1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Canon Mirrorless Incoming

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by Combat squirrel, Aug 28, 2018.

  1. Combat squirrel

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Aug 7, 2004

    Posts: 9,483

  2. ethan

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 16, 2005

    Posts: 6,583

    Location: What used to be a UK

    Not to mention a cut-down A9.
     
  3. Phate

    Caporegime

    Joined: Nov 1, 2003

    Posts: 33,475

    Location: Lisbon, Portugal

    Have people not learned from Nikon? :p

    Low expectations people. Less room for disappointment :)

    Although I feel Canon have a head start over Nikon in the sense they have made the M Series cameras before which are (I believe) mirror less with ASPC sensors? So this isn't their first crack at mirror less. Just first with a full frame sensor.
     
  4. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    Nikon made the 1 series, and in many aspect the 1 series was superior to the M series at release (better auto focus, more responsive, faster, better lens adapter), but then Nikon ignored the 1 series and then abandoned it altogether. Canon released the original M camera which was dire, did nothing much but then more recently put in the effort to being it up to scratch. At the time opf release the Nikon 1 cameras had far betetr focus than any other mirror-less, including Sony NEX and M43 cameras, but performance actually seemed to get worse with later camera.s

    Anyway, i don't think there will be much difference between the Canon and Nikon mirrorless camera. They have the same choices of EVF suppliers. Canon will use their own sensor, so Image quality likely wont be as good but perhaps the AF will be better. I also don;t expect Canon will aim their first mirrorless cameras at pros, and you will likely also find a single slot for example.
     
  5. Phate

    Caporegime

    Joined: Nov 1, 2003

    Posts: 33,475

    Location: Lisbon, Portugal

    Ah I didn't know of the Nikon 1 series, thanks for that :)



    Cool so not a first attempt by Nikon, strange how they got worse though. I knew the EOS-M was terrible on release and they gradually improved it.

    Spec wise I also expect it to be basically the same. Although I'll look for explosions across the internet if it has dual slots :D
     
  6. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    It is speculated that as Nikon increased the resolution of the sensor, then the PDAF sensor embedded with the image sensor got smaller and so they didn;t work so well.

    This is a general problem with mirrorless cameras. Contrast based AF is accurate but very slow because it doesn't signals anything about how out of focus the image is, or which direction focus even needs to change. Phase detection is much better, but it probably doesn't work so well when the technology is squeezed on to the image sensor and has to not cover too many pixels. With a DSLR you can have really big PDAF sensors that will be more accurate, but yiou have to move the mirror up and down.
     
  7. doug_1986

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 20, 2009

    Posts: 349

    So what's so great about mirrorless then? Is it just about size?
     
  8. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Oct 20, 2002

    Posts: 59,970

    Location: Wish i was in New York

    No, Micro 4/3 is about size. Don't buy FF mirrorless and expect to be small, you'd be surprised.

    FF mirrorless isn't about size. FF sensor body will have FF size lenses.

    Focus - You are now seeing the whole picture so there are a lot more data than before, meaning you can do things like eye-af. You can also focus almost to the edge of the frame. You also don't need to micro adjust your lenses.

    The EVF - What you see is what you get. Also in bright sunlight you can use the EVF to review your photos. (granted some people prefer OVF)

    Silent shooting - able to shoot DEAD silent is great for certain situations, if you shoot mountains then this isn't for you.

    Shorter flange distance allows you to adapt to use a lot of other mounts/glass.
     
  9. Phate

    Caporegime

    Joined: Nov 1, 2003

    Posts: 33,475

    Location: Lisbon, Portugal

    As Mondo says, generally better focusing. No adjustment of lenses. Less moving parts as well, there is less to go wrong.

    Although as far as size goes the bodies are less bulky, well, they can be.
     
  10. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    The biggest benefit is to the manufacturers, is they are cheaper and easier to make and they can be sold with higher profit margins. The cost savings are not passed on to consumers.

    Size is the smallest benefit, and not really true. The shorter flange distance could maker a narrower body, but you could do that anyway and just have the mount protrude. The real limiting factor on size is the lens-mount diameter, sensor size and IS packaging, and most of all ergonomics. Tony camera bodies with huge lenses are just stupid. The hand grips need to stay the same size to maintain the same comfort.
    And if you make the flange height smaller then most lenses have to be made longer to accommodate, e.g. a 100mm lens needs the font element 100mm form the sensor, if you move the mount 20mm clsoer to the sensor then the lens needs to be 20mm longer. You see a lot of Sony mirrorless lenses are both longer and heavier than Canon and Nikon DSLR equivalents.



    You do save about 150grams form losing the mirror, but it seems with the massive reduction in battery life you will loose all that weight and more in batteries. Even the latest Sony A7/9 camera have terrible battery life compared to a DSLR., because the sensor has top be powered the whole time.


    With no mechanical moving parts reliability increases. Shutters typically had a 300,000 life span, but could be replaced at cost. Even for a pro it would eb rare to use a camera so long that the mirror mechanism wares out, so this gain is probably pretty minimal to most. On the flip side since the sensor has to get powered up the whole time, and a complex EVF, there is the increased possibility of electronics failure.

    Mirror-less cameras can silent shoot, if they taker care of a mechanical shutter noise which some earlier Sony bodies didn't
    Similarly, with no mirror slap there can be less vibration, but I think it was one of the early Sony high res bodies taht had terrible shutter slap, far worse than the mirrorslap of a D850 for example.




    The AF overall is worse because the PDAF sensor have to be far smaller. This is especially true for continuous shooting. The D850 and D5 are far better than even the Sony A9. There are things that mirroless can do better at, for example there is no issues wit focus misalignment, and the sensor can be used for things like face detection AF. These things can actually exist on a DSLR in live-view mode


    The EVF has great potential to allow better manual focus, assistance, exposure verification etc. I don;lt think the technology is quite there yet.


    The biggest gain for users is perhaps continuous shooting speed, pro cameras top out at about 12FPS due to the need to flip the mirror to focus. Hard to imagine flipping the mirror up and down much faster. Given sufficient processing power, you could have a mirror-less run at 20-30FPS. For sports and wildlife this could be a huge gain, but currently we are limited by processing grunt and the cameras would gridn to a halt.



    Mirrorless is the future, but there is no overwhelmingly critical improvement. There are pros and cons with all current mirrorless cameras, and so it depends what you shoot if the pros outweigh the cons.
     
  11. doug_1986

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 20, 2009

    Posts: 349

    Wow, that's amazingly comprehensive, thank you.

    Reason I ask is that I have a lowly 600D still, with the somewhat nice 15-85 Canon lens, but I just don't like the results from it... Always seems somewhat noisy and not as sharp as I'd like.

    My sis bought a Fuji XT100 (I think) and the results from that immediately look better to me. I was wondering whether it was the fact that it's mirrorless that may be the reason, but based on your info I'm guessing not!
     
  12. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    Certainly not due to mirror-less.

    Are you comparing out of camera jepgs, raws, or processed raws? My bet would be if sister is using out of camera jpegs then they are heavily processed on Fujis (they do tend to look good). If you are shooting RAW then you will have to apply sharpening and choose good color profiles to get the same pop.

    Other aspects will come down to technique. Are you making sure you have a fast enough shutter speed for example, on Canon your 85mm lens would need at ;east 1/150th second shutter speed on average but you may need to 1/250th or faster still to get good results. That is just a functional of effective focal length and how shaky your hands are.

    Other common mistakes are things like focus and recompose you will get focus errors doing this. You Frame first and then select a focus point (or at least a focus sensor closest to desired location so recomposing is minimal).
     
  13. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Oct 20, 2002

    Posts: 59,970

    Location: Wish i was in New York

    D.P. Do you own any mirrorless cameras? Any of the current generation Sony?
     
  14. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 29,490

    Location: Co Durham

    Well canon has just shown Nikon how to make a FF mirrorless camera and how to launch one

    Canon EOS R specs and images:

    30.3 Million Pixels Full Size CMOS
    Dual pixel CMOS AF
    The ranging range is 100 × width 88% of the live view video display range
    EV-6 low brightness autofocus
    4K video
    Touch panel liquid crystal
    Multifunction bar installed (2nd picture image)
    Wi-Fi · Bluetooth installed
    Dustproof drip-proof · magnesium body
    Battery: LP-E6N
    Battery grip: BG-E 22
    Size: Width of about 136 mm × height of about 98 mm
    Weight: Approximately 580 g
    Mount: inner diameter 54 mm, flange back 20 mm, 12 pin
    Mount adapter: “Mount adapter EF – EOS R” “Control ring mount adapter EF – EOS R” “Drop – in filter mount adapter EF – EOS R”

    It will be launched with an adapter and the following FOUR new lens for the new mount

    RF 35mm F1.8 Macro IS STM
    RF 50mm F1.2L USM
    RF 28-70mm F2L USM

    RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM


    That’s some tasty glass there which will make Canon users upgrade. Hopefully Sony will put their finger out and do a 35mmf1.8 now as well.

    The 28-70 f2 will be great for wedding photographers. The -6ev low light focus looks impressive and 30.3mp is a handy size for cropping.
     
  15. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 29,490

    Location: Co Durham

    Btw DP we already have mirrorless cameras which shoot at 60 FPS. Plus do other things like save the previous 20shots before the shutter was pressed and can live compose and other neat stuff like that. Lots of things a normal DSLR can’t do and never will be able to do
     
  16. And

    Hitman

    Joined: Dec 7, 2002

    Posts: 678

    Thanks. Looks interesting, some 5DIV there (sensor, battery). Where's my rear control wheel gone? -6EV is quite a jump. Just need to know how well (my) EF glass will work via adapter.

    I wonder what photography's Posh and Becks will make of it, they seemed underwhelmed by Nikon's offerings (which I thought were pretty good).

     
  17. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    I have an Olympus EPM2 and for a while Olympus EM-5II. I borrowed a ony A7II for a few weeks. I travel a lto and play with the camera in airports to pass the time.
     
  18. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 28,181


    I know- the Nikon1 shot at 60FPS. This is why eventually DSLRs will die out.

    Don;t get me wrong, I am absolutely convinced of the eventual benefits and look forward to the change. But we aren't there yet technologically. The D850 stills beats the Sony A9 is almost every way for example.

    However, the benefits are mostly pretty subtle except the cost reduction for the manufacturer when selling at the bottom end.
     
  19. jonneymendoza

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 7, 2008

    Posts: 13,143

    D850 beats the A9? Wrong camera to compare
     
  20. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 29,490

    Location: Co Durham

    Not sure about the D850 beating the a9 in almost every way. From memory they trade blows with each other, one is better at some things than the other one.

    Depending what you mainly take shots of would decide which camera was better for you.

    Plus you would have to compare the D850 with the a7riii and a7iii as well as Sony splits their camera up into different types.

    Compared with the a7iii the D850 offers very little apart from sensor size and loses out on a lot.