Canon FF mirrorless...

[Phil V]

Fair enough regarding the EF glass on M mount, I didn't know so it was only an assumption, seems a good move to keep customers happy but probably wrong move from a financial point of view.
.

Why?

It makes no sense for Canon to release a new incompatible mount every time they release a new camera.

It’s almost as if people are looking for a reason to ‘hate’?

In the last couple of days we’ve had assumptions that the mount won’t work because it makes no sense to please existing users, and then slagging Canon off for introducing ‘yet another’ mount.

Anyone who knows the slightest thing about photography would understand that a mirrorless mount has a shorter flange distance so needs a different lens mount to an SLR. But there’s no need to demolish any worthwhile compatibility whilst doing so.

 

[Phil V]

Where's the "track record" of dropping stuff and leaving customers fuming, if you mean EF-S then I'd agree anyone with a big investment in EF lenses could have felt a bit miffed they could take advantage of that mount with legacy lenses but there were plenty of crop EF mount bodies available before EF-S.

But all EF lenses fit EF-S cameras. So for anyone buying an EF-S camera they could still use everything they had.

 

[simonbarker]

I know not to read too much into it, that was the point. He may have gotten a dud pre-production adapter, the lens might be a bit duffed - it was just there wrapped in plastic on a shelf for anyone to use. God knows how many people chucked it about beforehand at these events. Thing is, when it did work, he was impressed, very much so. All they need to do is get them to work 100% of the time or close to.

It sounds like we agree then.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not taking anything these people say too seriously, good or bad until they've had a decent amount of time to properly use and test them. I'd recommend the same to everyone here.

 

[Cagey75]

It sounds like we agree then.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not taking anything these people say too seriously, good or bad until they've had a decent amount of time to properly use and test them. I'd recommend the same to everyone here.

Pretty much. I can't afford this one anyway, but I'm still interested, who knows in future? I know I'll still watch the proper reviews, if I did manage to scrap the funds together I would certainly be looking to the EF lenses and adapter. I can see loads of current Canon owners doing this for many reasons. The new lenses are not only very expensive, on top of buying the body, but they are huge behemoths - some just don't like that and would much prefer to use their current primes. I'm sure more reasonable R primes will follow. Also, some may just change for the EVF, articulating screen, 4K with dual pixel AF [despite the crop, some will use Ef-s WA lenses for this like that cheap 10-18] or simply because they like the look of it!

 

[john.margetts]

Why?

It makes no sense for Canon to release a new incompatible mount every time they release a new camera.

It’s almost as if people are looking for a reason to ‘hate’?

In the last couple of days we’ve had assumptions that the mount won’t work because it makes no sense to please existing users, and then slagging Canon off for introducing ‘yet another’ mount.

Anyone who knows the slightest thing about photography would understand that a mirrorless mount has a shorter flange distance so needs a different lens mount to an SLR. But there’s no need to demolish any worthwhile compatibility whilst doing so.

Indeed. The shorter flange/sensor distance has major implications for lens design particularly with short focal length lenses. Short focal length lenses should be both cheaper and optically better than the EF equivalent.

 

[gerry s]

Fair comment but do those EF and EF-S lenses work like they do on their native Canon DSLR's? It's fine saying that people are happy to shoot with EF and EF-S lenses on the M, however that is very different from them actually performing like to do on their native DSLR mounts.
I think that if Canon did decide to allow their DSLR lenses perform like the do on the DSLR's using the R adapter, it would be financial suicide.

Don’t you think real financial suicide would be bringing out a camera that needs a completely new lens line up. It also gives users the chance to slowly buy into the new lens in the future.

 

[redhed17]

Indeed. The shorter flange/sensor distance has major implications for lens design particularly with short focal length lenses. Short focal length lenses should be both cheaper and optically better than the EF equivalent.

Does that mean that the Nikon lenses will be better then because they have a shorter flange distance!

 

[john.margetts]

Does that mean that the Nikon lenses will be better then because they have a shorter flange distance! [emoji38]

It means they will be potentially better but the actual quality is down to Nikon. Canon have much more experience in designing lenses than Nikon have.

 

[redhed17]

It means they will be potentially better but the actual quality is down to Nikon. Canon have much more experience in designing lenses than Nikon have.

Much more!

 

[snerkler]

It means they will be potentially better but the actual quality is down to Nikon. Canon have much more experience in designing lenses than Nikon have.

What makes you say that?

 

[Phil V]

What makes you say that?

I suppose it’s because Canon have a larger range of lenses available, and ignoring that Nikon made the lenses for the early Canon cameras, before making their own cameras and leaving Canon to make their own lenses.

 

[john.margetts]

What makes you say that?

Canon started life as a lens maker and used to supply Nikon before Nikon started making lenses.

 

[Phil V]

Canon started life as a lens maker and used to supply Nikon before Nikon started making lenses.

Other way round...

 

[john.margetts]

Other way round...

You are right!

 

[Cagey75]

You are right!

Don't contradict Phil! He does his homework

 

[Phil V]

Don't contradict Phil! He does his homework

I have been wrong you know? On more than one occasion too.

 

[Cagey75]

I have been wrong you know? On more than one occasion too.

Yeah, when you argue with me Funny how I mostly agree with you most other times

 

[Phil V]

I have been wrong you know? On more than one occasion too.

In fact; speaking as a married man (twice) I can be wrong without even opening my gob. And I happily admit I was wrong and apologise too.

 

[gerry s]

I have been wrong you know? On more than one occasion too.

He thought he’d made a mistake.....but hadn’t

 

[Cagey75]

In fact; speaking as a married man (twice) I can be wrong without even opening my gob. And I happily admit I was wrong and apologise too.

I hear you on that, the only woman who can tame us is the one we choose to spend our life with .... WTF is up with us?

 

[MatBin]

But all EF lenses fit EF-S cameras. So for anyone buying an EF-S camera they could still use everything they had.

My mistake, you are right it was EF-S lenses that didn't fit EF bodies, so no leaving existing users behind, it was about 30 years ago (just about) when they dropped FD, altough there was an adapter for Pros but we still seem to have people who need to criticize Canon for continually dropping/changing lens mounts and screwing existing owners when there's little proof of that.

 

[Phil V]

My mistake, you are right it was EF-S lenses that didn't fit EF bodies, so no leaving existing users behind, it was about 30 years ago (just about) when they dropped FD, altough there was an adapter for Pros but we still seem to have people who need to criticize Canon for continually dropping/changing lens mounts and screwing existing owners when there's little proof of that.

I think canon made the right move and bit the bullet early.

No one now would pursue a modern camera with a mechanical mount, and the list of compatibility for Nikon lenses is ridiculous.

Canon has a straightforward policy for the EF mount that’s beginning to show how forward thinking they were.

Except some people think they should have been selling FF compatible lenses for a mirrorless camera they had no plans to build.

 

[Riz_Guru]

Lenses are only half of the story, the RF release lenses seem a very good start compared to Nikon but they are extremely expensive and some lack IS. We will have to wait and see if optically they deliver.
The whole EF to RF topic is great but if it was me buying into the R system, I would want native RF lenses for all the benefits they supposedly offer over rivals.

Regarding the EOS R body, it’s nothing ground breaking but a good starting point for existing Canon users.

Yes I agree, Canon could have done better but it is what it is.

 

[redhed17]

Lenses are only half of the story, the RF release lenses seem a very good start compared to Nikon but they are extremely expensive and some lack IS. We will have to wait and see if optically they deliver.

Yes I agree, Canon could have done better but it is what it is.

The Canon mirrorless camera doesn't have IBIS, which is a major omission compared to the opposition, but added to the other ways in which their camera is not is good as their competitors, as with Nikon, it won't initially harm sales because of their names, and probably may have little effect on sales as time goes on sadly. Canon and Nikon have both released poor first entries into the FF mirrorless market and are behind the Sony alphas.

 

[Riz_Guru]

Canon and Nikon have both released poor first entries into the FF mirrorless market and are behind the Sony alphas.

I agree, they are utterly s##t when compared to the Sony systems lol
They have time to evolve and improve though.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I agree, they are utterly s##t when compared to the Sony systems lol
They have time to evolve and improve though.

And so does Sony ie they too have time to evolve there current system.



I doubt Sony will call it a day and not develop there system even more.

 

[simonbarker]

Lenses are only half of the story, the RF release lenses seem a very good start compared to Nikon but they are extremely expensive and some lack IS. We will have to wait and see if optically they deliver.

They are extremely expensive but if they'd tried to make cheaper lenses they would have competed directly with their older lenses, they can't make new designs cheaper so what's the point? The adapter apparently works very well so it seems more sensible to let anyone who wants to save money to stick with the old lenses and give people new reasons to consider the RF system with some exotic lenses.

The whole EF to RF topic is great but if it was me buying into the R system, I would want native RF lenses for all the benefits they supposedly offer over rivals.

No company can give you this, Sony couldn't, they've had years to flesh out their lens range and there are still a few gaps. I'm not criticising any company here, just pointing out to create a whole line of lenses is a process that takes years.

Regarding the EOS R body, it’s nothing ground breaking but a good starting point for existing Canon users.

Yes I agree, Canon could have done better but it is what it is.

I thought so too but I guess it depends on how you're looking at it, if you're expecting the best mirrorless they can possibly make then yes it's a disappointment but it seems more likely this is just the 6D replacement.

I'm willing to bet Canon reasons someone invested in Canon isn't going to jump ship over just the lack of a single feature (like IBIS etc) and no doubt we can expect those features to magically work their way into whatever future models they bring out.

 

[redhed17]

I agree, they are utterly s##t when compared to the Sony systems lol
They have time to evolve and improve though.

I wouldn't say "they are utterly s##t", but no matter how they improve, (and btw if Canon sell loads what incentive is there to put in IBIS) they and Nikon will always be playing catchup because Sony will not be standing still. And I have a feeling that Sony will be more active and pushing the features more because they don't also have to also develop DSLR products. Even apart from that, all the mirrorless manufacturers have been more active, because they had to be to build the market, but also reacting quickly to users, not something Canon, and Nikon, have been known for up to now. Apart from the promised upgrade by Nikon to enable the XQD card slot to be able to read CFexpress cards at some point, I can't see Canon or Nikon adding features via firmware upgrades.

Yes, Canon have given a big upgrade to the 7D during it's lifespan, but that was more to do with maybe not having a current competitor from Nikon, and give the camera sales a boost without the need for a new camera. Something they don't seem to do much though.

 

[redhed17]

I guess it depends on how you're looking at it, if you're expecting the best mirrorless they can possibly make then yes it's a disappointment but it seems more likely this is just the 6D replacement.

I expected Canon and Nikon to maybe not beat the Sony alphas in many, if any areas,areas, but I expected them to be a lot closer in a lot of features. They either both can't technologically compete, or they think their names and reputations will get them through while they (slowly) drip feed features as time goes on. But as I said earlier, Sony will not stand still and let them catch up.

 

[snerkler]

I expected Canon and Nikon to maybe not beat the Sony alphas in many, if any areas,areas, but I expected them to be a lot closer in a lot of features. They either both can't technologically compete, or they think their names and reputations will get them through while they (slowly) drip feed features as time goes on. But as I said earlier, Sony will not stand still and let them catch up.

Sony might not stand still but where realistically can they go next? Do we need more than 20fps (most don’t need more than 8-10), do we need 100+shot buffers etc etc. If Canikon can bring out cameras with great AF systems, 8-10fps and dual card slots would there be any reason to choose Sony over them? Sony need to up their weather sealing or you might see some Sony movers moving back to Canikon, otherwise there’s nowhere really left to improve other than a specs sheet that’s beyond what anyone would need/use. Global shutters is the next thing they should aim for imo.

 

[Gaz J]

The improvements in Sony bodies will be smaller now they’ve had 3/4 generations to iron out some of the issues. There’s more scope for Canon and Nikon to make bigger improvements and get a lot closer to Sony if that’s what they want to do.

The biggest step was getting rid of the mirror box and getting much larger AF cover, but where’s the next big improvement coming from in mirrorless? Just as DSLR improvements have pretty much come up against a wall so mirrorless will reach that same wall and genuine performance gains will be very hard to achieve. You can keep adding stuff such as focus stacking and high res multiple stacking and give all sorts of in camera gimmicks but that isn’t advancing anything.

You can’t fail to be impressed by Sony’s efforts but changing systems is an expensive business and, despite the “you can use an adaptor” it’s not hard to find negative comments regarding using non native lenses especially longer focal length ones.

Snerkler posted when I was writing.

 

[Nostromo]

Just for my own knowledge, what are the benefits of Ibis over lens IS? Size of lens I guess is one.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Just for my own knowledge, what are the benefits of Ibis over lens IS? Size of lens I guess is one.

IBIS would mean all your lens would be stabilised. lens IS means the lens has to have it.

The argument is lens IS is better as it is tailored to that lens but frankly I take IBIS for every lens than lens IS (which you end up paying extra for in every lens) because you won't get IBIS in your old existing lenses.

I can put on a Tilt shift and that is now stabilised.

 

[maarten.dhaese]

Just for my own knowledge, what are the benefits of Ibis over lens IS? Size of lens I guess is one.

There are at least two advantages:
1. Any lens you mount to the body will be stabilised, even legacy FD lenses and the like.
2. Lenses can be designed to be smaller and lighter because there doesn't need to be an IS mechanism in the lens.

Also in m4/3 you can have bodies with IBIS and lenses with IS that work together to achieve even better stabilisation, e.g. E-M1II and 12-100 f/4. It's not unusual to see people achieve sharp results at 1/5 handheld or even slower.

 

[Gaz J]

Canon are claiming 5 stop IS in the R lenses. I don’t think they could get that with IBIS and that may be part of the reason they haven’t tried to incorporate it.

 

[twist]

Canon are claiming 5 stop IS in the R lenses. I don’t think they could get that with IBIS and that may be part of the reason they haven’t tried to incorporate it.

If that is the case then what about the lenses without IS? Sony offers ibis and OSS to cover all lenses including 3rd party. I don't think that's why canon didnt add it, I don't think they have the tech or perhaps it doesn't play nice with DP.

 

[redhed17]

Sony might not stand still but where realistically can they go next? Do we need more than 20fps (most don’t need more than 8-10), do we need 100+shot buffers etc etc. If Canikon can bring out cameras with great AF systems, 8-10fps and dual card slots would there be any reason to choose Sony over them? Sony need to up their weather sealing or you might see some Sony movers moving back to Canikon, otherwise there’s nowhere really left to improve other than a specs sheet that’s beyond what anyone would need/use. Global shutters is the next thing they should aim for imo.

Not sure where the industry is with global shutters.

As for Sony improvements, weather sealing is a general one with Sony's, but not many owners want to acknowledge.

So this is from a non Sony alpha user, and I am sure users could offer improvements, if they could admit there was something wrong with their cameras in the first place of course.

But, no black outs on all models as the a9 features filter down.

Less rolling shutter effects.

Faster frame rates.

Buffer clears quicker without affecting camera performance.

Dual UHS-II slots with no effect on performance when writing to two cards.

Tilt and swivel LCD.

Integrated timelapse, focus stacking and whatever else they can think of to add features.

Better touchscreen integration.

Full res at all times in the viewfinder, from what I have read over the last few week they may not do that.

More video options, more 1080 frame rates, more 4k frame rates.

That's just off the top of my head as a non user, and some may be problems, some may not.

 

[Gaz J]

If that is the case then what about the lenses without IS? Sony offers ibis and OSS to cover all lenses including 3rd party. I don't think that's why canon didnt add it, I don't think they have the tech or perhaps it doesn't play nice with DP.

No I don’t think they have the tech to get 5 stops IBIS but from some reviews I’ve read neither can Sony.

 

[twist]

No I don’t think they have the tech to get 5 stops IBIS but from some reviews I’ve read neither can Sony.

I don't think they have the tech to make IBIS work at all... Yet.

 

[simonbarker]

I expected Canon and Nikon to maybe not beat the Sony alphas in many, if any areas,areas, but I expected them to be a lot closer in a lot of features. They either both can't technologically compete, or they think their names and reputations will get them through while they (slowly) drip feed features as time goes on. But as I said earlier, Sony will not stand still and let them catch up.

In Canon's case it may be that they simply don't want to compete with Sony on their terms.

What I mean by that is, had Canon put out a A73 beater at the same price point what do they then do for the rest of their range? Right now there's a clear gap between the R and their high resolution, action and pro bodies so why fight a battle where Sony has an advantage when they can maintain the business strategy that has worked so successfully for them over the years? It does rely on a lot of people sticking with Canon due to inertia (good or bad) but that's probably a safe bet on their part.

Sony might not stand still but where realistically can they go next? Do we need more than 20fps (most don’t need more than 8-10), do we need 100+shot buffers etc etc. If Canikon can bring out cameras with great AF systems, 8-10fps and dual card slots would there be any reason to choose Sony over them? Sony need to up their weather sealing or you might see some Sony movers moving back to Canikon, otherwise there’s nowhere really left to improve other than a specs sheet that’s beyond what anyone would need/use. Global shutters is the next thing they should aim for imo.

One thing these new Nikon and Canon bodies have done is show how impressive the technology in the A9 is, when we've got that level of performance available in the low/mid range bodies then the technology might be plateauing. I do agree that most of the things Sony need to fix aren't really technology but rather handling/implementation. There's still plenty of room for improvement though, I find the A73 especially prone to moire (worse than a D810, which seems odd but maybe the sensor resolution difference?) and the new EVF sounds very promising.

Then let's not forget all the omissions on Sony's side, non-existent touch screen interface, non-functioning AF assist, no fully articulating rear display, really awful wireless control, bracketing, focus stepping, pixelshift across the range etc. That's anywhere from 3-10 years of stuff I can think of as a layman let alone pure R&D technology improvements.

Canon are claiming 5 stop IS in the R lenses. I don’t think they could get that with IBIS and that may be part of the reason they haven’t tried to incorporate it.

I expect they haven't incorporated it to increase their profit margin, give more features to newer/higher end models or possibility because their implementation isn't quite ready yet but the discussion on which is better seems a little moot when the best results come from combining both.