Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
IronFilm

Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is just around the corner?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mercer said:

As far as the Canon Cine line... are there numbers out there that confirm the lion share of C100 or C300s came from a DSLR background?

You can say that this is just an assumption from my vantage point, because I don't have the numbers... but its pretty much fact at this point...

Given that the following is coming straight from the horses mouth:

"Since the introduction of the EOS 5D Mark II DSLR camera in 2008, Canon has been a part of the full-frame video movement, and the introduction of the C700 FF has reinforced Canon’s commitment to this market."

Source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2018/20180328-cinema-camera/20180328-cinema-camera

And, Canon will continue to ride that wave to whichever sucker that wants to go that route for however long they want to...

In my opinion, the cine line is a big mistake as is many of what Canon decided to do with their 5D2 success... instead of creating a separate line, they should have had upgrades and add-ons, they would have made a lot more money that way. How hard is it to make add-ons like: 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304877-REG/panasonic_dmw_xlr1_xlr_microphone_adapter.html

OR 

https://www.slrlounge.com/nd-throttle-lens-adapters-nd-filters-built/

In terms of upgrades, I mean - they are already asking to send in the 5D4 for a C-log upgrade for $100 US... they could charge $1000 for 4K.... another $1000 for 120fps.... charge as you go. You upgrade for features that you want...

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Obviously, I want as much video features as possible in all of these cameras but there seems to be this neverending idea on this forum that video users are the bulk of users for these cameras and that Canon and Nikon should be introducing features solely for us. And it just isn’t correct.

 This I will agree with 100,000%

1 hour ago, mercer said:

If Canon releases a professional FF mirrorless that doesn’t have an EF Mount, it would be the dumbest move of the year. And I personally think that Nikon is making a mistake as well introducing a new mount.

At this point, I don't see a point in having a FF mirrorless with an EF mount - what benefits is it bringing?

Have you seen the weight difference between an A7III and the 5D4? Body Only, its less than a pound. Not specifically targetted towards Mercer, but if that 1 pound means all the world to you, I suggest you hit the gym instead.

I think Canon would be better off by introducing a Hybrid EVF/OVF in their DSLRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I think MILC users today are expecting strong video features no matter what background they are coming from.

..and "Cine line a big mistake"...?!! Tell that to all the happy EOS Cxxx camera owners out there.. (fwiw i just bought my second C100 two weeks ago!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, mkabi said:

At this point, I don't see a point in having a FF mirrorless with an EF mount - what benefits is it bringing?

Have you seen the weight difference between an A7III and the 5D4? Body Only, its less than a pound. Not specifically targetted towards Mercer, but if that 1 pound means all the world to you, I suggest you hit the gym instead.

I think Canon would be better off by introducing a Hybrid EVF/OVF in their DSLRs.

An EF Mount brings millions of lenses to the table. It keeps professional photographers from having to fiddle with adapters or starting from scratch with a new lens line. It could also easily bring back the plethora of Sony users who left Canon for Sony but kept their Canon glass.

I have a couple of friends that are pretty serious about video and they only use native lenses. They would rather buy into a different system than use an adapter. And even myself, I’ve only just started using native lenses and I am already tired of adapting my vintage stuff... I’m tired of dozens of adapters lying around. So much so, I am slowly building a small set of Contax Zeiss that I am having modded with Leitax adapters. And once I know for sure that Nikon is introducing a new mount for their mirrorless cameras, I will most likely Leitax my ai-s lenses to EF as well.

I actually don’t care if they go Mirrorless, it just seems they will give more video features with a mirrorless cam than they do with their DSLRs. I love using DSLRs. I prefer the form factor and the weight. I get other people like EVFs but I literally only use the LCD screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mercer said:

If Canon releases a professional FF mirrorless that doesn’t have an EF Mount, it would be the dumbest move of the year. And I personally think that Nikon is making a mistake as well introducing a new mount.

Nikon has taken heat from not making their mount Larger since Canon had the balls to introduce the lot more efficient EF mount. Nikon should have got off their Ass 15 years ago and did it.

It's about time they do it! It is the main reason you can't hardly adopt Nikon lenses to anything  but a Nikon and make all the electronics work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Robin Billingham said:

Been spoiled for years using vintage lenses and adapters/speedboosters. I wouldnt want it any other way. Great lenses and cheap, canon fd, nikon ai etc.

But then i dont own an ef lens or a dslr so easy for me to say.

"Spoiled" for using lenses with no AF, no electronic metering, no stabilization, no PZ or any other motoring control, no connection to the camera e.t.c?!

This is the opposite of "spoiled" in my book, especially if you work with a C300mkII and the 18-80, or something like this. Stabilized/super fast DPAF relatively cheap zoom lens with no focus breathing and par focal. You zoom in, you focus, you gold from now on!

I am using adapters/speedboosters all the time, for my personal system I want native. I understand why some people (if not, most) would prefer native support in both bodies and lenses, everything is just so easier, a little bit smaller, and lighter. Usually the center of balance is a lot better in native combos and that does matter also. I have a couple of sets of legacy lenses from back then (FD/M42), but I do not use them anymore, only in very small and "experimental" projects.

@mkabi assumes that before the 5DmkII (2008-2009) people didn't shoot video, or making short films, or covering weddings/conferences/events/sports, e.t.c!! It is one thing to be young and another to be ignorant. I started working in the 90's, by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

"Spoiled" for using lenses with no AF, no electronic metering, no stabilization, no PZ or any other motoring control, no connection to the camera e.t.c?!

This is the opposite of "spoiled" in my book, especially if you work with a C300mkII and the 18-80, or something like this. 

Spoiled by the accesses to such lovely and cheap lenses and spoiled by the joy it brings me.

I recognise i will be a minority but iv never used either a native lens or an auto focus one for either stills or video from when the gh1 first came along.

I should add my main income is audio work, although i have made a few music videos and a few other bits for money i wouldnt class myself a 'pro' by a long shot :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robin Billingham said:

Spoiled by the accesses to such lovely and cheap lenses and spoiled by the joy it brings me.

I recognise i will be a minority but iv never used either a native lens or an auto focus one for either stills or video from when the gh1 first came along.

I should add my main income is audio work, although i have made a few music videos and a few other bits for money i wouldnt class myself a 'pro' by a long shot :)

 

 

I understand! I am an audio pro first, and I do have a lot of legacy lenses, and I always work full manual, and most times manual focus, but all these are about to change! I already started using touch focus in Canon cameras or my personal NX system, and the rest that technology is offering, are more than welcomed! For some kinds of photography, auto focus is the standard for many years now, it's just video is more complicated, and auto focus systems have to work full time, and in a more "civilized" way (than speed, I mean), but we are going there, for sure (I am not talking about continuous AF, mostly touch focus, or the one-button of the C100mkII, still have control of the focus, but wherever you want on the frame), plus all the others modern lenses have to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to check out the canon auto focus at some point. I like the idea of just tapping the screen. 

Im picking up a fuji xh1 and moving my (mostly) canon fd set over to it but i also hear good things about fuji lenses so i may pick up a couple of the weather sealed ones for stills(currently in Egypt a lot and its dusty, like very fooking dusty). This will be my first time with auto focus lenses, although i cant see myself using them for video.

To be honest i would buy a c200 if it was smaller. Its not even a money issue that makes me choose fuji xh1 or gh5 etc. Its size. Being inconspicuous and that sort of thing. That and using all my old lenses ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TwoScoops said:

^ Quite fap-worthy, if true... 

If it has a grip like the 5D it will be a non-starter for me, since the grip on that is way too big for my hands. Canon prosumer cameras feel very awkward for me to handle. They are just too big for anything other than a tripod.

5 hours ago, mercer said:

@mkabi well like it or not, video users represent... what... 5% of the market for these cameras. You can call it conservative but I consider it being realistic.

5% of primary users perhaps, but the purpose of a hybrid is that you can shoot both stills and video when you want to. Even stills photographers from time to time might want to shoot video as the situation requires, and they probably don't want to carry around a dedicated camera just for that. And in fact likely don't - hence they don't shoot video because they don't have the tools to do it in the first place. Extrapolating the absence of tools to mean the absence of desire is unwise. It is that flexibility that makes a particular camera attractive in the modern market, and why cameras like the a7 and GH series are taking off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

@mkabi assumes that before the 5DmkII (2008-2009) people didn't shoot video, or making short films, or covering weddings/conferences/events/sports, e.t.c!! It is one thing to be young and another to be ignorant. I started working in the 90's, by the way.

I don't know what you are talking... nor do I know what you are referring to...

Is it the 1 pound remark?

So... you've been working from the 90s... What is the point you are trying to make here?

If its that 1 pound remark... I still stand by it.... whether you think I am young or old.

See.... in terms of size and weight, moving from a 20 lbs ENG to a 3.2 lbs DSLR makes sense to me, especially if that 3.2lbs DSLR has better image quality.... but moving from a 3.2 lbs DSLR to a 2.3 lbs MILC with minor IQ changes - Its Negligible! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mkabi said:

You can say that this is just an assumption from my vantage point, because I don't have the numbers... but its pretty much fact at this point...

Given that the following is coming straight from the horses mouth:

"Since the introduction of the EOS 5D Mark II DSLR camera in 2008, Canon has been a part of the full-frame video movement, and the introduction of the C700 FF has reinforced Canon’s commitment to this market."

Source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2018/20180328-cinema-camera/20180328-cinema-camera

And, Canon will continue to ride that wave to whichever sucker that wants to go that route for however long they want to...

In my opinion, the cine line is a big mistake as is many of what Canon decided to do with their 5D2 success... instead of creating a separate line, they should have had upgrades and add-ons, they would have made a lot more money that way. How hard is it to make add-ons like: 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304877-REG/panasonic_dmw_xlr1_xlr_microphone_adapter.html

OR 

https://www.slrlounge.com/nd-throttle-lens-adapters-nd-filters-built/

In terms of upgrades, I mean - they are already asking to send in the 5D4 for a C-log upgrade for $100 US... they could charge $1000 for 4K.... another $1000 for 120fps.... charge as you go. You upgrade for features that you want...

 This I will agree with 100,000%

At this point, I don't see a point in having a FF mirrorless with an EF mount - what benefits is it bringing?

Have you seen the weight difference between an A7III and the 5D4? Body Only, its less than a pound. Not specifically targetted towards Mercer, but if that 1 pound means all the world to you, I suggest you hit the gym instead.

I think Canon would be better off by introducing a Hybrid EVF/OVF in their DSLRs.

I think the problem with Canon is that the message they took home from the 5D2 experience is that users wanted smallish ILC video cameras, when in fact what they wanted was hybrids. And that is why they went down the wrong path and consequently opened the door for the likes of Panasonic and Sony to exploit, since those companies had a better understanding of where the consumer market was heading.

There were lessons to be learned from the 5D2 experience, but unfortunately it was not Canon that learned them.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

An EF Mount brings millions of lenses to the table. It keeps professional photographers from having to fiddle with adapters or starting from scratch with a new lens line. It could also easily bring back the plethora of Sony users who left Canon for Sony but kept their Canon glass.

I have a couple of friends that are pretty serious about video and they only use native lenses. They would rather buy into a different system than use an adapter. And even myself, I’ve only just started using native lenses and I am already tired of adapting my vintage stuff... I’m tired of dozens of adapters lying around. So much so, I am slowly building a small set of Contax Zeiss that I am having modded with Leitax adapters. And once I know for sure that Nikon is introducing a new mount for their mirrorless cameras, I will most likely Leitax my ai-s lenses to EF as well.

I actually don’t care if they go Mirrorless, it just seems they will give more video features with a mirrorless cam than they do with their DSLRs. I love using DSLRs. I prefer the form factor and the weight. I get other people like EVFs but I literally only use the LCD screen.

The problem is that mechanically a lot of that older EF lens base is not responsive enough. Not good for manual focusing on MILC cameras either, since they tend to have very short throw distances that makes critical focus awkward. Plus, requiring the glass to be further away from the camera due to the mirrorbox results in lenses being larger than they need to be. A new mount with new lenses will result in smaller lighter systems.

If you move to a MILC format, optimal lens performance would benefit from a mount designed specifically for that. If you really wanted to use older lenses you could always add an adapter for those folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mkabi you wrote

"Also, that 5% spawned the whole cinema line..." 

I do not agree with that statement, (age is irrelevant, but it seemed like someone very young would say something like this), and I ask:

What do you think people were using for moving images from the 80's until 2009 that people realized that you could shoot video with a dSLR?

And even then, 5DmkII was a specialized camera, for most of us, video professionals. A decent video camera with ND filters, XLR's, continuous recording abilities, and the rest, was a more preferable solution for 8 out of 10. Even then, using an EX2 with a Letus adapter was a better solution for most productions (or XL2 for that matter).

Those cameras by the way, cost-ed double the price of a C100mkII (todays cost), and while that was the greatest market in video (then) now camcorders are not that popular anymore, and I believe a big portion of this went to C line, JVC LS300 (which is not a dSLR/mirrorless), Sony FS5, and all the rest that are coming, or are already here.

Then you say the C line is a huge mistake?! Do you even know how many are serviceable in the industry? C100 and C300 (especially the first) sold great. 

The difference is size and weight is relative to your other equipment and setup. I much prefer using my APS-C mirrorless system than a dSLR, and even GH5 feels quite heavy and wide for me. I wouldn't mind having less to carry on the field, while keeping an optimum (relevant to- ) ergonomics and ease of use, which I have achieve with my current mirrorless system.

I am just expressing a different point of view, that the different form factor of a dedicated video (cine?) camera maybe an advantage to a lot of us (or certainly some of us!), and in the same time, for smaller jobs, or for B camera(s), or for personal projects and/or hobby and/or family photos and videos, I would like to have a small-ish mirrorless system (not as small as not usable, like the first A7 Sony cameras though, especially for a full frame body, as I said, they have to be relevant to the setup/other gear).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@mkabi you wrote

"Also, that 5% spawned the whole cinema line..." 

I do not agree with that statement, (age is irrelevant, but it seemed like someone very young would say something like this), and I ask:

What do you think people were using for moving images from the 80's until 2009 that people realized that you could shoot video with a dSLR?

And even then, 5DmkII was a specialized camera, for most of us, video professionals.

First off, don't get all emotional about the first thing that I say... and then forget to read the rest.... think logically and reason with me...

You do not need to agree with me... this is what CANON said:

"Since the introduction of the EOS 5D Mark II DSLR camera in 2008, Canon has been a part of the full-frame video movement, and the introduction of the C700 FF has reinforced Canon’s commitment to this market."

Source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/about/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2018/20180328-cinema-camera/20180328-cinema-camera

Deny my words all you want, but those are Canon USA's own words. Just go to the above link to verify it.

And, I'm sorry... but your words are very contradictory... you have an NX camera and then you say a "5DmkII is a specialized camera, for most us, video professionals."

Just to quote you, in case you erase it:

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I understand! I am an audio pro first, and I do have a lot of legacy lenses, and I always work full manual, and most times manual focus, but all these are about to change! I already started using touch focus in Canon cameras or my personal NX system, and the rest that technology is offering, are more than welcomed! For some kinds of photography, auto focus is the standard for many years now, it's just video is more complicated, and auto focus systems have to work full time, and in a more "civilized" way (than speed, I mean), but we are going there, for sure (I am not talking about continuous AF, mostly touch focus, or the one-button of the C100mkII, still have control of the focus, but wherever you want on the frame), plus all the others modern lenses have to offer.

Back to the original conversation:

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

A decent video camera with ND filters, XLR's, continuous recording abilities, and the rest, was a more preferable solution for 8 out of 10. Even then, using an EX2 with a Letus adapter was a better solution for most productions (or XL2 for that matter).

Those cameras by the way, cost-ed double the price of a C100mkII (todays cost), and while that was the greatest market in video (then) now camcorders are not that popular anymore, and I believe a big portion of this went to C line, JVC LS300 (which is not a dSLR/mirrorless), Sony FS5, and all the rest that are coming, or are already here.

 

I completely agree with the bolded statement. But you can rig a DSLR or MILC as much or as little as you want to have those capabilities (ND filters, XLRs, etc.). There are so many threads on it, here is a thread on how not to go overboard on rigging:

As for the following:

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Then you say the C line is a huge mistake?! Do you even know how many are serviceable in the industry? C100 and C300 (especially the first) sold great. 

The difference is size and weight is relative to your other equipment and setup. I much prefer using my APS-C mirrorless system than a dSLR, and even GH5 feels quite heavy and wide for me. I wouldn't mind having less to carry on the field, while keeping an optimum (relevant to- ) ergonomics and ease of use, which I have achieve with my current mirrorless system.

I am just expressing a different point of view, that the different form factor of a dedicated video (cine?) camera maybe an advantage to a lot of us (or certainly some of us!), and in the same time, for smaller jobs, or for B camera(s), or for personal projects and/or hobby and/or family photos and videos, I would like to have a small-ish mirrorless system (not as small as not usable, like the first A7 Sony cameras though, especially for a full frame body, as I said, they have to be relevant to the setup/other gear).

I stand by what I said, the C-line was a mistake... and it was NOT spawned by the 80s and 90s VHS, CD, Mini-DV movement....

If you worked in that time and wanted that ENG style... Just rig it up!

You can always build up a DSLR/MILC to be a 20lbs ENG monster, but can you can strip away an 20lbs ENG monster to be as small as a MILC/DSLR?

Tell me... can you strip away the C100/C300 to be as small as a M50? 

Though, the M50 is not the ideal camera, but it could have been.... it has an APS-C sensor which is similar to a super 35.... everything is crippled on the M50 because of the C-line. If the C-line didn't exist... you can bloody build up the M50 to be like a C300mkii.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Nikon has taken heat from not making their mount Larger since Canon had the balls to introduce the lot more efficient EF mount. Nikon should have got off their Ass 15 years ago and did it.

It's about time they do it! It is the main reason you can't hardly adopt Nikon lenses to anything  but a Nikon and make all the electronics work.

You can adapt Nikon lenses to anything you just can’t adapt other lenses to a Nikon camera. But yes, AF has always been an issue with the F mount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mercer said:

You can adapt Nikon lenses to anything you just can’t adapt other lenses to a Nikon camera. But yes, AF has always been an issue with the F mount. 

Until just recently you could not get Nikon lenses to work on a Sony A7 camera to save your ass AF wise. Sure MF, but that is why 98% of the people, me included, use Canon Lenses on a A7.

Nikon I think is going to have to change mounts sometime. It has been Long overdue. It is probably too late anyways. Somehow Nikon will screw up their FF Mirrorless. It is in the cards as of late. Actually the Nikon 1 system was damn good for birding. They had a few damn nice lenses for it. I never owned one, but they were damn tempting for the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Until just recently you could not get Nikon lenses to work on a Sony A7 camera to save your ass AF wise. Sure MF, but that is why 98% of the people, me included, use Canon Lenses on a A7.

Nikon I think is going to have to change mounts sometime. It has been Long overdue. It is probably too late anyways. Somehow Nikon will screw up their FF Mirrorless. It is in the cards as of late. Actually the Nikon 1 system was damn good for birding. They had a few damn nice lenses for it. I never owned one, but they were damn tempting for the money.

I hear ya but there’s a 60 year history of F mount lenses... that’s a lot of lenses to abandon for a new mount on a professional FF mirrorless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mercer said:

I hear ya but there’s a 60 year history of F mount lenses... that’s a lot of lenses to abandon for a new mount on a professional FF mirrorless. 

Yeah but Canon threw everyone under the bus that had FD lens mount and lived to tell about it. Like I mentioned, I think Nikon has waited too long. I still think Nikon and Pentax will not survive in the long run. They have both made too many mistakes. There is not going to be room for 10 camera manufactures in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mokara said:

The problem is that mechanically a lot of that older EF lens base is not responsive enough. Not good for manual focusing on MILC cameras either, since they tend to have very short throw distances that makes critical focus awkward. Plus, requiring the glass to be further away from the camera due to the mirrorbox results in lenses being larger than they need to be. A new mount with new lenses will result in smaller lighter systems.

If you move to a MILC format, optimal lens performance would benefit from a mount designed specifically for that. If you really wanted to use older lenses you could always add an adapter for those folk.

Yes, the underlying problem with the EF lenses is that they dont have 'stepping motors' (apart from the EF-M lenses) which are basically a prerequisite for fast, efficient CDAF.

So ultimately you are going to have to replace the lenses for a 'pro/efficient' mirrorless, so you might as well design the mount specifically for that. Then add an adapter. I think 'all' Canon has to really do is make sure the adapter works at least as well as the Sony/EF adapters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mkabi said:

And, Canon will continue to ride that wave to whichever sucker that wants to go that route for however long they want to...

In my opinion, the cine line is a big mistake as is many of what Canon decided to do with their 5D2 success... instead of creating a separate line, they should have had upgrades and add-ons, they would have made a lot more money that way. How hard is it to make add-ons like: 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304877-REG/panasonic_dmw_xlr1_xlr_microphone_adapter.html

OR 

https://www.slrlounge.com/nd-throttle-lens-adapters-nd-filters-built/

The variable ND adapter is only possible with a mirrorless mount. 

And Canon  has put most of their focus instead into EF mount cameras. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...