Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on July 25, 2018, 01:44:26 am
-
Now that Nikon have officially announced a new mount with a clearly stated focus on optical quality, the question is what path Canon is going to follow for their upcoming FF mirrorless body.
- Since they already have 3 mounts, can they afford to base their FF mirrorless on a new 4th mount?
- Seeing how conservative they have been the past 10 years, are they not going to just focus on leveraging their existing EOS lenses line-up and release a 5DmkV where the mirror is simply replaced by an EVF?
- Since the Canon shooters who were frustrated by Canon’s lack of sensor innovation have mostly already added a Sony to their line up and are progressively replacing Canon lenses by E mount ones, is Canon not just going to focus on the photographers who have decided to stick to Canon for whatever reasons (ergonomics, colors, some great lenses, best in class video AF, lack of budget to switch, perception that there is nothing to gain elsewhere - all cameras are now the same,...) which means stick to EOS?
I would personnally be surprised if they followed the bold approach Nikon has just announced. I am 90% sure that they will stick to EOS for FF and just propose the M mount for customers looking for compactness.
What do you guys think?
- do you share my views?
- do you think this would be good for Canon photographers and for photography as a whole?
- do you think this would be a successfull short and long term strategy for Canon?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Now that Nikon have officially announced a new mount with a clearly stated focus on optical quality, the question is what path Canon is going to follow for their upcoming FF mirrorless body.
- Since they already have 3 mounts, can they afford to base their FF mirrorless on a new 4th mount?
- Seeing how conservative they have been the past 10 years, are they not going to just focus on leveraging their existing EOS lenses line-up and release a 5DmkV where the mirror is simply replaced by an EVF?
- Since the Canon shooters who were frustrated by Canon’s lack of sensor innovation have mostly already added a Sony to their line up and are progressively replacing Canon lenses by E mount ones, is Canon not just going to focus on the photographers who have decided to stick to Canon for whatever reasons (ergonomics, colors, some great lenses, best in class video AF, lack of budget to switch, perception that there is nothing to gain elsewhere - all cameras are now the same,...) which means stick to EOS?
I would personnally be surprised if they followed the bold approach Nikon has just announced. I am 90% sure that they will stick to EOS for FF and just propose the M mount for customers looking for compactness.
What do you guys think?
- do you share my views?
- do you think this would be good for Canon photographers and for photography as a whole?
- do you think this would be a successfull short and long term strategy for Canon?
Cheers,
Bernard
That it is easy... yes they will make a new mount with an adaptor. The adaptor will give the same level of usage to their users... (that it is already happening with cameras like the A9, A7 III with third party adapters).
That will make a transition path for their users and also a lot more of money for Canon... since they will sell new lenses.
And anyway... I suspect that sooner and later they will have to release new L lenses with linear motors (better for on sensor AF) like Sony did... why not update the mount meanwhile... allowing them to have some small advantages of having the mount close to the sensor... like smaller wide angle lenses without the need of retro focus elements...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
David,
So you disagree and think Canon will add a 4th mount and adopt the same approach as Nikon.
How will you react if they stick to the EOS mount instead?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
David,
So you disagree and think Canon will add a 4th mount and adopt the same approach as Nikon.
How will you react if they stick to the EOS mount instead?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well... I’m seeing it from the Canon perspective... they will be able to sell new glass to people that switch in the long run, I really think Canon, Nikon and Sony are making more from the glass than from the cameras.
As a user, and considering that right now I’m half the way of switching between Canon glass to Sony (one macro lens and one tele and I will sell all my Canon lenses...). For me it the worry will not be a 4th mount. For me will be Canon taking this seriously. Look at the EOS-M lens line... those cameras are selling (at least in Japan), but Canon in all this years have hardly released any lens that can be considered serious lens. My fear will be that Canon releases the system... and then no focus in supporting it in the long run, creating enough glass for it. More than having to use my EOS lenses via an adaptor... but then again... I’m already used to have to relay in an adaptor.
Also, there is the other topic, you are thinking that they have three mounts, but they are only taking one seriously, the EF one. If you have an EF-S camera like the 80D and you want very good glass... you need to buy or EF L glass or relay in third party lenses like sigma... that they have that zoom f1.8 lenses that a lot of videographers like. It is even worst in the EOS-M lens line...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Personally I think/hope that Canon keeps the EF mount for their full frame mirrorless cameras. There's nothing missing/wrong with it unlike the legacy mess that is current Nikon's mount (for them it makes technical sense to have a new mount). Shorter flange distance is only useful for 1) somewhat smaller ultra wide lenses 2) adapting non-EF lenses. Neither is a critical feature.
If they offer a new mount with the hope to sell many new lenses that opens them up to people saying "well if I have to invest in a new system I might as well look at other brands too"
-
... unlike the legacy mess that is current Nikon's mount (for them it makes technical sense to have a new mount)...
If I may, Nikon has clearly managed to maintain good backward compatibility with old lenses on the F mount, but how does that make F mount a mess? As of today their lens line up is just as good as Canon overall (all their recent releases being best in class) with the great value of having direct access to a great pool of legacy lenses.
The truth is that mirrorless mounts enable designs that are just impossible with DSLR mounts, be it F mount or EOS.
Just try shooting with the wide glass of the GFX or X1D, they are in a different class compared to the best DSLR wides.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's not a statement about the quality or coverage of their lens line. It's a mess in a sense that there are many (historical) variations and that must be very challenging to support properly, so I'm sure the Nikon engineers were happy to start with a clean slate for the mirrorless.
-
Canon’s mirrorless EOS-M Mount is wide enough for 36x24mm format, and my guess is that it was designed with that second role in mind. The reason for a slightly different EF-S mount was to allow lenses to extend back into the shallower mirror box; clearly irrelevant to mirrorless systems.
With Nikon now more or less confirming that it—like every SLR maker—is adopting a new mount for its new mirrorless system, and Canon already having done so with its APS-C format mirrorless system, it fascinates me that some people are still predicting that Canon will stick with the EOS system’s EF mount for a mirrorless 36x24 format system.
-
Canon’s mirrorless EOS-M Mount is wide enough for 36x24mm format, and my guess is that it was designed with that second role in mind.
With Nikon now more or less confirming that it—like every SLR maker—is adopting a new mount for its new mirrorless system, and Canon already having done so with its APS-C format mirrorless system, it fascinates me that some people are still predicting that Canon will stick with the EOS system’s EF mount for a mirrorless 36x24 format system.
It may indeed be possible to design lenses compatible with 24x36 with the smallish EF-M mount, but wouldn’t this be very limiting for FF lenses design?
The philosophy of the EOS mount always was to have a large diameter to enable unique designs.
What makes you think that Canon would want to embark on the next major strategic phase of their development with a mount that is 7mm smaller than EOS?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Depends on how Canon view the future of mirrorless vs DSLR. My opinion is mirrorless will take over from DSLR and all top of range cameras will be mirrorless in the next four or five years. Of course I could be wrong. If I am correct however and if Canon see the future in the same way then I believed they should design a new mount dedicated to this purpose. Supply a really good adapter in the interim and move on. Anything less than a dedicated designed from the ground up solution will have to be a compromise in some way and will hamstring them in the future.
-
Depends on how Canon view the future of mirrorless vs DSLR. My opinion is mirrorless will take over from DSLR and all top of range cameras will be mirrorless in the next four or five years. Of course I could be wrong. If I am correct however and if Canon see the future in the same way then I believed they should design a new mount dedicated to this purpose. Supply a really good adapter in the interim and move on. Anything less than a dedicated designed from the ground up solution will have to be a compromise in some way and will hamstring them in the future.
So overall you think we’ll get a new 4th mount from Canon? Or do you agree with BJL that Canon will obviously use the EF-M mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It may indeed be possible to design lenses compatible with 24x36 with the smallish EF-M mount, but wouldn’t this be very limiting for FF lenses design?
The philosophy of the EOS mount always was to have a large diameter to enable unique designs.
What makes you think that Canon would want to embark on the next major strategic phase of their development with a mount that is 7mm smaller than EOS?
Cheers,
Bernard
EF-M at 47mm is slightly wider than Sony E mount, and the same 18mm deep:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount
The far shorter flange depth means that a smaller diameter is enough to accomodate a given low f-stop: the wide light cones coming from near the edge of the image start outside the diameter of the image circle, but angle in as they approach the focal plane. So roughly, with the flange depth less than half of that for EF, the excess of opening diameter over sensor diagonal only needs to be about half as much, for a given lens design and f-stop.
EF at 44mm deep and 54mm wide (over-engineered at 5mm wider than any competitor, allegedly to accomodate a few “marketing stunts” like the 1200/5.6) has a surplus of about 10.7mm; EF-M at 18mm deep can match that with 18/44 x 10.7mm = 4.4mm, so adding the sensor diagonal of about 43.3mm gives a needed diameter of 47.7mm; very close to the 47mm of EF-M.
It seems very likely that Canon (and Sony with E mount) planned ahead and did the math to avoid the need for yet another mount a few years later. To put it another way, both the EF-M and E mounts are far wider than needed for APS-C sized sensors, and I think the reason is clear.
-
I agree with you that the EF-M mount will impose long term limitations on lens design. I have no idea what Canon will do but if I was looking for a mirrorless system and was not married to existing lenses then Canon going for the EF-M mount would be a mark against them in my decision making.
Personally I think too much is made of existing lens systems. It limits the manufacturers and it gets in the way of making a good decision by the photographer. I realize money is a thing, well it is for me, but step away from letting current lenses get in the way of the decision making and you will make a better decision. Buy the camera best suited for your purposes, and that varies more than forums would have you think, and one or two most frequently used lenses. Keep using existing camera and lenses until you have slowly over time migrated to the new system.
If I was in the market for a new camera right now I would wait and see what Canon and Nikon come up with, compare it to what Sony has right now then decide. If I was invested in a DSLR that was less than 150 000 shutter actuations and I had lenses to back it up I would not buy a thing. I would sit tight.
Mirrorless turned out a bit different to how I expected. I have a range of Minolta lenses I use on the A6500 and A7R2. 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 135mm f2.8 and 500mm mirror lens. All effectively stabilized due to the IBIS and give me different effective focal lengths on the two formats. I also have a range of tiny sigma and Sony primes I use on the APSC and sometimes on the FF, 4 of those. I have a third set of lenses, just three, Sony primes for FF. Also use them on the APSC for various reasons. Then I have a set of zooms for FF from 16 to 200mm, three lenses. Oh and one APSC wide angle zoom, 10 to 18mm. Seems odd but I swap lenses between formats and use different sets of lenses for quite specific purposes. Didn’t see that coming. I would hope Nikon and Canon would allow that type of flexibility.
-
There is no reason not to change the mount from Canons point of view, if it has some design advantage.
An adapter will always be necessary to make the DSLR lenses work.
A new mount makes it for third party lens developers like Sigma more difficult.
They again have a new mount to reverse engineer and new technologies to understand and adapt to work with their lenses.
At some point they cannot compensate for the special benefits of the native lenses.
-
EF-M at 47mm is slightly wider than Sony E mount, and the same 18mm deep:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount
The far shorter flange depth means that a smaller diameter is enough to accomodate a given low f-stop: the wide light cones coming from near the edge of the image start outside the diameter of the image circle, but angle in as they approach the focal plane. So roughly, with the flange depth less than half of that for EF, the excess of opening diameter over sensor diagonal only needs to be about half as much, for a given lens design and f-stop.
EF at 44mm deep and 54mm wide (over-engineered at 5mm wider than any competitor, allegedly to accomodate a few “marketing stunts” like the 1200/5.6) has a surplus of about 10.7mm; EF-M at 18mm deep can match that with 18/44 x 10.7mm = 4.4mm, so adding the sensor diagonal of about 43.3mm gives a needed diameter of 47.7mm; very close to the 47mm of EF-M.
It seems very likely that Canon (and Sony with E mount) planned ahead and did the math to avoid the need for yet another mount a few years later. To put it another way, both the EF-M and E mounts are far wider than needed for APS-C sized sensors, and I think the reason is clear.
I was not aware of this. My mistake. I was under the impression that the Canon EF-M was not quite up to FF or coped with FF with some limitations.
-
A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.
Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.
Future will tell. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I won't be buying anything, what I have is far more than enough for realistic purposes, and so I have no pooch in the race and thus no bias.
So, from that basis, I'd start with a clean sheet of the white.
Legacy lenses matter most to people of my age or slightly younger. Af has been around quite a while, and with it a new set of user expectations and, presumably, glass purchases. The fact that there are zillions of old lenses around means that buyers are often in that market as they are with used cars: it's cheaper to buy (though far from cheaper to run, at least with cars). Would those buyers be buying anything new and expensive?
The biggest change to hit the business was digital. It - the business - survived very well, if only by merging and attrition. A fresh set of toys will not kill it, either. The only worry might be the cellphone, if it gets too good.
-
A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.
Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.
Future will tell. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed it will. Wait and buy the system that suits you best. If you think it necessary to define that as the best system then do that too.
-
I don´t think Canon will change the mount. I was very surprised that Sony made their E-mount somehow small, as a bigger mount means more flexibility in lens design and quality will be easier to achive.
With the increase in sensors quality, it will be a nice feature for any brand to have extra room in the mounting, taking into account that with that extra it will be very easy to insert an adaptor as well.
As well, the easiest way to get more quality with the sensors is to increase their size, this is as good for high ISO as fo higher Mp, and a bigger mount would solve that nicely as well.
Some people is complying about Sony´s size and it will be right for their needs, but as an underwater photographer, I´ll be very happy if I can reduce the size of the housings as well as their weight. Actually I´m carrying 17 Kg of equipment on my travels and it is starting to feel heavy for me, lettin aside the bulk.
So for me, small size and big mouth are superb
Of course this is just an opinión, but we´ll see in a near future.
Cheers
-
A smaller mount helps a bit with lens compactness for sure.
Now, my view is that a mount designed to both cope with compact APS-C lenses and FF ones is significantly compromised.
Future will tell. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
As already stated, there is no compromise, just look at Sony E-mount, which is about the same dimensions as Canon's EF-M. Look at the FF lenses that have been released for Sony E mount, where is the compromise on that?
See here for a list of Sony lenses:
https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/
With the mounts being basically the same size, I see no reason why Canon can not at least replicate that.
-
The very same compromises that have listed these past 20 years when comparing the value of the larger EOS mount compared to the smaller F mount? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My main hope about keeping the EF mount for mirrorless is that Canon (and others) will continue to produce lenses that are NOT focus-by-wire. I might be wrong but it seems that all native lenses for mirrorless systems use focus by wire, which I hate. Why is that when we finally get an usable viewfinder for manual focusing (compared to old film bodies the DSLR viewfinders are pretty bad at this) they hit you with the other end of the stick and mess up focusing?
-
My main hope about keeping the EF mount for mirrorless is that Canon (and others) will continue to produce lenses that are NOT focus-by-wire. I might be wrong but it seems that all native lenses for mirrorless systems use focus by wire, which I hate. Why is that when we finally get an usable viewfinder for manual focusing (compared to old film bodies the DSLR viewfinders are pretty bad at this) they hit you with the other end of the stick and mess up focusing?
Because of video demands... but yes, direct manual focus (override) with decent tactile feedback would certainly be appreciated.
-
I don't do video but my impression is that video people don't like focus by wire either and prefer manual lenses for predictable focusing. Maybe Canon's alleged crippling of video features in cameras to protect their cinema line will be finally good for something :-)
-
The very same compromises that have listed these past 20 years when comparing the value of the larger EOS mount compared to the smaller F mount? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Right... so it seems that Nikon have learned their lesson (new Z mount is larger than F mount, so it seems). And Canon had the foresight of developing a mount for MILC that is able to cater for FF without compromises (taking the Sony E mount as analogy).
-
Right... so it seems that Nikon have learned their lesson (new Z mount is larger than F mount, so it seems). And Canon had the foresight of developing a mount for MILC that is able to cater for FF without compromises (taking the Sony E mount as analogy).
What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?
Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Personally, I'd be surprised if they introduced a new mount. My money would be on EF-M.
-
What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?
Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well... if we trust Sony representatives... when they launched the GM series of lenses they said they were designed to support 100 mp sensors...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
If there is a brand capable of best selling the worst (or less good, no offence fanboys) bodies, is Canon. I think there's 50% chances the new mirrorless is a mirrorless 5D IV. Fingers crossed that Canon takes a valiant step since EOS was born and it is something new.
Regards
-
Somewhat old but still very relevant.
https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think that article is still relevant since it has been demonstrated to be false. The E mount has allowed for a good tradeoff between compact bodies and any kind of focal length and apertures without known limitations. Canon TS lenses adapt fine to the mount, Laowa has launched a fantastic Zero distortion 12mm which can become a good 17mm TS with their shiftable 1,4x converter, the new 400mm f/2,8 weights more than a 1Kg less than Canon's and Nikon's, the A7 is the best body so far to adapt legacy lenses... so I don't see any mistake here. I don't think either that Sony (and Canon with their EF-M as well) didn't think of the mount needs for a FF mirrorless body as part of their mount requirements.
If Nikon has made it possible to design their lens lineup (including their 14-28 zooms and 19mm TS) with the following, I doubt Sony has any bottleneck here:
(http://www.guillermoluijk.com/misc/distanciaregistro.png)
Regards
-
Most of the points in terms of compactness, weight,... are clearly true.
The fact that Sigma didn’t design any specific E lenses is very telling also.
The point has never been that it is impossible to design wide lenses for E mount, the point is the complexity of doing so. And what it means in terms of design trade-off (including size).
And yes, the 400mm f2.8 is remarkably light, but for long teles the mount appears to be mostly irrelevant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The fact that Sigma didn’t design any specific E lenses is very telling also.
I think that it is more a comercial decision of Sigma than a limitation of the mount... Sigma is a small company... the CEO is always commenting that... look, in the time FE mount exists, Sigma has been focusing in finishing its ART series of lenses for DSLR cameras while adapting them to cine lenses versions... they saw that they were going to get more money that way...
Probably now that there are going to have three FF mirrorless systems... they are going to move to this market.
For the lenses Sigma is doing... basically f1.4 there is no limitation in the FE mount...
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
What factual elements do we have at hand to assess the kind of lens design sacrifices Sony has to do because of their small sized mount?
Will they be able to handle 100~ mp sensors in 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, you continue to insist on a few points, while opening new ones, all the time without getting informed properly. As already stated:
Some FE lenses (GM, Zeiss, basically top tier ones) have been designed to cater for 100 mp sensors. Even here in Lula Kevin Raber has mentioned that, as evidence that Sony will introduce cameras with 100 mp sensors.
In want facts: look into the list I linked to above, the list of existing FE native lenses from all manufacturers, and point to what is missing. There are already rumours about 500 amd 600mm lenses from Sony. TS lenses? Sony never had those anyway, not even for A mount.
To me, it seems clear that if any compromises have been made, they are not impacting lens design for Sony FE.
I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.
-
About good dimensions for a 36x24 format mirrorless system lens mount: clearly there are disadvantages to being too narrow or too deep, but there is also such a thing as being wide enough (or shallow enough) for all practical purposes, beyond which “wider” just means bulkier bodies and lenses, and “shallower” just means that each lens is a bit longer to have the lens elements at the right distance from the focal plane.
With this in mind, I am fairly sure that both Sony and Canon designed their mirrorless mounts to be wide enough to provide plenty of lens design flexibility for the 43mm image circle needs of 36x24mn format. One clear argument is that they are far wider than can be of benefit for their “APS-C” systems: EF-M is a huge 20mm wider than its 15x22mm “EF-S” format sensors, compared to the already abundant 11mm excess of EF mount over the 36x24 format’s image circle.
Another thought: there is clearly a marketing advantage to have longer lenses for the larger format also usable on the smaller one, without the fiddle of an adaptor, which would also force the imagined new 36x24 format Canon mirrorless mount to be deeper, just to accomodate that “mirrorless-to-mirrorless” adaptor.
-
Well, you continue to insist on a few points, while opening new ones, all the time without getting informed properly. As already stated:
Some FE lenses (GM, Zeiss, basically top tier ones) have been designed to cater for 100 mp sensors. Even here in Lula Kevin Raber has mentioned that, as evidence that Sony will introduce cameras with 100 mp sensors.
In want facts: look into the list I linked to above, the list of existing FE native lenses from all manufacturers, and point to what is missing. There are already rumours about 500 amd 600mm lenses from Sony. TS lenses? Sony never had those anyway, not even for A mount.
To me, it seems clear that if any compromises have been made, they are not impacting lens design for Sony FE.
I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.
And, given that TS-E lenses are manual focus anyway, and that any EF to FE adaptor will work fine for mounting any TS-E lenses we may never see TS lenses for Sony.
Nonetheless, while the lens line-up for the Sony FE mount is not yet complete it is still pretty extensive for anybody that is not a dedicated sport/action/wildlife shooter...
Tony Jay
-
I get it, you now have something - Nikon Z mount is larger than Sony and Canon one's - to hold on to. But that is the result of in the past, the F mount was compromised for the future, so that is why they had to change it.
Euh... I don’t have anything more than you do.
We as photographers have one more option to investigate.
I am surprised by the defensiveness I see in this thread at the idea that Nikon may have come up with a superior mirrorless platform.
It is only natural that a solution designed 6-7 years later benefits from past learnings. Canon has the opportunity to do the sane btw.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, I am very happy that Nikon designs a fantastic mirrorless system because it's a serious candidate to replace my A7 in a few years (I could use absolutely all my lenses, only needing adaptors which would be very cheap for my FD collection).
I have to say I see no defensiveness from Canon or Sony users, I rather see 'attackness' from you to make Nikon prevail at any cost :D
Let's all mirrorless lovers (you were not very fond of mirrorless till recently BTW) enjoy the coming times.
Regards
-
I have to say I see no defensiveness from Canon or Sony users, I rather see 'attackness' from you to make Nikon prevail at any cost :D
Let's all mirrorless lovers (you were not very fond of mirrorless till recently BTW) enjoy the coming times.
Not at all.
I have not taken any decision in terms of purchasing any of the mirrorless systems. I find Sony to be very good, just short of excellent for a varierty of reasons.
I have no visibility about Canon’s intent.
As far as EVFs go, I still far prefer the shooting experience delivered by OVFs. I would be surprised if Nikon came up with something that changes my mind on this. But I have always acknowedged that mirrorless does have some obvious advantages. As solutions become more mature I continue to assess them to see what part of my photography they could help with.
Most of my recent focus has been on studio equipment though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Euh... I don’t have anything more than you do.
We as photographers have one more option to investigate.
I am surprised by the defensiveness I see in this thread at the idea that Nikon may have come up with a superior mirrorless platform.
It is only natural that a solution designed 6-7 years later benefits from past learnings. Canon has the opportunity to do the sane btw.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I enjoy your photos (when you posted them) and your civilized discussions, always interesting. I am not being defensive in any way, as in the past I have used Canon, Nikon and Sony. What I point out is that in spite of what other people have said (which you may believe or not), and some links that have been posted, you choose "not to see". I detail my ideas below:
- Assuming the new Z mount is larger than the F mount, to me it shows that the latter is compromised for FF MILC systems. By making it large, it seems to be able to cater for say f/0.95 lenses with excellent optical quality.
- When Canon introduced the EF-M mount, they did so with a size that will cater for FF in the future.
- When Nikon introduced the E mount, they did so with a size to cater for FF in the future.
- I can't see how the E mount is compromised in any way for FF. Do you see it compromised because no f/0.95 lenses have been made? We now have for example native FF 15 f/2.0 lenses that are very good. We have 40 f/1.2 lenses that are very good. I suppose that Sony, Zeiss, Voigtlander would have the expertise to produce f/0.95 lenses, but they are not a priority in any system.
- I see the EF-M mount not being compromised in any way, as for Sony's E mount.
-
Fair enough Paul. Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let's all mirrorless lovers (you were not very fond of mirrorless till recently BTW) enjoy the coming times.
Regards
This is probably more than anyone wants to or should read. The point is with the last generation of digital cameras, in reality they are all mirrorless, regardless of the depth between the mount and the film . . . uh I mean sensor. Just put the mirror up, add either an evf or use the back of the camera and you got mirrorless.
I’m not against mirrorless, as I own three brands, four if you include the REDs. What I don’t understand about most mirrorless. is the short length of battery power, the fact the A9 gets close to accurate dslr focusing, especially tracking and the obsession over small size and don’t forget heat makes waste of the digital capture. Maybe because I’m use to shooting with 15 to 20 lb REDs that make the larger dslr Canons or Nikons seem small, but RED was smart that everything that lit up was away from the body.
The only mirrorless I was interested in (at the time, was the A991 and 2) and they worked well except in testing though the focus tracking would hunt and miss with too much regularity. Single Point stationary focus was fine, but the camera had a lot of workarounds, especially being stuck at F 3.5 for some functions and dropping to 12bit on continuous focusing at high frame rates on stills.
The only camera I’ve bought without testing was the A7sII, mostly for motion imagery as I heard rave reviews, but mine is a challenge. Mine is fine in direct sunlight, but not the low light master everyone claims. Actually in direct comparision in stills I think the Olympus em1s shoots a better still file and in motion has 1/4 of the jello effect in any medium to quick movements. I will admit that when the sony is on it’s on, long as you watch the highlights, especially the sky as it will band due to a large sensor and low bit rate footage. I’m sure the other A7 series shoots a better file, but not in motion imagery and y a7s II will overheat in lightly high to moderate conditions. Explain that one to the client.
I look at a camera in too ways. 1. Does it allow me to do things I couldn’t previously do like fast lifestyle autofocus tracking in motion like my 1dxII that is dead nuts reliable and a military grade type of build. 2. What does a camera keep me from doing, like low bitrates in motion that are difficult to grade, or battery life that is way too short without an external power supply.
This was shot with a 1dx on a project that yielded 10,000 thousands stills under demanding conditions.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/atvs_no_mans_600.jpg)
The image above I was riding on the back of an atv at 30 to 40 mph in rough terrain riding and holding on actually bouncing on the luggage rack, to the point moments after this frame we hit a bump, I went flying off to my right and had to use the camera to push against the ground to level myself up and not go flying off. I was sure the camera was done and the driver stopped I checked the camera and the blow had moved the cf card slightly out of it’s mount. I lost a few frames, but put the card back in place and everything worked fine.
Through the day on an 8 day shoot, I only used 1 1/2 batteries per day with a lot of frames and motion.
I understand that a lot of what we do is not everyone’s cup o’ tea on this forum, though if Sony or anyone made an APS C to full frame mirrorless with long life batteries, IS, high bit rate codec in a robust package, I’d be tempted.
The one thing I don’t understand from the dslr makers is why they don’t have an additive evf that mounts on the body, like the olympus. It allows you to go to 90 degrees, it is sharp and it doesn’t use much space. That way any dslr is truly mirrorless and if you can’t lift 1 more pound, then the i-phone is a good idea.
IMO
BC
-
@cooter, your point would be stronger if any DSLR could be conveniently used with an (eye/level) EVF; it puzzles me a bit that no DSLR system has offered that, at least as an accessory; maybe for video usage.
-
@cooter, your point would be stronger if any DSLR could be conveniently used with an (eye/level) EVF; it puzzles me a bit that no DSLR system has offered that, at least as an accessory; maybe for video usage.
Even though it's mirrorless, I mentioned that olympus has a clip on viewfinder that goes from straight to 90 degrees up. I agree, Nikon, Canon could do this with a dslr, or make the hdmi port where you can add a secondary evf viewfinder that doesn't block out the back screen.
IMO
BC
-
Even though it's mirrorless, I mentioned that olympus has a clip on viewfinder that goes from straight to 90 degrees up. I agree, Nikon, Canon could do this with a dslr, or make the hdmi port where you can add a secondary evf viewfinder that doesn't block out the back screen.
IMO
BC
And I, for one, would love it if they did.
-
And I, for one, would love it if they did.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the famed Nikon mirrorless effort ended up just being an EVF gadget to plug in the hotshoe of the D850? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Wouldn’t it be funny if the famed Nikon mirrorless effort ended up just being an EVF gadget to plug in the hotshoe of the D850? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed it would.
But it does get to the reason why EVFs have been such a challenge for still camera makers—a decent EVF in the video world is well over $2K.