a while, the number of shots that will make a difference is pretty small. It's better to have more, but most high DR scenes still have _far more than any current sensor can record in a single shot_. So you're considerably overstating Sony's advantage.



It depends on who does the measuring, since there is repeatable measurement error associated with the methodology.

For the sake of discussion, I'll cite DXO. Typical disclaimer: _their composite, black-box weighted scoring system is bogus, but their underlying data is typically thorough and systematically gathered._

Also, a note from their own description: _A [Dynamic Range] of 12 EV is excellent, with differences below 0.5 EV usually not noticeable._

Measurements (maximum)
Canon EOS 5D mk IV - 12.6Ev
Nikon D850 - 13.55Ev
Sony A7Riii - 13.5Ev

There is less than 1 stop between the best performers (in this sole dimension) from the three major full frame brands. If you extract the additional stop of DR from the 5D IV dual pixel raw subframe there is essentially no difference, but unless canon makes a direct way to use it I’d say it’s fair to ignore. Regardless, unless one is barely altering exposure between bracketed shots, 3 versus 1 is a ludicrous claim.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> Was this Canon's plan all along or did they see the Nikon Z6 and Z7 and decided to go back the drawing board? Just kidding (95% kidding)



However, now that Nikon's tell is out there... If Canon actually was preparing both a thin mount FF design and a full EF design, knowing Nikon's design doesn't include a full F mount body may change Canon's plans.

This is a leap, but hear me out.

_Perhaps_ 'Nikon offers both a thin and full mount and we don't' ranked highly on Canon's Threat arm of a SWOT analysis. Canon might defensively design a full EF mirrorless to block that threat, and now that Nikon isn't offering one they could put that design in mothballs and halt efforts there. 

(But I still see a thin + thick body plan as an offensive one, so if Canon has put serious development into both it stands to reason that they would launch both.)

- A


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 27, 2018)

Yasko said:


> After all this "Nikon failed" discussions, may be they thought about a prolongation of their mirrorless development?
> Well - let's see. As long as it's focussing correctly I think Canon is in for a good release of a mirrorless fullframe camera.


How did Nikon fail? The Z7 seems great. All the reviews are mostly positive.
As far as Canon. They need to step it up and dethrone Sony. I hope they also do something for the Pros. Like a big body with built-in grip and big screen.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Very few major corporations practice Agile for hardware. Bosch does with some of its product. Does canon?



+1. I design hardware. Hardware with Agile is possible not ideal.

Agile is tailored for software and can struggle with hardware.  Hardware has some unavoidable tasks can't be subdivided into tiny little tasks and partially completed / continuously improved like software. Capital tooling startup, certifications approvals with outside parties, clinical trials, etc. tend to be a 'we're still waiting on it this epic 0 to switch to a 1' in team meetings. Further, some industries have a ridiculous orthodoxy to their product development processes, there could be an industry-wide standardization of design deliverables, etc. and they were not developed with Agile principles in mind. Those realities tend to be the bane of Agile hardware development. 

Doesn't mean it cannot work. It just means that you can't shoe-horn those processes into mature industries, and the payoff in time to market may not be the same as software. It's not a magic bullet. 

- A


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> If Canon wasn't planning on releasing until 9-12 months from now, small things could still be folded into the camera based on the Nikon tell. Think firmware, think price, think kitting strategies (2nd battery or adaptor in the box) -- that kind of stuff.
> 
> But I don't think they could reverse course like any of these:
> 
> ...




Actually I don't think they will change anything in a major way - just like to poke the bear occasionally. I hope you noticed that I said was 95% kidding. Canon may have a slight course correction (or may decide to delay a product launch or accelerate an announcement) in response to Nikon. but in the end I think they will stick with their game plan at least in the short term.

If would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at their strategy meetings


----------



## Respinder (Aug 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That their issues with AF (and the small buffer) are limited to pre-production is merely an assumption. Given that the Z7 is due to be available in September, it’s unlikely that the camera is not in production now. Software may still be in work, but how long do they have to wrap it up before they must get it loaded, QC the cameras, and ship them out?
> 
> It’s entirely possible that the AF and buffer nuances aren’t software-related and will exist on production cameras. They act much like the Sony 2G cameras (A7II, a7rii, a7sii), which isn’t bad for Nikon’s first attempt in the market.



Very possible. Hopefully not the case, as there have been mixed reports on AF by various people using the camera. We heard that the NYC event where they showed off the camera was a very poorly lit area for showcasing AF performance. We also heard that the firmware was more of a "0.5x" version, rather than a polished "0.9x" version we'd expect to see a month before the camera's release. So either, the final production cameras will have these issues, or Nikon botched the marketing (likely) and provided pre-production cameras that were simply not as polished as they should've been.


----------



## Respinder (Aug 27, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I doubt it will be worth the wait at this point. Nikon's Z6 and Z7 will be out, Sony has the A7 III and A7r III, and the A7s III will probably beat Canon's first FF mirrorless to market. The chances of Canon catching up and surpassing all of these options are pretty slim IMHO, and to find out you'll have to wait another year, by which time the Sony A7r IV will probably be released.



The question of "catching up" is entirely up to Canon. Canon has the expertise, the money in the bank and the patents to easily outperform anyone in the market. The question is whether they choose to do so. The answer to the question is entirely up to them.


----------



## mcs130 (Aug 27, 2018)

If nothing else, one might wonder if Canon is watching the Nikon FF Mirrorless "debacle" play out to hopefully avoid at least a few of the mistakes that Nikon appears to have made. I get that "production" units are not in the hands of the buying user community yet, but wow - the YouTube Review sites have been lit up on this one. Almost makes the "DR failure" of the 6D Mark II release hysteria seem tame by comparison. (Ironically some of those same bashers from a year ago now laud the 6D Mark II as one of the best Vlogging bodies out there)... I don't do video, so I don't care.


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I would like to see 2 different bodies from Canon. One normal, skinny, light and small and a big one with a thick, hefty grip, built-in vertical grip and a bigger, 3.5" full touch LCD screen like a smart phone. Also Eye-controlled Focus like the 1992 EOS 5. Technology has changed so much, they can really make it work now...
Also lots of AF points throughout the whole sensor, like the Sony A7R III.
Let's hope they do something amazing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

Respinder said:


> We also heard that the firmware was more of a "0.5x" version, rather than a polished "0.9x" version we'd expect to see a month before the event. So either, the final production cameras will have these issues, or Nikon botched the marketing (likely) and provided pre-production cameras that were simply not as polished as they should be.



I find it more likely that the software is less mature than it should be for a product release next month (i.e. that the marketing schedule was unrealistic). With all the buildup and hype and pomp and circumstance surrounding the event, I imagine getting the cream of the crop into the hands of the early reviewers would have been priority number one. Were there some cameras running 0.5 and others running 0.9? If so someone should be fired 

In any case, we are all just guessing I how much of the AF performance limited by software, as opposed to hardware and/or know-how. Nikon has little experience with OSPDAF. Could just be a learning curve they’ll climb with the successor products.


----------



## clicstudio (Aug 27, 2018)

Respinder said:


> The question of "catching up" is entirely up to Canon. Canon has the expertise, the money in the bank and the patents to easily outperform anyone in the market. The question is whether they choose to do so. The answer to the question is entirely up to them.


that's the problem with Canon. They wait too long between releases. Apple has the same problem agains Samsung, Big German car makers take too long too, companies like Hyundai and Kia release new updated models much more quickly. Sony knows the market is a lot faster than it used to be. A cell phone could last you 3 years or more bur people want a new one once a year. If they could have one every six months, they would also buy it,
Nobody wants to wait anymore. There is no need. Sony did it first, Nikon second, Canon needs to step it up and blow them away, but not with a half-ass system with an EF mount. It needs to be something dramatic and future-ready. 

Maybe the "R" is for R-Mount. If that is the case, I would release the camera along with a 50mm 1.4 R, a 24-70 2.8 R and a 70-200 2.8 R.

One can only dream


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Regardless, unless one is barely altering exposure between bracketed shots, 3 versus 1 is a ludicrous claim.



I agree with you in general (I'm no DR nut), but Sony and Nikon seem to have on-chip ADC hotness in everything they sell.

Canon does not. 

So your statement is factually accurate, but it's hardly a salve for amateur landscapers packing a 6D2 with old technology onboard -- those folks actually _are_ a few stops behind the pack. And the decision to not include it after the migration to on-chip began means that the 6D line won't get on-chip base ISO performance until what, 2021? 

(I'm harping on what I believe to be a miss of a decision for Canon. I'm sure that hasn't stopped the 6D2 from selling well.)

- A


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> However, now that Nikon's tell is out there... If Canon actually was preparing both a thin mount FF design and a full EF design, knowing Nikon's design doesn't include a full F mount body may change Canon's plans.
> 
> This is a leap, but hear me out.
> 
> ...



I have heard that Nikon is preparing a Z5 (pro) model - perhaps that is the thick body with dual card slots and bigger battery?? Maybe Canon is planning on introducing Pro and ML-only models at the same time?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I agree with you in general (I'm no DR nut), but Sony and Nikon seem to have on-chip ADC hotness in everything they sell.
> 
> Canon does not.
> 
> ...



Agreed; I specifically limited my post to the current “best.” Also, things like pattern noise, artifacting of AF-masked pixels in high contrast, etc. were not addressed.

Whether it’s due to the ADC or not, the 6D2 is about 2.5Ev behind the pack leader.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> Actually I don't think they will change anything in a major way - just like to poke the bear occasionally. I hope you noticed that I said was 95% kidding. Canon may have a slight course correction (or may decide to delay a product launch or accelerate an announcement) in response to Nikon. but in the end I think they will stick with their game plan at least in the short term.
> 
> If would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at their strategy meetings



The only screeching of nails on a chalkboard at Canon leading to a 'student body right' sort of course correction would be:

If Nikon went F mount and thin mount on mirrorless and Canon wasn't planning to do the same. If you really want Full EF mirrorless and Canon doesn't make it, Nikon making one of their own would surely spur Canon to do the same.


Someone launches a curved / variable- curved sensor setup and it actually works (without major strings attached). That's a lens physics game-changer, if you will, and truly small high quality lenses could be made. 


Canon starts to see data that Sony is actually flipping pros in larger numbers, and not in these lull times for Canon when big new products aren't being launched. If Sony continues to do well with the A7 against the headwinds of the N6/N7 launch, a future Canon FF mirrorless launch, etc. Canon may have to go to the mattresses in get in a value knife-fight. (We should want this as Canon users.)


Someone makes a computational multi-lens onboard non-ILC camera that works really well and becomes some social media phenomenon. (What Light could have been.)
- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> I have heard that Nikon is preparing a Z5 (pro) model - perhaps that is the thick body with dual card slots and bigger battery?? Maybe Canon is planning on introducing Pro and ML-only models at the same time?



Z7 = D850
Z6 = D6XX / D750 level (Cheaper, fewer AF points and a few other bells and whistle were left out compared to the Z7)

Logically, their top-line would be Z8 or Z9, not Z5.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Some product specs can be tweaked and changed in 6 months if need be. Most people don’t understand how Agile product development and iteration works



And this is why I say "wait for the production model" before criticizing the release.... they may have the software bugs with the AF system sorted out by then.... You expect to get useful criticism on a /beta release, and they did....


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> WilliamJ clearly said A73 is gold standard for specs never said Sony is gold standard for cameras. Sounds like you have issues with comprehension skills.
> 
> True, Specs don't don't take photos. Specs helps to get better pictures with ease and often saves time with post processing. e.g. instead of taking 3 shots and to process that in a software to get a picture with good dynamic range that can be achieved with one shot in a camera that has better dynamic range. Canon fan boys can never understand these things. So don't even try to understand that.
> 
> ...



Specs do not make better pictures and specs making something the "Gold Standard" is just a matter of opinion, not fact. His statement clearly meant that Sony is the "Gold standard" in the context of the post. Context means everything when it comes to comprehension. One sentence usually does not.

Specs absolutely do not make good photos. Neither does that little extra dynamic range. It doesn't make things easier either. Great photos are made by a variety of factors and I consider composition and lighting to be the biggest factors. Again, context. You Sony fanboys always scream about dynamic range.

I don't assume that some people posting who criticize Canon and praise Sony (over and over) don't use and have not used a Sony or particular Canon cameras. That is fact. Just because you do does not mean everyone else does. Like your Sony? Great! You actually use one. Somebody commenting about a camera being the "Gold Standard" that has not? Yeah, okay. Again, context. He's not the only one who comments and has never used it. BTW: There are people here who have used it and found it not satisfying and also found that some of the specs are just hype.

No other competitor until now, except Leica, as TonyPicture points out. Not nearly in the same market. Tell me, is the Leica a better camera than the Sony? Sorry, I'll just check the spec sheet to find out. Not having used either one, and having never seen either in real life, I guess my assessment of the Leica would absolutely be valid... just looking at the spec sheet. 

Specs don't mean crap when it comes to great photos. Otherwise, those great photographers from the past would no longer be considered great. Their specs didn't get those photos. Their composition, lighting, and post processing skills did.

So my point was, and is, that the spec sheet warriors can whine about specs all they want. Most of them have never touched the "Gold Standard" and if they did they wouldn't know what to do with it anyway. Getting the camera they say is better based on specs isn't going to make them better photogs. Saying Canon won't make a competitive camera? Well, that remains to be seen.

Yup, I am dum (Twice. It's dumb, silly). BTW: My spelling and punctuation isn't properly spec'd either. That didn't stop me, though, from criticizing your specs even though I have never seen or used your brain.

Yup. I am a fanboy. I actually chose that screen name out of sarcasm. However, Canon's specs work out just fine for me.

I'm too dum to call you a troll.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

These are kind of sad times being a Canon user. I've stopped all purchases a while ago (lenses, etc.) to see what they have coming to the table in terms of more up-to-date camera bodies with competitive features/specs. But still nothing. Not even a vague announcement that they're working on something and when the targeted release date might be.

I've never had so much trouble giving away thousands of dollars before lol. Oh well, I'm sure Sony would be happy to take my money though.

Keep staying quiet Canon....


----------



## Kit. (Aug 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You expect to get useful criticism on a /beta release, and they did....


Maybe they should have called their series β, not Z.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> These are kind of sad times being a Canon user. I've stopped all purchases a while ago (lenses, etc.) to see what they have coming to the table in terms of more up-to-date camera bodies with competitive features/specs. But still nothing. Not even a vague announcement that they're working on something and when the targeted release date might be.
> 
> I've never had so much trouble giving away thousands of dollars before lol. Oh well, I'm sure Sony would be happy to take my money though.
> 
> Keep staying quiet Canon....



Yup. Sony would be more than happy to take your money.

Having trouble giving away Canon gear? Send me a PM. I'll pay postage... as long as what you have is L glass and a 5D Mark II or better. Well, and would be nice too.

A spec sheet causing all this hand wringing? Why? Just take photos.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup. Sony would be more than happy to take your money.
> 
> Having trouble giving away Canon gear? Send me a PM. I'll pay postage... as long as what you have is L glass and a 5D Mark II or better. Well, and would be nice too.
> 
> A spec sheet causing all this hand wringing? Why? Just take photos.



For me it's the video side that's lacking. I know, you are probably going to say "so buy a video camera". But I say, why? The A7III is great at both stills AND video. To get the same features from Canon I have to buy a 1DX Mark II or separate cameras for stills and video. This is where I feel Canon is very far behind and not competitive in the current market. I had 3 Canon cameras up to about a month ago. Now all I have left is a 6D Mark II with a 24-70 f2.8L II, 100mm f2.8L and 70-300 f4-5.6. Probably wouldn't be that much of a loss from this point to switch. Though Sony glass is stupidly expensive so additional costs will be necessary to acquire everything that I would want.


----------



## Trigger (Aug 27, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> How did Nikon fail? The Z7 seems great. All the reviews are mostly positive.



Wha? That's not what I'm seeing & hearing.


----------



## syder (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> For me it's the video side that's lacking. I know, you are probably going to say "so buy a video camera". But I say, why? The A7III is great at both stills AND video. To get the same features from Canon I have to buy a 1DX Mark II or separate cameras for stills and video. This is where I feel Canon is very far behind and not competitive in the current market. I had 3 Canon cameras up to about a month ago. Now all I have left is a 6D Mark II with a 24-70 f2.8L II, 100mm f2.8L and 70-300 f4-5.6. Probably wouldn't be that much of a loss from this point to switch. Though Sony glass is stupidly expensive so additional costs will be necessary to acquire everything that I would want.


If you're serious about video the A73 isnt a great option. No built in NDs. No on body XLRs. Awful ergonomics. You can kind of get around those things by purchasing a frankenstein rig with an external sound recorder, ND filters and step up/down rings (have fun changing them quickly in the field) etc, but really if you are serious about video, rent or buy a video camera.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> These are kind of sad times being a Canon user. I've stopped all purchases a while ago (lenses, etc.) to see what they have coming to the table in terms of more up-to-date camera bodies with competitive features/specs.



same here. Not buying Canon mirrorslapper stuff any longer. And not buying more crop stuff either.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> same here. Not buying Canon mirrorslapper stuff any longer. And not buying more crop stuff either.



I could really use a EF 35mm f1.4L... but I feel like I can't buy it because once again... due to Canons complete silence about their plans, I have no idea what's going to happen with the EF mount.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> For me it's the video side that's lacking. I know, you are probably going to say "so buy a video camera". But I say, why? The A7III is great at both stills AND video. To get the same features from Canon I have to buy a 1DX Mark II or separate cameras for stills and video. This is where I feel Canon is very far behind and not competitive in the current market. I had 3 Canon cameras up to about a month ago. Now all I have left is a 6D Mark II with a 24-70 f2.8L II, 100mm f2.8L and 70-300 f4-5.6. Probably wouldn't be that much of a loss from this point to switch. Though Sony glass is stupidly expensive so additional costs will be necessary to acquire everything that I would want.



I wouldn't tell you to buy a video camera. I try not to tell anyone what to buy. Not my money.  I don't do video at all so can't comment on any of that. I used to have a 70D and I did a little video. Very little. I thought it was great, but I'm no pro trying to make money on video so I have no idea what you guys need.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> How did Nikon fail? The Z7 seems great. All the reviews are mostly positive.
> As far as Canon. They need to step it up and dethrone Sony. I hope they also do something for the Pros. Like a big body with built-in grip and big screen.



Reviews by people who didn't get early access to it are not positive. They only have specs and marketing fine print to read. And what they are reading is not great. 5.5 fps without locking AE at first exposure, single slot, XQD only (for now) and a puny buffer compared to same-priced SLRs are not exactly warming hearts right now.

It's not a dud. It's just not mind-splittingly awesome.

See attached.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I could really use a EF 35mm f1.4L... but I feel like I can't buy it because once again... due to Canons complete silence about their plans, I have no idea what's going to happen with the EF mount.



EF L lenses?

They will either:

Work exactly as well as they currently do on a modern FF body with DPAF, or...


It will work better than that because they've improved something about DPAF.
This notion that EF is about to die or won't be fully supported on the new mount implies a fundamentally different focusing technology is coming. Who honestly believes that? 

Adaptor or no adaptor, it will work brilliantly. EF is not going away. That was probably Canon's first written requirement for this new body when the whole process started.

Canon is in a completely different boat than Nikonians moving from F mount.

- A


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> EF L lenses?
> 
> They will either:
> 
> ...


This is my dilemma. Do I sell my remaining FF Canon gear and switch to Sony, or trust that the new Canon mirrorless is coming and will support my L glass without compromise and build out my lens collection while I wait for the new body.

Decisions decisions.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 27, 2018)

Canon may have beaten me. There's now a feeling a mirrorless body will be announced on the 5th. Preorders happening at a later date.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> This is my dilemma. Do I sell my remaining FF Canon gear and switch to Sony, or trust that the new Canon mirrorless is coming and will support my L glass without compromise and build out my lens collection while I wait for the new body.
> 
> Decisions decisions.



*Why wouldn't EF lenses work? * No one has explained this to me. The easiest sell Canon has with this new system is to court existing Canon SLR owners, who are expecting EF compatibility. Done.

Presuming it's thin mount and adaptor*, it will be a simple electronic passthrough. It should work identically to DPAF.

*If they go full EF mount instead (unthinkable, but might be a second body option sold alongside a thin mount mirrorless), EF works natively (again) via DPAF.

I'm completely lost on why EF won't work and work brilliantly with FF mirrorless. Please explain this to me.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon may have beaten me. There's now a feeling a mirrorless body will be announced on the 5th. Preorders happening at a later date.



'a mirrorless body' 

Go on...

- A


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 27, 2018)

The


ahsanford said:


> 'a mirrorless body'
> 
> Go on...
> 
> - A



I'm scrambling to find out. I've erred on the side of caution and I may be getting bitten.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> *Why wouldn't EF lenses work? * No one has explained this to me. The easiest sell Canon has with this new system is to court existing Canon SLR owners, who are expecting EF compatibility. Done.
> 
> Presuming it's thin mount and adaptor*, it will be a simple electronic passthrough. It should work identically to DPAF.
> 
> ...


I don't think the argument is whether or not it will work, but whether or not there will be any compromises. More of a concern to me is spending thousands on EF glass then finding out the new camera uses a newer mount that offers an advantage over EF. Either way, I'm sure EF will physically work with any new camera.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon may have beaten me. There's now a feeling a mirrorless body will be announced on the 5th. Preorders happening at a later date.


I like the sound of this.


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The only screeching of nails on a chalkboard at Canon leading to a 'student body right' sort of course correction would be:
> 
> If Nikon went F mount and thin mount on mirrorless and Canon wasn't planning to do the same. If you really want Full EF mirrorless and Canon doesn't make it, Nikon making one of their own would surely spur Canon to do the same.
> 
> ...



I think there is more to that just immediate sales.

And that is the roadmap, either explicit or implicit, that Nikon lays out. Nikon seems to have gone w/ new lens mount as well as something in the future that may support the current lens mount (not clear).

Canon appears to have s strategy of going high/low around key nikon products. 5D M4 and 5DS surround the D800/810 and 850 at least in the MP wars. 

time will tell ..


----------



## RGF (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I like the sound of this.


I hope this is true


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Very few major corporations practice Agile for hardware. Bosch does with some of its product. Does canon?



I was referring more about the software development for said hardware products, for which I would hope they practice Agile.


ecpu said:


> For me it's the video side that's lacking. I know, you are probably going to say "so buy a video camera". But I say, why? The A7III is great at both stills AND video. To get the same features from Canon I have to buy a 1DX Mark II or separate cameras for stills and video. This is where I feel Canon is very far behind and not competitive in the current market. I had 3 Canon cameras up to about a month ago. Now all I have left is a 6D Mark II with a 24-70 f2.8L II, 100mm f2.8L and 70-300 f4-5.6. Probably wouldn't be that much of a loss from this point to switch. Though Sony glass is stupidly expensive so additional costs will be necessary to acquire everything that I would want.





Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Canon may have beaten me. There's now a feeling a mirrorless body will be announced on the 5th. Preorders happening at a later date.



Same report as the one from Canonwatch?


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

RGF said:


> I hope this is true


And it better not use the 6DII or 5DM4 sensors. I want to see newly developed sensors with better DR.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> You realize that the specs for this camera were probably set three years ago? Also, Canon, Nikon, and Sony do industrial espionage on each other.... they probably know what is coming out several years ahead of release....


I think that they do not know what is coming from Canon. Canon is very careful, only a small number of people have the full picture up to the point where the camera is 4-6 months away from announcement. They have many different prototypes floating around, so any early info is just looking at a possibility. Nikon and Sony likely have good information 4-6 months in advance as far as the major components, but not detailed performance, that is extrapolated and surprises can happen. 

However, it is true that Mirrorless cameras fall into the "almost as good" category when compared to DSLR's. Don't expect them to outperform. DPR has already done a lot of testing of a Z and found it poorer than even consumer grade Nikon DSLR's across the board.

As mirrorless cameras go, its very good, but not DSLR good.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that they do not know what is coming from Canon. Canon is very careful, only a small number of people have the full picture up to the point where the camera is 4-6 months away from announcement. They have many different prototypes floating around, so any early info is just looking at a possibility. Nikon and Sony likely have good information 4-6 months in advance as far as the major components, but not detailed performance, that is extrapolated and surprises can happen.
> 
> However, it is true that Mirrorless cameras fall into the "almost as good" category when compared to DSLR's. Don't expect them to outperform. DPR has already done a lot of testing of a Z and found it poorer than even consumer grade Nikon DSLR's across the board.
> 
> As mirrorless cameras go, its very good, but not DSLR good.


Is this true when comparing Sony Mirrorless to DSLR's or just Nikon Z?


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> And it better not use the 6DII or 5DM4 sensors. I want to see newly developed sensors with better DR.


keep in mind it may be a M5 Mark II


----------



## ecpu (Aug 27, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> keep in mind it may be a M5 Mark II


Actually that's a good point. Could very easily be a higher end crop mirrorless with M Mount.


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Specs do not make better pictures and specs making something the "Gold Standard" is just a matter of opinion, not fact. His statement clearly meant that Sony is the "Gold standard" in the context of the post. Context means everything when it comes to comprehension. One sentence usually does not.
> 
> Specs absolutely do not make good photos. Neither does that little extra dynamic range. It doesn't make things easier either. Great photos are made by a variety of factors and I consider composition and lighting to be the biggest factors. Again, context. You Sony fanboys always scream about dynamic range.
> 
> ...



====

BINGO! You have hit the nail on the head with a Twenty Ton Hammer !!!! You DO NOT NEED a $10,000 camera to take decent photos. These below example photos were taken with an Asus Zenfone-2 and a cheap $50 five-megapixel 2010-era Nokia smartphone...While a bit over-saturated, I say from a consumer point of view, that they look half-decent to me in terms of general composition and foreground sharpness and would be perfectly fine additions to the average Joe and Jane Q. Public's Family photo album! 

The key is to CROP HARD and fix your contrast ratios and most of your photos will be FINE!

Go ahead and pixel peep. The key for smartphone photos is to first set your contrast, brightness and shadows correctly in editing and THEN CUT your final output resolution IN HALF on each axis so that 4000 x 2500 pixel photos become 2000 by 1250 pixel photos (Use Bicubic or Lanczos-3 resize algorithms). After that image resize, do an UNSHARP MASK to sharpen object edges ONLY and there you go! NOW SAVE your edited image full colour 24-bits per RGB pixel or better quality PNG (Not JPEG!) files. You've now got half-decent photos that will print out just fine at standard 7x5 inch photo frame sizes. On my Epson printer, I can get away with printing at 8.5 by 11 inches paper sizes (using fit-to-page) if I set my printout resolution to 2400 DPI and use PERCEPTUAL colour matching to ensure what I see on my screen is what I get on my hard copy prints.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> Nikon seems to have gone w/ new lens mount as well as something in the future that may support the current lens mount (not clear).



F mount will continue as well, don't get me wrong. 

But between a fragmented F mount compatibility situation (a good number of lenses will physically shoot / have aperture control but lose AF) and a lens portfolio that screams 'professional' (replacing vital pro tools in the thin mount: 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, etc.) has me thinking Nikon wants to rebuild F in Z rather than simply offer a few smaller lenses for a smaller overall rig.

Consider: that pipeline didn't have a single f/2.8 prime and only one f/4 zoom -- and that's what you build a 'keep it small prioritized' FF platform around.

So my money is on EF living on strong for a long, long time. F mount? Less so. It will stick around, but not nearly as long. Nikon prioritizing rebuilding pro tools in the new mount is a shot across the bow for current Nikonians considering buying new glass. 

- A


----------



## SV (Aug 27, 2018)

That's really nice of Canon to let the other manufactures go first with Mirrorless FF so that they can feel like they're finally winning for a while.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Same report as the one from C---------?




Voldemort much, dude? _Don't say its name_. Blecch. 

- A


----------



## HarryFilm (Aug 27, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> keep in mind it may be a M5 Mark II



===

My European sources say that the ONLY thing that's coming to Photokina 2018 from Canon is an announcement about a Canon Cinema EOS XC-15-style video camera with an interchangeble lens mount and a one inch sensor BUT full 4K imagery at decent bit rates useable for budget filmmakers. My sources are not sure whether this is just a simple product engineering announcement for an eventual full rollout at CES 2019, or whether this is the full camera introduction for sale in October/November. They are simply just not sure!


----------



## Respinder (Aug 27, 2018)

clicstudio said:


> that's the problem with Canon. They wait too long between releases. Apple has the same problem agains Samsung, Big German car makers take too long too, companies like Hyundai and Kia release new updated models much more quickly. Sony knows the market is a lot faster than it used to be. A cell phone could last you 3 years or more bur people want a new one once a year. If they could have one every six months, they would also buy it,
> Nobody wants to wait anymore. There is no need. Sony did it first, Nikon second, Canon needs to step it up and blow them away, but not with a half-ass system with an EF mount. It needs to be something dramatic and future-ready.
> 
> Maybe the "R" is for R-Mount. If that is the case, I would release the camera along with a 50mm 1.4 R, a 24-70 2.8 R and a 70-200 2.8 R.
> ...



I was actually not so much worried about the lag in between releases, but rather the fact that Canon clearly has the money and R&D to destroy the competition, but they for whatever reason choose not to. Example is Cinema EOS - its an incredible system, yet Canon chooses to keep that line and its features separate, and has not yet released a new version of the Canon 1DC. Other example - Canon chooses to release C-log on the 5D Mark IV, which has the crop issue for video, and yet they have chosen to not release a C-log for their flagship 1DX Mark II, which, I might add, is thus far their best video/photo product on the market. Why Canon? Why?

So here's my recommendation - I think Northlight or CR Guy mentioned a long time ago how it wouldn't make much sense for Canon to release a "3D" without it having, well, "3D" capabilities. So why not call it the "3C" - make it a mirrorless camera with EF-mount, but include all the cinema innovations that have made it into the Cinema EOS line, plus make it a low-light demon with fast speed to rival the Sony alpha 9? The point is Canon can do all of this if they wanted to. The question is: Will they? 

I also think given the R&D, Canon can support a hybrid solution that accepts both EF-mount lens at the 44mm flange distance, as well as "EF-R" lenses (as you've termed them) at a 16 or lower mm flange distance, by including a tech in-camera that adjusts and retracts the lens closer to the sensor depending on what lens it is. This is the "sexy solution" that I'm sure they are working on, and it makes far more sense than splintering the market with two formats (i.e. mirrorless EF and slim-profile ML) - they need a hybrid solution that can accept both mediums. But the R&D is significant - this is why you are seeing the delay. Question is: is Canon smart enough to do it?

Really, they need to get away from their thinking that releasing one product cannibalizes the other. Does any other consumer electronics company think this way? Obviously not. If Canon is worried about Cinema EOS, then just innovate it further with more features versus EOS - Simple! Its additive thinking, rather than subtractive thinking. Again its all in Canon's hands. I have no doubt they will obliterate everyone in the market IF they want to. The question is: Will they?

Back to your point about the gap between the releases - Honestly I love this about Canon. I love buying a camera and having it last 3-4 years without any upgrades produced. If your a wedding photographer - this matters - especially if you have a client that looks at the models you're using and insists that you have "up-to-date" equipment - with Sony it is annoying that they release many camera upgrades within shorter time periods - I hate that, and if Canon can produce a high quality product that can last 3-4 years I'm all for it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> *Why wouldn't EF lenses work? * No one has explained this to me. The easiest sell Canon has with this new system is to court existing Canon SLR owners, who are expecting EF compatibility. Done.
> 
> Presuming it's thin mount and adaptor*, it will be a simple electronic passthrough. It should work identically to DPAF.
> 
> ...


I expect most existing will work fine. Will they work as well as newer lenses with different drive systems (e.g. STM vs USM)? Maybe not. As always it would then be up to the user to upgrade or not based on the value proposition (see also L generation 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc).


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Back to your point about the gap between the releases - Honestly I love this about Canon. I love buying a camera and having it last 3-4 years without any upgrades produced. If your a wedding photographer - this matters - especially if you have a client that looks at the models you're using and insists that you have "up-to-date" equipment - with Sony it is annoying that they release many camera upgrades within shorter time periods - I hate that, and if Canon can produce a high quality
> product that can last 3-4 years I'm all for it.



+1. Or on year _six_ if you are a happy year one 5D3 owner like me.  The camera has worked perfectly for me and I'm not inundated with changes and firmware updates. It's a piece of hardware, not a video game in beta.

Sure, there are a host of things I want (caveat: in a 5-series feature set):

Tilty flippy
On chip sensor, more resolution
DPAF
Wifi
Thumb-dragging the touchscreen to change the AF points through the OVF
Spot metering at any AF point
But (a) that camera doesn't exist, and (b) no single feature on that list is enough to have me fork over $3k+ for a 10--20% better product.

- A


----------



## Respinder (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> +1. Or on year _six_ if you are a happy year one 5D3 owner like me.  The camera has worked perfectly for me and I'm not inundated with changes and firmware updates. It's a piece of hardware, not a video game in beta.
> 
> Sure, there are a host of things I want (caveat: in a 5-series feature set):
> 
> ...



Agreed with you, and same with me I still have my 5DMIII and I absolutely love it. Now I'm just waiting for Canon's mirrorless (3C?) solution - and hopefully a 50 f1.0 (or 0.95) AF lens to go along with it?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 27, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I don't think the argument is whether or not it will work, but whether or not there will be any compromises. More of a concern to me is spending thousands on EF glass then finding out the new camera uses a newer mount that offers an advantage over EF.



new glass WILL offer advantages. EF lenses will be "legacy" and work within their limitations [designed for use with SLRs, detached Phase AF].


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> new glass WILL offer advantages. EF lenses will be "legacy" and work within their limitations [designed for use with SLRs, detached Phase AF].


Is that assertion:

A) ...based on your repeatedly demonstrated technical expertise concerning AF systems, or 
B) ...based on your throughly documented inside information from your sources within Canon’s engineering team, or
C) ...yet another ‘fact’ that you’ve made up as part of your typical forum rants?

Smart money is on C.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> new glass WILL offer advantages. EF lenses will be "legacy" and work within their limitations [designed for use with SLRs, detached Phase AF].




Maybe I should say this another way: there's no way EF glass on FF mirrorless will work worse than it does in Liveview + DPAF on a modern body today. Not a bad place to start at all.

And that is just the ground floor of it. DPAF could become QPAF or get extra/dedicated processing power to speed it up someday.

So any notion that adapting for mirrorless will crush your L lens AF speed simply isn't substantiated in LiveView on (say) a 5D4 or 6D2 today.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> So any notion that adapting for mirrorless will crush your L lens AF speed simply isn't substantiated in LiveView on (say) a 5D4 or 6D2 today.



it is substantiated by the loss of AF speed and performance in Live View [vs. Phase-AF] in both 6D2 and 5D4. and all other Canon DSLRS, with DP-AF and without.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 28, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Really, they need to get away from their thinking that releasing one product cannibalizes the other. Does any other consumer electronics company think this way? Obviously not.



We don't know they actually think this at all.



Respinder said:


> especially if you have a client that looks at the models you're using and insists that you have "up-to-date" equipment



It depresses me that some people are like this - they should be judging a photographer based on output, not equipment.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> it is substantiated by the loss of AF speed and performance in Live View [vs. Phase-AF] in both 6D2 and 5D4. and all other Canon DSLRS, with DP-AF and without.



How are you concluding that’s due to the lens, and not the entirely different AF system?

You have two constants (camera interface to lens, lens) and one variable (AF system used by camera), but blame one of the constants for a performance hit when changing the variable.

I don’t see why the camera would drive the lens slower because it derives its forward or backward signal from a different data source.

I would guess, but not claim substantiation, that there’s some of both going on. The motors in some existing lenses are not optimized to go back-and-forth as frequently as a scene based AF system is capable of analyzing (since the AF sensor is never blacked out). Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, on sensor AF is constrained by the size, geometry, construction, and color filtering of the imaging pixels, whereas off sensor is optimized for AF (big pixels which aren’t blind to most of the spectrum), so it stands to reason OSPDAF will take more refinement. This may be the reason for the common practice of starting with phase and finishing with contrast, a step not done in off-sensor PFAF methodology.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

M


3kramd5 said:


> How are you concluding that’s due to the lens, and not the entirely different AF system?
> 
> You have two constants (camera interface to lens, lens) and one variable (AF system used by camera), but blame one of the constants for a performance hit when changing the variable.
> 
> ...


Might as well try to pull a Möbius strip into a straight line.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

@ekramd5
(almost all) EF lenses entire AF drive system - hardware and firmware/control logic is not designed/built for OS PDAF, including DP-AF (live view/mirrorfree) operation.

exceptions: a few more recent EF lenses, notably 
a. STM drive (40/2.8, 50/1.8)
b. Nano-USM (70-300 II).
c. latest EF (L) lens releases ("Mk. III") will - hopefully - be prepared in hardware and firmware (upgradable).

There is undeniably a difference in AF performance for all/most EF lenses when used in live view mode on a DSLR (including DP-AF) vs. viewfinder operation. if it was not (also) lens related but solely "a camera thing" there should be no difference. But there is.

It could be tested by checking in a standardized capture situation involving acquiring and tracking a moving subject in the frame on a Canon DPAF-DSLR (eg 5D4) "if and how big" an AF performance difference exists between
1) viewfinder operation (detached Phase AF sensor) and
2) DPAF live view operation
for various EF lenses with different types of AF drives (micro motor, older/newer design Ring USM, Nano USM, ). multiple body and lens copies. Could be a nice "geeky" project for Roger Cicala. 

until proven otherwise, i go with the assumption and expectation, that new lenses (presumably in new mount) will have superior AF performance on future Canon mirrorfree FF cameras compared to "legacy" EF lenses. not because of a hollow tube adapter, but because of limitations of (most?) EF lenses AF drive system with regards to mirrorfree operation.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Might as well try to pull a Möbius strip into a straight line.



stylistically, i like your really elegant parable. 

but ... don't agree at all with its ironic content in regard to my thoughts on "EF lenses AF performance limitations in live view / mirrorfree operation".


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> There is undeniably a difference in AF performance for all/most EF lenses when used in live view mode on a DSLR (including DP-AF) vs. viewfinder operation. if it was not (also) lens related but solely "a camera thing" there should be no difference. But there is.



Ah. I was referring to:

Existing EF lens on recent camera (w/DPAF) in Liveview vs. Existing EF lens on (presumed to have DPAF) FF mirrorless camera (effectively: in Liveview)

FF mirrorless should be at least as quick/responsive/accurate as the SLR in LiveView.

Yes, AF time could surely be impacted by walking away from the OVF / AF array setup. I don't think anyone's contesting that.

Now -- getting to your 'legacy' assertion -- could Canon make lenses that are optimized for DPAF? I guess it's plausible. But it remains to be seen that Canon new mirrorless only lenses will outperform existing EF glass with respect to AF, optimized or not. Canon might just put out STM glass that, however optimized, is no threat to surpassing L ring USM glass. Or Canon might not optimize a thing and just stick with tried-and-true DPAF focusing instructions and lens focusing mechanisms for cost or time-to-market reasons. We won't know until they launch this thing.

My point: the whole 'legacy' position implies that the new glass we'll get with this mirrorless system will surpass existing lenses for performance. That might be a bad assumption. Canon may opt against going super premium with glass when those lenses already exist. They may keep the native mirrorless lens portfolio nice but affordable and point us to the adaptor for the good stuff.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

well, maybe i am too optimistic re. Canon. but i do expect future "mirrorfree" Canon lenses ("EF-X") to have AF performance superior to (most) legacy EF lenses.

if not, i'd be the first one to not buy new lenses but use my existing EF glass via adapter. 

but, Canon presumably wants to sell lots and lots of new lenses. so they gotta offer some advantages over existing glass. ideally in all categories: IQ, size/weight, AF performance, other functionality (eg communication protocol, wireless ETTL, subject focus distance information, etc.), handling (eg see Nikon Z lenses customer re-assignable focus ring!), wheathersealing etc.

speaking of Nikon Z: first indications are, that AF performance of Z-lenses on Z6/Z7 cameras is not as good as F-lenses on Nikon DSLRs (in viewfinder operation). it appears, this is due to "general limitations/inferiority" of Nikon's (non DPAF) entire liveview implementation. if confirmed in upcoming reviews and real life, it will not help Nikon's sales of expensive! Z lenses and Z system.

one would hope Canon to be "more innovative" and being able to offer new mirrorfree camera system and native lenses that surpass EF lenses' AF performance ... not only compared to "EF in DSLR DP-AF live view mode," but also "EF in DSLR PD-AF viewfinder mode". 

if mirrorfree cameras without mechanical mirrorslapping limitations allow for extremely high frame rates then AF system needs "an upgrade" over DSLRs as well, no?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> (almost all) EF lenses entire AF drive system - hardware and firmware/control logic is not designed/built for OS PDAF, including DP-AF (live view/mirrorfree) operation.
> 
> exceptions: a few more recent EF lenses, notably
> a. STM drive (40/2.8, 50/1.8)
> ...


Why do you think there should be no difference if DPAF were a worse focusing system?

Have you actually compared focusing speeds of 70-300 II and 70-300L with DPAF, or are you just imagining that 70-300 II would be faster?



fullstop said:


> until proven otherwise, i go with the assumption and expectation, that new lenses (presumably in new mount) will have superior AF performance on future Canon mirrorfree FF cameras compared to "legacy" EF lenses. not because of a hollow tube adapter, but because of limitations of (most?) EF lenses AF drive system with regards to mirrorfree operation.


"until proven otherwise, i go with the assumption and expectation, that the laws of physics do not apply to Canon's FF mirrorless"


----------



## fullstop (Aug 28, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Why do you think there should be no difference if DPAF were a worse focusing system?


? don't understand what you're after here? I did never state "DP-AF to be a worse focusing system". All I am hearing/reading, is that EF lenses on DSLRs do not have equal/as good AF performance in LiveView mode compared to viewfinder mode with separate phase AF sensor - which is what those EF lenses were designed for. It is very well possible and even likely, that this AF performance delta is less pronounced with latest DP-AF implementations compared to previous CD-AF live view implementations.



Kit. said:


> Have you actually compared focusing speeds of 70-300 II and 70-300L with DPAF, or are you just imagining that 70-300 II would be faster?


nope. I don't own any of the 70-300 lenses and am not inclined to run such tests myself. But those 2 lenses, EF 70-300 IS [Ring USM] and 70-300 IS II [Nano USM] would certainly be a good pair to include in such testing. 

I am not "imagining" [never] or assuming anything. Call it a "hypothesis" to be tested. I just don't want to rule out, that the EF lens with Nano USM was designed by Canon with LiveView/mirrorfree DP-AF operation in mind and MAY have better AF performance, respectively "LESS of an AF penalty in LiveView" mode compared to viewfinder DSLR mode than "regular/older/legacy" EF glass. 



Kit. said:


> "until proven otherwise, i go with the assumption and expectation, that the laws of physics do not apply to Canon's FF mirrorless"


dumb attempt at personal attack, ignored. Cut it out.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> All I am hearing/reading, is that EF lenses on DSLRs do not have equal/as good AF performance in LiveView mode compared to viewfinder mode with separate phase AF sensor - which is what those EF lenses were designed for.



Right, and I asked why you don’t account for any of the inherent weaknesses of on sensor AF in making that comparison. You’re only looking at the lens, not the fundamentally different set of sensors. The separate AF sensor unit is tremendously advantaged relative to color imaging pixels.

At the risk of a car analogy, this is like putting a set of Corvette tires on a Malibu, and concluding that the reason the Corvette beats the Malibu in a drag race is that the borrowed tires weren’t designed for it.



fullstop said:


> until proven otherwise, i go with the assumption and expectation, that new lenses (presumably in new mount) will have superior AF performance on future Canon mirrorfree FF cameras compared to "legacy" EF lenses.



That’s probably fair, but it’s an entirely different assumption to the one you’re making above (namely, that DPAF and off-sensor AF are equivalent, and the only thing which would impact performance is lens design).



fullstop said:


> don't understand what you're after here? I did never state "DP-AF to be a worse focusing system".



I won’t use the words better or worse; they’re subjective. What off sensor PDAF is that DPAF is not, is dedicated and purpose-designed.

While DPAF is so far the most elegant solution I’ve seen to share resources, the focusing sensors are clearly impaired relative to an off-sensor unit (although less so than other on sensor methods which not only filter out all but a very narrow color band, but then blind half the filtered pixel).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> There is undeniably a difference in AF performance for all/most EF lenses when used in live view mode on a DSLR (including DP-AF) vs. viewfinder operation. if it was not (also) lens related but solely "a camera thing" there should be no difference. But there is.


Your assumption is predicated on DPAF delivering equivalent performance as a dedicated PDAF system. Canon's marketing hype aside, there's no data to support that. 

Not that data ever informs your opinions anyway.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 28, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> My European sources say that the ONLY thing that's coming to Photokina 2018 from Canon is an announcement about a Canon Cinema EOS XC-15-style video camera with an interchangeble lens mount and a one inch sensor BUT full 4K imagery at decent bit rates useable for budget filmmakers. My sources are not sure whether this is just a simple product engineering announcement for an eventual full rollout at CES 2019, or whether this is the full camera introduction for sale in October/November. They are simply just not sure!


 LOL! The same sources are laughing their butts off. They told me you are the easiest guy in the world to troll... and then you run with it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> He must be in Orange County, California. Lotsa know-it-all nuts there.



They tend to be pretty level-headed, Santa Ana notwithstanding. The know-it-allism increases as you go north.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> They tend to be pretty level-headed, Santa Ana notwithstanding. The know-it-allism increases as you go north.


North or south, it's all the land of fruits and nuts.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ? don't understand what you're after here? I did never state "DP-AF to be a worse focusing system". All I am hearing/reading, is that EF lenses on DSLRs do not have equal/as good AF performance in LiveView mode compared to viewfinder mode with separate phase AF sensor - which is what those EF lenses were designed for. It is very well possible and even likely, that this AF performance delta is less pronounced with latest DP-AF implementations compared to previous CD-AF live view implementations.



From what I am led to believe, the difference between systems is that DPAF can tell which direction you are out of focus, while the AF module in a mirrored camera can tell how far you are out of focus..... this gives two different methods for achieving focus....

With DPAF, you keep moving the lens element until you get focus, and then you stop. There may be a slight overshoot and you may have to reverse direction and return a few steps...

With an AF module, you know how far out of focus you are, and if you have the appropriate lens data, you can calculate how long you have to accelerate the lens elements and how long it will take to stop them, and then “jump” to the right focus, as opposed to moving to correct focus at a steady pace....... incidentally, this is also why native lenses AF faster than third party lenses.....

DPAF is slower, but because there is no need to align the AF sensor and calibrate all the lenses, it is more accurate and you don’t have to AFMA lenses....

There is no universal A is better than B here..... it all depends on what you are doing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> North or south, it's all the land of fruits and nuts.


Hah, fair statement given who we elect.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your assumption is predicated on DPAF delivering equivalent performance as a dedicated PDAF system. Canon's marketing hype aside, there's no data to support that.



Would be interesting to see AF tests for STM lenses. Whether or not 40/2.8 or 50/1.8 have pretty much equal focus performance on say an 5D4 in viewfinder mode with separate Phase AF sensor and in DP-AF liveview ... or not. To find out whether lenses built to handle both camera-side AF methods, deliver equal performance, or are better or worse in one of those modes. If about equal and "regular" EF lenses not, it would indicate that it is - partly or mainly or exclusively - dependant on lenses' AF drive and communications capabilities.

Have not really searched for such tests/data, but not seen anything float by either.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Would be interesting to see AF tests for STM lenses. Whether or not 40/2.8 or 50/1.8 have pretty much equal focus performance on say an 5D4 in viewfinder mode with separate Phase AF sensor and in DP-AF liveview ... or not. To find out whether lenses built to handle both camera-side AF methods, deliver equal performance, or are better or worse in one of those modes. If about equal and "regular" EF lenses not, it would indicate that it is - partly or mainly or exclusively - dependant on lenses' AF drive and communications capabilities.
> 
> Have not really searched for such tests/data, but not seen anything float by either.



The camera doesn't drive the lenses with different commands or voltage when one switches from off sensor to on sensor. A USM lens may struggle to do the back-and-forth of CDAF as readily as a STM lens, but that doesn't really play in phase detect, where the distance is known by the spacing between where rays intersect the linepair.

While the lens electronics don't change, the AF system does. Occam's razor, my man. It's obviously not a sound deductive method, but in this case the simplest solution, that on-sensor AF is different from off-sensor AF, is also predictable by the nature of the sensors used. Forget their size, spacing, etc, and just consider the filters in front of the image sensor. In order to re-construct color, every pixel has bandpass filters which only allow through a narrow band of the spectrum (reg, green, or blue). Off-sensor AF doesn't have a color filter array; they see the entire spectrum and thus have significantly more light to work with.



Don Haines said:


> From what I am led to believe, the difference between systems is that DPAF can tell which direction you are out of focus, while the AF module in a mirrored camera can tell how far you are out of focus..... this gives two different methods for achieving focus....



Both off- and on-sensor PDAF know direction.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The camera doesn't drive the lenses with different commands or voltage when one switches from off sensor to on sensor. A USM lens may struggle to do the back-and-forth of CDAF as readily as a STM lens, but that doesn't really play in phase detect, where the distance is known by the spacing between where rays intersect the linepair.
> 
> While the lens electronics don't change, the AF system does. Occam's razor, my man. It's obviously not a sound deductive method, but in this case the simplest solution, that on-sensor AF is different from off-sensor AF, is also predictable by the nature of the sensors used. Forget their size, spacing, etc, and just consider the filters in front of the image sensor. In order to re-construct color, every pixel has bandpass filters which only allow through a narrow band of the spectrum (reg, green, or blue). Off-sensor AF doesn't have a color filter array; they see the entire spectrum and thus have significantly more light to work with.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Both off- and on-sensor PDAF know direction.


Water is wet. 

(Just going with your idea of posting something that no one is arguing with, or is it just that your history of making outrageously false statements has finally sunk in, and you're desperate to state something that's actually correct?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> From what I am led to believe, the difference between systems is that DPAF can tell which direction you are out of focus, while the AF module in a mirrored camera can tell how far you are out of focus..... this gives two different methods for achieving focus....
> 
> With DPAF, you keep moving the lens element until you get focus, and then you stop. There may be a slight overshoot and you may have to reverse direction and return a few steps...
> .


Both DPAF and dedicated PDAF are phase detect, which means both systems provide data on the out-of-focus direction (as you correctly stated) and magnitute (about which you were incorrect for DPAF).


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> The camera doesn't drive the lenses with different commands or voltage when one switches from off sensor to on sensor. A USM lens may struggle to do the back-and-forth of CDAF as readily as a STM lens, but that doesn't really play in phase detect, where the distance is known by the spacing between where rays intersect the linepair.
> 
> While the lens electronics don't change, the AF system does. Occam's razor, my man. It's obviously not a sound deductive method, but in this case the simplest solution, that on-sensor AF is different from off-sensor AF, is also predictable by the nature of the sensors used. Forget their size, spacing, etc, and just consider the filters in front of the image sensor. In order to re-construct color, every pixel has bandpass filters which only allow through a narrow band of the spectrum (reg, green, or blue). Off-sensor AF doesn't have a color filter array; they see the entire spectrum and thus have significantly more light to work with.
> 
> ...


My bad....

I should have said that one only knows the direction, while the other knows the direction and how far..... if you are (for example) 87 AF units out on a lens with 500 units of range, you move 87 units, check focus, and (if necessary) move again..... or, if you don’t know how far you have to move, you guess and it might end up looking like this... move 100, check focus, back 10, check focus, back 2, check focus, back 1, check focus


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> My bad....
> 
> I should have said that one only knows the direction, while the other knows the direction and how far.....


Nope. As I said above, both DPAF and dedicated PDAF know direction and magnitude. As Canon states:


> The result is phase-detection autofocus, which surveys the scene and recognizes not only whether a subject is in focus or not, but in which direction (near or far), and by how much.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

According to Nikon's engineering managers' interview, Nikon could only make _a combination of_ PDAF and CDAF work for lenses that could perform a fast "stop now" command. So, for Nikon, it was a camera-lens interface issue that did not allow them to support PDAF+CDAF combo on F-mount AF lenses (with the adapter, Nikon only supports PDAF).

Still (in my point of view), it might be possible to make a PDAF+CDAF combo working in a predictive way, maybe Nikon just had no time to finish it and will add it in later camera firmware updates.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nope. As I said above, both DPAF and dedicated PDAF know direction and magnitude. As Canon states:


One of the things I like about the forum is that one is continuously learning.....

Thanks Neuro!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 29, 2018)

WilliamJ said:


> I can’t help but feel the whole buildup for canon’s FF mirorless will be possibly even worse than Nikon. Given that Nikon are generally a lot more generous with features compared to canon (take D850 vs 5D iv/5dsr for example), canon is surely going to cripple theirs in quite a few ways compared to the ‘gold standard of specs’ Sony A7III.
> 
> In worst case scenario I’d personally predict no ibis, no full frame 4K or no dpaf in 4K (or both), no dual card slots, no on sensor adc, no eye af, no tilty or flippy screen. Sadly deep down many of us know this could in fact be the reality, even if they perfect ergonomics, menu systems and skin tones as always.
> 
> Yet, if it had a native EF Mount it would probably still manage to become the best selling ff mirorless, just because it’s canon.


Canon in the rental market are at a ratio of 4-1 to Nikon in London yet people like you would have us believe the 5DS /r is inferior to the D850, the opposite is true. Images speak not specification sheets. Oh and the Sony A7III is no where to be seen in the rental market of significance.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

Kit. said:


> According to Nikon's engineering managers' interview, Nikon could only make _a combination of_ PDAF and CDAF work for lenses that could perform a fast "stop now" command. So, for Nikon, it was a camera-lens interface issue that did not allow them to support PDAF+CDAF combo on F-mount AF lenses (with the adapter, Nikon only supports PDAF).
> 
> Still (in my point of view), it might be possible to make a PDAF+CDAF combo working in a predictive way, maybe Nikon just had no time to finish it and will add it in later camera firmware updates.



That’s the common condition. PDAF, since magnitude is known, invites lenses which move and stop very quickly. Those lenses typically don’t iterate (by changing direction) well, which is required for CDAF.

It is possible that canon’s DPAF systems in some situations use a CDAF step, though none of their tech papers talk to it.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> That’s the common condition. PDAF, since magnitude is known, invites lenses which move and stop very quickly. Those lenses typically don’t iterate (by changing direction) well, which is required for CDAF.
> 
> It is possible that canon’s DPAF systems in some situations use a CDAF step, though none of their tech papers talk to it.



that's why I am of the opinion that (lower) PDAF performance is (also) "an EF lens issue", not only a "camera body issue". I remain convinced that (almost all) EF lenses will not AF perform as well on future mirrorfree cameras compared to new, "designed for DP-AF" glass.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I remain convinced that (almost all) EF lenses will not AF perform as well on future mirrorfree cameras compared to new, "designed for DP-AF" glass.



I think it’s quite likely that in general new lenses will work better than old lenses with new cameras. Few if anyone would argue a contrary position.

The problem lies it trying to quantify it by using one lens and body in comparing off-sensor AF to on-sensor AF; you’re evaluating the wrong variable.

To reveal a difference associated with lens type, start by comparing two different lenses (same element mass if possible but different drive system) on one camera in one AF mode (DPAF in this case).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> that's why I am of the opinion that (lower) PDAF performance is (also) "an EF lens issue", not only a "camera body issue". I remain convinced that (almost all) EF lenses will not AF perform as well on future mirrorfree cameras compared to new, "designed for DP-AF" glass.



A lot of lenses have had a refresh in the last 2-3 years. Others have reasonably pondered that Canon have built in as-yet-unrecognised software updates specifically to work with mirrorless capabilities.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> that's why I am of the opinion that (lower) PDAF performance is (also) "an EF lens issue", not only a "camera body issue". I remain convinced that (almost all) EF lenses will not AF perform as well on future mirrorfree cameras compared to new, "designed for DP-AF" glass.


Then, not for "DP-AF", but for "CD-AF".

Canon uses CDAF in EF bodies since 2007 (40D, then 5DII), so quite a lot of lenses must be already adapted to it, especially considering that it can be added to the lens with just a firmware update and doesn't even need a formal model refresh.

Besides, my loveliest Canon lens (17 TS-E) doesn't care about your body's autofocus.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I think it’s quite likely that in general new lenses will work better than old lenses with new cameras. Few if anyone would argue a contrary position.



well, lots of folk here argue against me exactly on that point. When I say, EF lenses will be LEGACY on any new mirrorfree Canon camera, irrespective of mount decision, because of lower AF performance and communication-based performance compared to new native lenses. It will affect majority of EF lenses, except STM and possibly Nano USM and hopefully most recent updates. Not sure, whether many of the older ones can get suitable firmware updates. 

If I look at EF Lenses like EF 50/1.4 and others that are not even able to communicate focus distance back to camera body .. those will look ... "very legacy". 
EF 50/1.4 AF does not work very well AF-wise when adapted to EOS M cameras - no matter whether DP-AF or previous "Hybrid AF".


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> @ekramd5
> (almost all) EF lenses entire AF drive system - hardware and firmware/control logic is not designed/built for OS PDAF, including DP-AF (live view/mirrorfree) operation.


you're kind of wrong here.
DPAF sensors don't do CDAF, and phase detect is phase detection whether it be from the main sensor or a secondary AF sensor. Do you have ANY clue to what you are talking about? at all?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well, lots of folk here argue against me exactly on that point. When I say, EF lenses will be LEGACY on any new mirrorfree Canon camera, irrespective of mount decision, because of lower AF performance and communication-based performance compared to new native lenses.



I think I’ve engaged on this before, and as I recall (could be wrong) there was a context of on- versus off-sensor AF (as in this thread). I’ve argued (or intended to do so) to not conflate performance of “legacy lenses” versus “new lenses” with “legacy PDAF” versus DPAF.

It’s entirely possible and in some cases likely legacy lenses on legacy PDAF will outperform new lenses on DPAF. That’s the bit I don’t want missed in this discussion.



rrcphoto said:


> you're kind of wrong here.
> DPAF sensors don't do CDAF



Do we know that for certain? Other image sensor-based PDAF cameras typically start with phase and finish with contrast. I’ve not seen an indication Canon does so with DPAF cameras, but also haven’t seen a conclusive source.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Besides, my loveliest Canon lens (17 TS-E) doesn't care about your body's autofocus.



you know what: my lovely cameras don't care about your tilt-shift.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It’s entirely possible and in some cases likely legacy lenses on legacy PDAF will outperform new lenses on DPAF. That’s the bit I don’t want missed in this discussion.



Possible yes. But I don't expect this to be the case. Mirrorfree high-fps cameras will (hopefully!) also get adequately hi-performance AF systems.In combination with new native lenses "designed to fully utilize and support this AF system" they should well exceed anything possible in terms of AF in a DSLR with detached Phase-AF. But ... we shall see. Sony A9 with native FE lenses does not seem to be much behind - if at all - in AF performance compared to Canon 1DX II with EF lenses in "detached Phase-AF" mode [viewfinder operation] ...

Whereas first reports on Nikon Z6/Z7 seem to indicate that AF performance with native z-lenses is not fully on par with Nikon F-lenses on Nikon DSLRs in viewfinder mode [detached phase-AF]. Dyed in the wool Nik-apologists  are quick to point out however, that AF performance may be hampered by "half-baked, early firmware/software" and hope for improved AF performance with future firmware updates.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> you know what: my lovely cameras don't care about your tilt-shift.


And my.... oh, I've just realized that an external battery-powered HDMI monitor with focus peaking can be bought extremely cheap compared to the rest of my gear.

Thank you very much.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

Kit. said:


> And my.... oh, I've just realized that an external battery-powered HDMI monitor with focus peaking can be bought extremely cheap compared to the rest of my gear.
> 
> Thank you very much.




well, happy slapping with your nice and compact gear set then.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well, happy slapping with your nice and compact gear set then.


I'd say as long as it fits a cabin size backpack, it's compact.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Possible yes. But I don't expect this to be the case. Mirrorfree high-fps cameras will (hopefully!) also get adequately hi-performance AF systems.In combination with new native lenses "designed to fully utilize and support this AF system" they should well exceed anything possible in terms of AF in a DSLR with detached Phase-AF. But ... we shall see. Sony A9 with native FE lenses does not seem to be much behind - if at all - in AF performance compared to Canon 1DX II with EF lenses in "detached Phase-AF" mode [viewfinder operation] ...
> 
> Whereas first reports on Nikon Z6/Z7 seem to indicate that AF performance with native z-lenses is not fully on par with Nikon F-lenses on Nikon DSLRs in viewfinder mode [detached phase-AF]. Dyed in the wool Nik-apologists  are quick to point out however, that AF performance may be hampered by "half-baked, early firmware/software" and hope for improved AF performance with future firmware updates.



I’ve seen mixed reviews of A9, particularly for low light. Some (Tony Northrup for example) say it’s better than the D5. Others (Stuart Dubbs for example) say it’s okay but not in low light when you need to react quickly.

My extended and short experience with the a7rii and iii, respectively, show a little of both. In good light with relatively little in-and-out of plane motion, those systems are pretty good. In fast motion, approaching motion, or low light, my 5Diii and 1Dx are better. A9 is similar in AF architecture to Riii, but since the sensor reads significantly more frequently, the former has more data to work with and is a better performer.

I wonder if an a7siii would be better than an riii, given its bigger (yet still color-filtered) pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> well, lots of folk here argue against me exactly on that point. When I say, EF lenses will be LEGACY on any new mirrorfree Canon camera, irrespective of mount decision, because of lower AF performance and communication-based performance compared to new native lenses. It will affect majority of EF lenses, except STM and possibly Nano USM and hopefully most recent updates. Not sure, whether many of the older ones can get suitable firmware updates.


You can say that until you're blue in the face, you have no evidence to support that assertion. 

What we do know is that Canon states all current lenses are fully compatible with DPAF. Lenses that aren't fully compatible are long-discontinued lenses (28-70, 80-200, non-IS superteles, etc.). With those lenses (and Don, this may be the source of your confusion), DPAF provides only the direction, then the system switches over to CDAF to achieve focus (which is faster than just CDAF alone)

The key point here, and the point which counters AvTvM's unsupported argument about EF lenses becoming 'legacy', is that Canon made dedicated efforts to ensure full compatibility of current lenses with DPAF. That meant empirically testing >100 lenses and modifying the algorithms underlying DPAF as needed to support all of them.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

hehehe. So lenses like the EF 50/1.4 are on your list of "fully DP-AF supporting lenses"? You must be joking. Some EF lenses cannot even tell the camera body the currently selected focus distance ... no feedback loop.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hehehe. So lenses like the EF 50/1.4 are on your list of "fully DP-AF supporting lenses"? You must be joking. Some EF lenses cannot even tell the camera body the currently selected focus distance ... no feedback loop.


I think EF 50/1.4 supports DPAF about as good as it supports a dedicated AF sensor... which means not very well. My copy of 50/1.4 is not an AF monster for sure.

50/1.4 doesn't even have a proper Ring USM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hehehe. So lenses like the EF 50/1.4 are on your list of "fully DP-AF supporting lenses"? You must be joking. Some EF lenses cannot even tell the camera body the currently selected focus distance ... no feedback loop.


Oh, the horror! The lack of focus distance information will have a very modest negative impact on E-TTL II automatic flash exposure, which is how the camera uses the focus distance data. So instead of E-TTL II, you only get E-TTL metering. THE HORROR!!!

As Kit. states, the weak AF performance of has nothing to do with not being 'optimized for DPAF/mirrorless' and everything to do with its funky not-quite-USM AF drive.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, the horror! The lack of focus distance information will have a very modest negative impact on E-TTL II automatic flash exposure, which is how the camera uses the focus distance data. So instead of E-TTL II, you only get E-TTL metering. THE HORROR!!!



E-TTL is only one - long known issue. Not the topic here however.
Good DP-AF performance is not done by just sending a command from camera to lens, it also needs a back loop from lens to camera. Even more so, should Canon DP-AF implementation also include some Contrast-Detect for fine adjustment at end of AF-action or in other specific situations.

Again, I don't expect most EF lenses [except the more recent lenses with STM or Nano-USM AF drive and hopefully the latest iterations of Mk. III L lenses] to AF any better on future mirrorfree cameras than they do today in LiveView on DSLRs. At best. Even if AF system on mirrorfree cameras would allow for much better performance and functionality. Full AF performance will only be had with new native lenses. In that regard [almost all] current EF lenses will be "legacy".

That said, for many use cases AF performance as in LiveView on DP-AF DSLRs may be sufficient for many use cases, so no need to dump them immediately. Well, maybe I should put my rarely used, pristine condition EF 50/1.4 up for sale now. I prefer the 50/1.8 STM anyways. And it should be fine on future Canon FF mirrorfree cameras.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Good DP-AF performance is not done by just sending a command from camera to lens, it also needs a back loop from lens to camera.


Did HarryFilm tell you how he designed DPAF for Canon?



fullstop said:


> Again, I don't expect most EF lenses [except the more recent lenses with STM or Nano-USM AF drive and hopefully the latest iterations of Mk. III L lenses] to AF any better on future mirrorfree cameras than they do today in LiveView on DSLRs.


I wouldn't expect STM and Nano-USM to be any different.



fullstop said:


> Full AF performance will only be had with new native lenses.


What makes you think that "new native lenses" will be any better than new EF lenses?



fullstop said:


> That said, for many use cases AF performance as in LiveView on DP-AF DSLRs may be sufficient for many use cases,


What makes you think that new mirrorless cameras will have AF performance any better than in Live View on new SLRs?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> E-TTL is only one - long known issue. Not the topic here however.
> Good DP-AF performance is not done by just sending a command from camera to lens, it also needs a back loop from lens to camera.



I know some cameras use lens data (specifically focus distance and focal length) for image stabilization purposes. I don’t know of any which use it for AF. The sensors measure phase or contrast and instruct the lens to move. The sensors then measure phase or contrast again and if it’s within some range it stops, otherwise it instructs the lens to move again. I suppose a lens could have a resolver to confirm it moved as instructed, but ultimately I’d rather have the AF sensor make the determination.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

new native lenses will have LEM AF drives which will enable unprecedented AF performance and functionality - in combination with more computing power/ algorithms/AI in both camera and new lenses. it will surpass DSLR detached Phase AF performance. whether innovative Canon manages this already in 1st gen FF MILCs and lenses and/or only on higher end models remains to be seen however. 

STM lenses and nano USM are better suitable because their AF drive was designed not only with stills/separate Phase AF but also with video capture in mind. video on DSLRs = in LiveView =mirrorfree.

but compared to new native lenses for mirrorfree with LEM AF drives similar to Sony FE and Fuji lenses will also make STM EF glass "legacy".

future EF lenses? theoretically yes, although they might be held back somewhat by requirements of DSLR viewfinder Phase AF system. 

in practice, well there probably won't be that many new ef lenses coming when canon is busy to fulfill a whole roadmap of new lenses for mirrorfree. 
i don't expect a lot of new F- mount lenses from nikon either for the next 3 years. and after that they won't be needed any longer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)




----------



## takesome1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Canon's Corporate Philosophy & Spirit

_*Canon’s Vision is Kyosei. Kyosei, a Japanese idea, means conveying “dedication to seeing all people, regardless of culture, customs, language or race, harmoniously living and working together in happiness into the future*_.” 

Sometimes it feels like Canon's Vision has failed, looking at some of the arguments on the forum.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> new native lenses will have LEM AF drives which will enable unprecedented AF performance and functionality - in combination with more computing power/ algorithms/AI in both camera and new lenses. it will surpass DSLR detached Phase AF performance. whether innovative Canon manages this already in 1st gen FF MILCs and lenses and/or only on higher end models remains to be seen however.


So, just marketing BS?



fullstop said:


> STM lenses and nano USM are better suitable because their AF drive was designed not only with stills/separate Phase AF but also with video capture in mind. video on DSLRs = in LiveView =mirrorfree.


No, video on DSLR = quieter and slower (smoother) to autofocus.



fullstop said:


> but compared to new native lenses for mirrorfree with LEM AF drives similar to Sony FE and Fuji lenses will also make STM EF glass "legacy".


Sony's white lenses use ring USM. Sony's 100-400 uses ring USM _and_ two linear motors.



fullstop said:


> future EF lenses? theoretically yes, although they might be held back somewhat by requirements of DSLR viewfinder Phase AF system.


Which requirements in particular?



fullstop said:


> in practice, well there probably won't be that many new ef lenses coming when canon is busy to fulfill a whole roadmap of new lenses for mirrorfree.


The latest EF releases and the rumors tell otherwise.



fullstop said:


> i don't expect a lot of new F- mount lenses from nikon either for the next 3 years. and after that they won't be needed any longer.


Do you think that Nikon won't survive the failure of its second attempt at MILC?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> No, video on DSLR = quieter and slower (smoother) to autofocus.



totally in line with the requirements for "good AF" in mirrorfree cameras = full time "liveView" video cameras, capturing stills images as well.

(future) EF lenses will have to be suited to both:
1) advanced DP-AF operation on DSLRs in liveview and when adapted to Canon mirrorfree cameras
2) mirrorslapper Phase-AF in existing and new Canon DSLRs 
those 2 sets of requirements are not 100% identical.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> in line with the requirements for "good AF" in mirrorfree cameras = full time "liveView" video cameras, capturing stills images as well.


Where did you get that "requirements"?

Are you saying that you are mainly interested in video cameras, and their stills abilities are of secondary importance? Or are you trying to restrict your needs so that they match the capabilities on a current fashion item?


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Are you saying that you are mainly interested in video cameras, and their stills abilities are of secondary importance? Or are you trying to restrict your needs so that they match the capabilities on a current fashion item?



No, just try to read and understand my posts. As you should well know by now, I am not in the least interested in "video cameras". BUT ... mirrorfree EOS cameras are "video cameras with stills capture capability". 

To autofocus well on all platforms, future EF lenses will have to comply with the union of the following sets of requirements:
A. traditional, separate Phase-AF in existing and future Canon EOS DSLRs
B. Hybrid CMOS-AF in liveview mode in existing Canon EOS DSLRs (preceding DP-AF models) 
C. DP-AF in liveview mode in current and future Canon EOS DSLRs 
D. "advanced" implementations of DP-AF in future mirrorfree Canon EOS cameras [mounted via adapter] 
D. DP-AF in existing mirrorfree Canon EOS M cameras [mounted via adapter] 
F. Hybrid CMOS AF in existing mirrorfree Canon EOS-M cameras (preceding DP-AF models) [mounted via adapter]

While some pairs of these requirement sets may be very similar or even equal [eg. B and F or C and D] I don't think it applies to all of them.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No, just try tor read and understand.


Back at you.



fullstop said:


> As you should know by now, I am not interested at all in "video cameras". BUT ... all mirrorfree cameras are "video cameras with stills capture capability".


It's like saying "I am not interested in hammers, but all cameras are hammers with image capture capability, so cameras' abilities to hit nails should be of first priority, even if it harms image capture".

Digital cameras are not video cameras. Many of them _can be used_ as video cameras, but it's not a reason to sacrifice the stills autofocus of primarily stills cameras.



fullstop said:


> Future EF lenses (if there are any, lol)


At least two are rumored to be announced before/at Photokina, lol.



fullstop said:


> will have to serve BOTH parameter sets to work well on existing and future Canon DLSRs and future Canon FF mirrorfree cameras.


What makes you think that it's a hard task?



fullstop said:


> So hard to understand?


So far, you said nothing that could not be understood as wishful thinking and belief in marketing BS.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

edited my previous post for more clarity before i saw your response, please kindly re-read, thx.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> No, just try to read and understand my posts.


Reading them is easy. Understanding them would be greatly facilitated if you presented actual facts, correct information, and/or logical reasoning. 



fullstop said:


> To autofocus well on all platforms, future EF lenses will have to comply with the union of the following sets of requirements:
> A. traditional, separate Phase-AF in existing and future Canon EOS DSLRs
> B. Hybrid CMOS-AF in liveview mode in existing Canon EOS DSLRs (preceding DP-AF models)
> C. DP-AF in liveview mode in current and future Canon EOS DSLRs
> ...


Current EF lenses satisfy all except 'D', and you have no idea what advancements may be implemented. Regardless, Canon's efforts to ensure compatibility of current lenses with DPAF (empirical testing of >100 lenses and modifying DPAF algorithms accordingly) is strong evidence that Canon will ensure full compatibility of current and future EF lenses with any advancements made in DPAF.

There are no data to support the contention that EF lenses (current ones or the many forthcoming ones) will suffer any negative AF performance impact when used on a MILC, aside from the differences inherent in DPAF vs. off-sensor PDAF (e.g., the light wavelength and intensity restrictions of DPAF).


----------



## Sven66 (Aug 30, 2018)

Well, considering aa lot of CPS Members are invited tönte Photokina for free, I still,see possibilities for a new body. The last time they invited so many people for free was with the introduction of the 6D.


----------

