Thoughts After the Nikon Mirrorless Launch...

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

PhotoKhan said:

150 grams vs 10 items equals 1,5Kg. That's one lens more, right there.

How's this for "exaggeration"?

Click to expand...

Are you carrying 10 camera bodies and one lens? Because the only place where Sony FF shows consistent weight savings is the body (ignoring, of course, spare batteries). Lenses are a wash with some being lighter but others being heavier. Some surprisingly heavier.

Nikon Z looks to be the same. Maybe worse with that ultra wide mount.

So yes, you are still exaggerating the situation.

Click to expand...

I am not interested in the Nikon offers.

If I was, I would gladly let go of the 1.4 on the Canon 35 II for the 1.8 of the 35mm Nikkor Z for the sake of portability.

That lens on a Z7, would have a total weight of 1045 grams against the 1650 grams of my current 5DMKIV + 35 F/1.4 L II combo.

If you don't understand what the reduction of overall size plus those 605 grams less mean in a backpack, if you find that an "exaggeration", I can't help you further.

PK

PhotoKhan said:

I am not interested in the Nikon offers.

If I was, I would gladly let go of the 1.4 on the Canon 35 II for the 1.8 of the 35mm Nikkor Z for the sake of portability.

That lens on a Z7, would have a total weight of 1045 grams against the 1650 grams of my current 5DMKIV + 35 F/1.4 L II combo.

Click to expand...

But you're not willing to let go of the 1.4 for the Canon 35mm f/2 IS for the sake of portability??? That would put you at 1135 grams.

PhotoKhan said:

If you don't understand what the reduction of overall size plus those 605 grams less mean in a backpack, if you find that an "exaggeration", I can't help you further.

Click to expand...

Your actions confirm that you are exaggerating. If 500-600 grams was that important you would have the f/2 IS.

And, again, we find that when we compare apples to apples and not oranges, there's no real weight savings with FF mirrorless.

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

PhotoKhan said:

I am not interested in the Nikon offers.

If I was, I would gladly let go of the 1.4 on the Canon 35 II for the 1.8 of the 35mm Nikkor Z for the sake of portability.

That lens on a Z7, would have a total weight of 1045 grams against the 1650 grams of my current 5DMKIV + 35 F/1.4 L II combo.

Click to expand...

But you're not willing to let go of the 1.4 for the Canon 35mm f/2 IS for the sake of portability??? That would put you at 1135 grams.

photog7320 said:

If you don't understand what the reduction of overall size plus those 605 grams less mean in a backpack, if you find that an "exaggeration", I can't help you further.

Click to expand...

Your actions confirm that you are exaggerating. If 500-600 grams was that important you would have the f/2 IS.

And, again, we find that when we compare apples to apples and not oranges, there's no real weight savings with FF mirrorless.

Click to expand...

As I said, I can't help you further.

PK

rhlpetrus said:

Rick Knepper said:

Bassman2003 said:

I am not a Nikon shooter, but if I was I would disappointed in the choices for the new lens mount.

Click to expand...

So would I.

However, for those who do not mind adapting lenses, every EOS lens will be compatible on an EOS mirrorless, more than likely.

Click to expand...

All recent lenses from Nikon work via adapter, and AF is fully functional, including continuous AF. all F lenses work in manual focus.

Click to expand...

This was my experience with the EOS M3 too. The adapter, made by Canon, seemed to work just fine. For my purposes, I could tell no reduction in AF performance vs my FF DSLRs..

rhlpetrus said:

The couple of primes seem to match MTF charts of Zeiss Otus lenses, much better than anything Nikon currently offers. So, a future advantage of the new mount is likely, re all new lenses.

Click to expand...

Wow! There's the explanation for the larger size/weight issue. That's always a forgivable mitigating circumstance in my book.

rhlpetrus said:

Just a comment, likely applicable to Canon’s future FF ML as well. Well, not sure about IQ.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome.

Did you see this post?

PhotoKhan said:

As I said, I can't help you further.

Click to expand...

The numbers don't lie. If you don't want to accept them then I can't help you further.

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

photog7320 said:

What I have learned from using a mirrorless system for a year now is that the size/weight "advantage" is the least important benefit of mirrorless.

Click to expand...

What's the most important then?

Click to expand...

For me. it's the EVF:

1.) I can see to critically focus for the first time since I began using SLRs.

1a.) I can see previews better too.

2.) The image is bigger plus I can zoom in.

3.) The EVF solves the issue of a washed out LCD in bright midday sunlight. That's most of the day mind you.

4.) I can customize what information appears in the EVF.

5.) Large RGB histogram @ eye level.

6.) Focus Peaking @ eye level

7.) Zebras @ eye level

8.) Highlight/shadow alerts @ eye level

Other stuff:

1.) Generally more AF points

2.) Generally faster fps (unless crippled for marketing purposes) (not particularly so for medium format mirrorless)

Extra credit: My mirrorless comes with a tilt adapter that allows tilt and swivel on the VF. Who needs an articulated LCD?







--
Once you've done fifty, anything less is iffy.

Rick Knepper said:

For me. it's the EVF:

Click to expand...

You have some fair points about EVFs, but for me they still fall flat on overall experience. It's hard to beat the IQ and responsiveness of light bouncing off a mirror.

A few years ago the EVF advantage that stood out to me was exposure preview. It seemed big back then. But versus the reliability and 'stability' of Canon's latest metering sensors (i.e. 150k sensor in 5Ds) this doesn't seem to be as big of a deal now.

For manual focus lenses EVFs are almost a must have. But for AF lenses...the few times I need to check critical focus, I'm on a tripod and can LiveView it any way.

Rick Knepper said:

1.) Generally more AF points

Click to expand...

MILCs tend to have more "intelligent" tracking modes, like eye AF. DSLRs have faster acquisition/tracking. I've noticed these aspects, but more points hasn't really mattered.

Rick Knepper said:

2.) Generally faster fps (unless crippled for marketing purposes) (not particularly so for medium format mirrorless)

Click to expand...

With full AF, metering, and usable EVF? Right now there seems to be one FF MILC that can claim this.

Rick Knepper said:

Extra credit: My mirrorless comes with a tilt adapter that allows tilt and swivel on the VF. Who needs an articulated LCD?

Click to expand...

OK, I'll give you that one :-D

I am a multiple systems user, and I was ready to dump the A7R II for the Nikon Z7 until I saw the single card slot and 18 frame buffer in 12 bit. so I didn't pre-order the Z7.

So now it's not hard for me to get in the Canon ML as long as it has no worse sensor and no smaller body than the Z7 but has to have dual card slot and bigger buffer than the Z7 then I am in, just that simple.

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Click to expand...

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t


Greetings

Ivan

TyphoonTW said:

... Those who buy a new camera every 6 months because they think THAT is the tool that will allow their landscape photos shot handheld at noon with no filters to be published on the cover of National Geographic

Click to expand...

When shooting landscapes at noon with no filters, handholding is perfectly ok ;-)

dpr4bb said:

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

Click to expand...

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

graveur said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Click to expand...

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

Click to expand...

the only advantage to a short flange distance is with lenses with a FL wider than 35mm ...and that is moot as the EF mount has a big diameter ...if a wide lens was designed for a MIL EF mount camera with no mirror some of the lens can fit inside the body..leica fit lenses have been doing this for 50 years with up to almost 1/2 the lens in the body for a very compact rig..and canon to a certain amount with the EF-s lenses as the APS-c mirror is not as big obversely this will be a MIL lens only like the EF-s is APS-c only

in your camera size demo you used a 5D ...but when you don't have a mirror ,a mirror motor and gearbox ,no AF module ,no light path to the VF and a EVF takes less space than a pentaprism/mirror canon can fit a FF sensor in say a SL2/200D body so lets comper the most common of lenses the standard zoom





Thumbs up if you would buy a FF SL2

FlANGE DISTANCE CAN HAVE NO BEARING ON CAMERA SIZE

Here you see the grip on the sony sticks out more than the canon flange.. both cameras will fit in the same compartment of a bag



Tiny FF camera with a bigger flange distance than the EF mount











--
Attention Dislexsic i mean dyslexic person... This post will have many although spell checked, spelling and grammatical errs ..its The best its going get so no need to tell me its bad i know it is .....................................................................................................
My 5D IS a MK1 classic
..........................................................................................................
There is no argument for FF vs APS-c (or m43) with shallow DOF..as it's a law of physics and a very subjective personal thing if you want to make use of the shallow DOF only FF can offer
...........................................................................................................
Political correctness....somebody being offended on someone else's behalf....who that someone doesn't give a damn in the first place ....David Appleton
..................................................................................................
quoting irrefutable facts may get you branded a racist ..even if no race is involved .......David Appleton
.....................................................................................................
The word ‘racism’ is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything — and demanding evidence makes you a ‘racist.’”........Thomas Sowell

Rick Knepper said:

Bassman2003 said:

I am not a Nikon shooter, but if I was I would disappointed in the choices for the new lens mount.

Click to expand...

So would I.

However, for those who do not mind adapting lenses, every EOS lens will be compatible on an EOS mirrorless, more than likely.

Click to expand...

Problem with adapters is the extra potential slop added by imperfections between the lense & adapter and the adapter & the camera amount, even if just by millimeters. See Cicala's article on Lensrentals. And this applies to if you have optical elements or even if you don't (just an extension tube basically).

You can even try this some time for yourself. Put an EF lense on a SONY with SIGMA or metabones adapter. Heck, put an EF lense on the Canon M series with the official EF to EF-M adapter. Test a bunch of lenses. You'll occasionally see some blurring into the edges that wouldn't be there when you shoot straight from the native mount. This is some kind of off-kilter de-centering caused by the adapter because it is not a 100% perfect fit.

In this regard, the SIGMA ML that had the snout mounts were actually a pretty good idea. Use the original mirrored lenses on mirrorless with no slop.

So sure you can adapt all those lenses. But do they work just as well as native? That is the big question.

Steve Balcombe said:

dpr4bb said:

I was pleasantly surprised that Nikon gave the Z6 the same high-quality EVF as the Z7. Canon would never, ever do such a thing.

Click to expand...

EVF quality is the single biggest barrier to acceptance of mirrorless for a large proportion of DSLR users. I don't think Canon will make the mistake of skimping on that.

Click to expand...

They won't.

Canon clearly has a better strategy than Nikon regarding mirrorless and it has been an obvious one all along.

While Nikon was shooting their own feet with the 1-series, Canon came up with the "M" line.

In addition to the 2 specific targets it successfully catered for, it also provided a test bed to a completely new format for Canon.

Because of that "ML test run via APS-C" there are some things guaranteed to be very good in the coming FF offer:

1. AF - increasingly perfected with each "M" interaction, with the latest offer (M50) already featuring Eye AF and DPAF already "imported" with full success (...especially on video...) from the DSLRs.

2. Touchscreen - Canon identified very early that this would be crucial for a ML. They have the best touchscreen in the industry and being able to map the whole or part of the touch screen for AF point selection will allow them to let go of a physical controller for that purpose (it is one of my favorite features on the M5).

3. EVF - These have also become increasingly better (resolution, image fidelity, blackouts) with each "M" interaction and are now not very far from what they need to be in a top-tier ML FF offer.

What is coming will have its flaws, for sure (...the real ones and the ones the "cult" will be quick to come up with...) but, regarding these 3 items, I really expect Canon to hit these nails on the head.

PK

Help me out here. I thought existing EF lenses were tied into the autofocus system and adding new mirrorless PDAF approach along with IBIS would be a mis-match? I agree, if the only reason to NOT go with EF lenses is flange distance then that seems kind of stupid. I have to think there is more to the story...

Rick Knepper said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Click to expand...

We have no reason to believe this. All we really have are comparisons to Sony configurations. A few MMs?

Rick Knepper said:

Best rumor I've read was that Canon was going to use an EF-R mount that would directly accept EF lenses,

Click to expand...

With this configuration, it would lose any weight/size advantage.

Click to expand...

this is patently false.

Rick Knepper said:

Rick Knepper said:

but use a notch to allow the mounting of EF-R lenses where the rear lens element can extend back into the body. Kinda like EF/EF-S.

Click to expand...

Why would Canon even feel the need to produce EF-R lenses? I'm picturing what they've done with EF-S.

Click to expand...

Canon could produce a limited set of EF-R lenses with shorter backfocus for WA/UWA lenses but leave the EF lenses alone where there is no design advantages. In other words, they only have to release a very small number of lenses to take advantage of mirrorless, versus the entire lens catalog.

Bassman2003 said:

Help me out here. I thought existing EF lenses were tied into the autofocus system and adding new mirrorless PDAF approach along with IBIS would be a mis-match?

Click to expand...

not at all. DPAF is still a phase detect AF system, even though it calculates it from the sensor.

graveur said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

There are no real size/weight savings with FF mirrorless. So why introduce a new mount to shave a few mm's off the body thickness?

Click to expand...

The main size advantage of the mirrorless design can be seen when looking and the body and also when using wide angle lenses.

Just a quick comparisson:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#682.425,777.440,654.31,ha,t

Greetings

Ivan

Click to expand...

sure if you ignore ergonomic differences between then and falsey assume that's as small as canon can make a full frame. oh wait, it's not because that's even a 5D Mark IV image, you've chosen the largest full frame camera that canon makes and compared it to cameras that are lacking it's haptic buttons and top plate LCD and claiming similarity.