QuarryCat: so true!
a man with the courage to speak out why is fact!Thank you Mr. Iida
Fujifilm has really good prime lenses, but they are all slow and the are all missing stabilization!
And a even better camera with a better AF won't change this on the lenses we have right now. That should be clear.It is not a camera fault alone - so for faster AF they will need new lenses.It was the same with Nikon before AF-S, Sony, Olympus E-Mount and others more.
And Fujifilm needs to think about the stabilization - if the built an even higher resolution sensor - people have to use tripods or very fast times - so it will be better to have stabilization in every lens or even in the body.
And Fujifilm should rethink the aperture - I don't like 1/3 steps, I don't like the loose aperture rings and I dislike the sunshades on Fujifilm lenses.They should be harder and get precise in place.
IBIS is far from a perfect solution. Makes the camera more susceptible to shutter shock (so does IS/VR to a lesser extent). Doesn't matter what type of camera you put it in either. Pentax, Oly and Sony have all had issues in this regard.
Zvonimir Tosic: Nice to know Fuji did not dare to compare Total_size-vs-Performance quotient of their cameras with Pentax K-3 armed with, say, 6 DA Limiteds.
But instead with 7DII which has .. ~8 years old sensor tech and no lenses that can compare with Fuji's or Pentax APS-C optimised primes.
He was comparing the AF systems, not the cameras or sensors. Do try and keep up.
Probably great if you don't want a £100 Wacom, but anyone who doesn't think pressure sensitivity matters hasn't used any of the brush tools in Photoshop....
Marty4650: Of course, the really big news here is "new sensor" and not "top panel LCD" or "electronic leveler."
We will have to wait for actual reviews to find out more about that sensor.
All true, of course, and there has never been much wrong with Canon's small SLRs control wise. But the D7100 is only £100 more than the 760D and the D5300 is cheaper than the 750D.
Canon certainly fill every possible niche in this crowded space.
Boss of Sony: Although I think the option to have a top-mounted LCD screen is great, I think this is a bit late, most entry level budding photographers will be more attracted to mirrorless cameras right now or if not now, then very soon as the technology takes off.
Does that mean they are better?
If not, it doesn't really matter in the long run, does it. Trends don't look encouraging either.
This is true, but what are the odds.
Indulis Bernsteins: The "not wanting to cannibalize its own market" is the result of corporate "silo mentality" where the company tries to make each division its own little profit centre (e.g. DSLR division vs mirrorless division). What you end up with is less focus and effort on what customers want, and more focus on internal squabbling and infighting (and backstabbing) to stop another division's good product being released and biting into your division's mediocre or aging product. A sign of weak and lazy management at the top- and the reason why smaller "single product" focus companies continue to advance the state of the art..
Agree, seen it too many times (been stuck in an 'engineering silo' myself a few times).
57even: I think Damien hit the nail squarely on the head. Nikon and Canon should have produced CSC models that complimented their professional DSLRs. In other words, a professional CSC.
No professional I know owns a D800 or 5Dmk3 uses a D3XXX or a Rebel as their backup camera. Where is the alternative? Fuji in particular has benefited from this niche, but I suspect Oly has done well too.
And much as I like my Fuji, a Canon professional would probably choose the product that was compatible with the same workflow and accessories that he or she already had - flash, remote, software, etc. That is, if such a product existed.
Is it the EOS M3? Not without an EVF a decent prime lens lineup, no. But it proves they can do it.
All metal, premium quality, $1200 + price bracket, high quality lens range, lightweight full-function flash units.
Perfect companion to a 5DS.
My point is that it is NOT a backup camera for professionals. It is a consumer oriented product, whatever the price tag. At $300 it would be a good deal.
The problem is that they ARE buying cameras from other makers. I would image 90% of Fuji XT1 owners also have a full frame Nikon or Canon.
Really, what's the point in a lightweight camera without lightweight lenses?
The EOSM is a poor effort for a company with Canon's resources. A pro wants a pro backup camera, not something that is aimed at soccer moms.
My point was that IF Canon made such a camera, then pros WOULD buy it. The EOS M is not that camera.
57even: Why are so many people obsessed with how successful a company was or how many cameras it sold? (Emphasis on past tense).
It has nothing to do with the merits or otherwise of individual cameras, or how the market may be changing.
Many companies that sold many things are out of business.
Shmuel Goldberg: It must be clear that there is absolutely nothing in physics of a DSLR that makes it better than a mirrorless camera. Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology. An idea that was excellent 75 years ago makes no sense today.
I feel like I'm talking to a recorded message.
You need double the mass to halve the deflection from a shock with the same energy. It won't eliminate it.
On a FF camera the shutter mechanism is more than twice the mass and has to move 30% faster for the same sync speed - the camera would need to be more than 4.5 X heavier than an APSC camera just to have the same shutter induced deflection, let alone MFT.
So, there is no reason at all why an EM1 should not be better than a D800 based on mass alone.
Besides, the mass distribution that matters is in the plane of the sensor. Any mass at a distance from that plane will create a turning moment causing angular deflection, which is worse. In this case, a thinner body, shorter registration distance and smaller lens would actually help.
So, the EM1 issue has more to do with light, moveable elements that can resonate with the shutter such as the IBIS sensor, not the mass of the camera.
Just a Photographer: "If Canon is so frightened of cannibalizing its own entry-level DSLRs it could have participated in the mirrorless market with a camera that wouldn't compete with them."
Canon is playing it stupid here - Cannibalizing your own market is still always better then to be eaten by your competitors.
Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras are here to stay. They won't disappear because Canon or Nikon refuses to seriously enter that marketsegment.
As a matter of fact the longer Canon and Nikon will be waiting, the more people will switch to either Sony or Fuji. Two major players in the MILC market that do take these cameras seriously. While Sony might have cameras with better sensors, Fuji is building up (and now already has) a very strong lens line-up that can easily compete with Canons L-Lenses and Nikon's goldring lenses.
IMHO If Canon took mirrorless more seriously I don't think I would have switched brands. Their unwillingness to take this market seriously will hurt them in the end.
@Just a Photographer
Correct, Fuji want to build reputation. They already have good brand awareness with professionals as the go-to compact solution, even if brand recognition among consumers is so so.
I don't think they care too much. It is much easier to build a good reputation for quality, and down-sell, than to start out as a consumer brand and up-sell.
As it is, they have positioned themselves in the most profitable ILC niche and taken around 25% of the mirrorless ILC market from a standing start three years ago. 90% of that is from high-end models (X-T1). It is a self-funding way to build up a good patent portfolio too.
Besides, they do very well making phone camera modules on the quiet. I think this made up for all the losses from digicams. They also have a very diverse product portfolio and all divisions are in profit (even imaging products, which is actually one of the smallest).
No, but they didn't change the weight of the camera or the shutter mechanism, did they? Nor did they change the shutter sync speed. So whatever they changed, it does not not support your theory either way.
First you say it's weight, then you say it's dual shutter activation, yet YOU don't know either of these to be a factor either, do you.
As for 'proximity to the sensor plane' that would reduce angular momentum, would it not (compared to a mirror).
Donnie G: IMO, the EOS M3 will be the dominate entry level enthusiast MILC camera in Asia and in Europe once Canon adds a few fast EF-M prime lenses to the system. I don't think Canon will bring an APS-C MILC to the U.S.. Instead, I'm guessing they will do a FF mirrorless hybrid stills/4k video capable camera to compete with the Sony A7 and Panasonic GH4. The other competitors are likely to just be caught in the crossfire between these 3 manufacturers, because it's gonna be brutal. :))
That may well be the way they go for the 'professional' range. However, I suspect they will still offer an adaptor that will enable use of both legacy and native lenses, even if just for wide-angle to normal size lenses where the advantage is most obvious.
Why are so many people obsessed with how successful a company was or how many cameras it sold? (Emphasis on past tense).
Stop grasping at straws. If there were a general issue related to mirrorless cameras, it would occur with all of them. It doesn't.
It happened in 1 Oly model AFAIK. The EM1. If it can be fixed in firmware, it's not just a mechanical issue is it? Or at least it is one that can be fixed by fine tuning the timing of different parameters to prevent resonance, which is what I have been saying all along.
If your assertion had any foundation at all, it would occur in all Panasonics, Samsungs and Fujis, as well as all NEX cameras. So prove it.
Moreover, if you were correct, it would not occur in SLRs, but it plagued both my Pentax K7 and D7000.
Since you know so much about physics you should also be aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions based on incomplete data because of incorrect assumptions based on partial knowledge.
The specific issue on the A7R is well documented. I dispute the attribution of this issue to all mirrorless cameras. The initial A7 models had incredibly loud shutters, which implies a great deal of energy being expended without any damping. It is notable that this issue was addressed on the A7ii.
As for the two stage operation of the shutter, there is no reason why the first movement would cause any residual vibration (at least not of the of the magnitude of the mirror). If it did, a small delay could be applied before exposure (as with mirrors) which would negate any possible effect. In which case, the issue should be no worse than a DSLR.
There IS a specific design issue on the A7R - in combination with a lens which has OSS. On a Fuji Xpro1 with a 55-200 mm lens (which has OIS and a similar pixel/view angle ratio) I cannot detect any significant directional image shift at any shutter speed, and the combination is 1/3 of the weight.
Don't tell me mirror vibration is not relevant, given all the trouble Canon went to on the 5DS to reduce mirror vibration.
As for the shutter shock, you seem to be making a general assertion based on specific cameras. One of them you quoted, with a lens mounted, is as heavy as many SLRs, so how does that prove your point?
OTOH I have experienced mirror or shutter shock issues at one time or another, on all my SLRs. It also seems to particularly affect cameras with IBIS or lens stabilisation - at very specific shutter speeds.
The issue has much more to do with managing resonant frequencies of the chassis and other system components, as well as the shutter design itself.
I don't see TV and video cameramen having problems tracking live sport or wildlife, do you?
Global shutter will make things easier, but at the moment, having to provide video and still frames takes up a lot of processor time. This is why processors are key to mirrorless performance.
Thing is, your eyes and brain don't react at the speed of light. Hence we cannot tell that a video at 50 fps is not continuous, so anything much faster is kind of redundant.