Dear Canon, I'm not buying anymore DSLR Gear get on with the M

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Wayne Larmon
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,251
Like?
Re: How long will it take to eliminate the performance gap?
In reply to T3, 6 months ago

T3 wrote:

Wayne Larmon wrote:

How long do you think it will take before a mirrorless camera can achieve the same drill-through-the-dark low light AF performance that my 6D has?

I have no idea. But I would hardly use the EOS M's AF performance as a gauge of mirrorless AF, LOL. Compared to other systems, Canon's on-sensor AF is pretty poor.

I said "mirrorless", not "canon mirrorless." How long do you think it will take before any brand of mirrorless camera  can achieve the same drill-through-the-dark low light AF performance that my 6D has?  I'd prefer that the company be Canon so that I can use my existing lenses while I take my time switching, but if another company gets there first, then I'd switch to them.

Right now it doesn't appear to be Sony.  I've read the reports on the A7s and fast low light AF doesn't seem to be one of their strengths.  I held off on buying the 6D until I read the A7 reviews.  For my dilettante landscape photography, my M+22 is more than adequate.

As for the issue of size, yes, a FF Canon DSLR and an APS-C Canon DSLR have the exact same body depth, because they have the exact same lens registration distance. But both are still chunky bodies compared to mirrorless.

I don't know why you repeat showing the difference in size between SLR and mirrorless bodies.  I know what the difference is.  I have an M.  I am not an electrical engineer, but I don't think that substituting a 20 megapixel FF sensor for a 20 megapixel crop sensor would cause the body size to be larger--the support circuitry is processing the exact same number of pixels.  (But battery drain will take a hit with a FF sensor, so a FF mirrorless will need a larger battery than a crop mirrorless to maintain the same runtime.)   Mirrorless FF lens sizes will need to be scaled up proportional to the sensor size increase.  Assuming the same design targets.  Like for like.

However, I would prefer a FF mirrorless to take advantage of equivalence tradeoffs.   I'd like to be able to use the additional high ISO firepower that FF gives and have smaller and slower lenses that have the same IQ (not counting DOF) as their fast brethren.  This is what I am sort of doing with my 6D.  Using the two stops of high ISO gain so I can use a slow, small pancake.  I wish Canon would make FF zooms with the same design tradeoffs.  Smaller, excellent, and slower.  Or come out of the gate with a FF M-Pro with a line of lenses designed like this.  It is an equivalence thing.

Wide to normal lenses designed for mirrorless can be somewhat smaller than corresponding SLR lenses because of the shorter register distance.  But beyond normal focal lengths, there is no such advantage.  When designed with all design targets being the same, a mirrorless tele will be exactly the same size as an SLR tele.

Mirrorless cameras can maintain a lens size advantage when focal lengths are restricted to, say, rangefinder focal lengths.  Longer than rangefinder focal lengths, mirrorless body size gains will be dwarfed by the the size of the lenses.  Especially when we get to lenses that are routinely mounted on a monopod.  So mirrorless has a limited body size advantage: only meaningful with rangefinder type focal lengths.

Remember that my position is that I am already switching to mirrorless and want to dump DSLR as soon as is possible.  How long do you think I will have to wait?  Before mirrorless (of any brand) has achieved AF performance parity with DSLRs.

Wayne

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow