Canon FF mirrorless...

Messages
23,300
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
just because something sells in vast numbers doesn't mean its the better option.
As @HoppyUK says it’s the important metric as far as Canon are concerned.

If they’re shipping more cameras than anyone else, I can’t see them being heartbroken that some anonymous keyboard warriors don’t consider them worthy. :LOL:

Anyway I’m off out to shoot a ‘job’ with the M5 today, I’ll have to remember to give a discount because you think it’s not worth considering as a camera.
 
Messages
6,412
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
As @HoppyUK says it’s the important metric as far as Canon are concerned.

If they’re shipping more cameras than anyone else, I can’t see them being heartbroken that some anonymous keyboard warriors don’t consider them worthy. :LOL:

Anyway I’m off out to shoot a ‘job’ with the M5 today, I’ll have to remember to give a discount because you think it’s not worth considering as a camera.
Naaa don't go giving discounts on my account... good luck with the job :)
 
Messages
12,707
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
As @HoppyUK says it’s the important metric as far as Canon are concerned.

If they’re shipping more cameras than anyone else, I can’t see them being heartbroken that some anonymous keyboard warriors don’t consider them worthy. :LOL:

Anyway I’m off out to shoot a ‘job’ with the M5 today, I’ll have to remember to give a discount because you think it’s not worth considering as a camera.

You got nothing on us wee little teensy sensor M43 folk Phil :D
 
Messages
5,891
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
But wasn't this explained by the Canons higher mp count?

When compared to the lower mp A7III it's sharper and compared to the higher mp count A7RIII it isn't as sharp. When combined with the banding in pushed images aren't these the results we'd expect from what is in the R an older tech Canon sensor but with a higher mp count than the new tech Sony sensors in the A7III (lower mp) and A7RIII (higher mp.)
....I think you are right.

Personally I don't bother to analyse images in such depth but merely judge images as a finished picture. But we learn something new every day and so I thank you :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,891
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes it does. It's practically the only metric that counts if you're the manufacturer.

(Hint: Canon's strategy is targeted at maximising their profits, not our enjoyment.)
....The manufacturer's profits and the consumer's enjoyment of their products are strongly intertwined and every manufacturer will be more successful when they follow that ethos.

I expect that you follow this ethos in your business don't you Stewart? - In fact, having been a customer I know that you do all you can to make the experience of using you an enjoyable one.

However, unless I have misinterpreted your post, you seem to be hinting that manufacturers don't care about consumer enjoyment and that Canon don't care about us and, if so, I disagree.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,244
Edit My Images
No
I was quite amazed to see how much sharper the R was in comparison to the Sony III in the Northrup video when using adapted lenses. Will be interested to see how it holds up when others test it.
I'd assumed that was down to him doing something silly with the photos for the comparison, the A73 looked far too blurry.
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,820
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Plenty of owners on this site ;)
I’m guessing we’re not worthy of your attention as we don’t agree with you.
If the M wasn't a Canon you wouldn't have bought it would you?

You bought it because it was a Canon didn't you?

You bought it knowing that spec / lens selection / image quality wise it probably wasn't the best mirrorless camera you could buy but it suited you for other reasons, mainly because it was a Canon and you could potentially use your existing lenses on it, didn't you?

Am I right or am I wrong?

You have your opinion and I have mine :D
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,820
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
....I think you are right.

Personally I don't bother to analyse images in such depth but merely judge images as a finished picture. But we learn something new every day and so I thank you :)
There's a similar discussion in the Sony thread...

IMO - We don't need all of the abilities of our kit all the time but sometimes we do want those extra little abilities. In the case of the Canon v Sony, anyone wanting a body around £2k and wanting to pixel peep at 100%+ may consider the Canon whereas anyone wanting to boost the shadows may think the Sony A7III is a better bet and anyone with more money may go for the A7RIII for the best of both :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,284
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
There's a similar discussion in the Sony thread...

IMO - We don't need all of the abilities of our kit all the time but sometimes we do want those extra little abilities. In the case of the Canon v Sony, anyone wanting a body around £2k and wanting to pixel peep at 100%+ may consider the Canon whereas anyone wanting to boost the shadows may think the Sony A7III is a better bet and anyone with more money may go for the A7RIII for the best of both :D
Or save half the money and get an used A7R2, that's where the bargain is!
 
Messages
9,168
Name
Jeremy Moore
Edit My Images
No
If the M wasn't a Canon you wouldn't have bought it would you?

You bought it because it was a Canon didn't you?

You bought it knowing that spec / lens selection / image quality wise it probably wasn't the best mirrorless camera you could buy but it suited you for other reasons, mainly because it was a Canon and you could potentially use your existing lenses on it, didn't you?

Am I right or am I wrong?

You have your opinion and I have mine :D

That's more or less my situation too. Add in my hope/expectation that I would find my way around the Canon menu system quicker than another mfr.

It's not just fanboy-ism. There are very valid reasons for sticking with one system even if it may not be absolutely technically "the best".

And, to be honest, most people are not so obsessive about their choice of kit as those in this forum.........;)
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,412
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
That's more or less my situation too. Add in my hope/expectation that I would find my way around the Canon menu system quicker than another mfr.

It's not just fanboy-ism. There are very valid reasons for sticking with one system even if it may not be absolutely technically "the best".
Yes, moving from one system to another costs money, sticking with one might be the wiser choice in the long run :D
 
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,820
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
He thinks I'm anti Canon M but I'm not but I do see it (the M) as a camera that possibly appeals more to dedicated Canon users with existing lenses and people who walk into Jessops and ask for a camera rather than for people who approach buying a camera without lenses to convert or who are looking for a more complete and perhaps better performing system more suitable for someone who sees themselves as an enthusiast.

In the sense that the M is perhaps as system behind the state of the art and lacking native lenses I do agree that it's a half baked (or whatever the phrase was) system. I do however agree that the M could make a lot of sense to someone walking into Jessops and relying on what the salesman says and also to those wanting to use Canon lenses.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
woof woof
Messages
20,820
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
That's more or less my situation too. Add in my hope/expectation that I would find my way around the Canon menu system quicker than another mfr.

It's not just fanboy-ism. There are very valid reasons for sticking with one system even if it may not be absolutely technically "the best".

And, to be honest, most people are not so obsessive about their choice of kit as those in this forum.........;)
Yup.

I'd agree that looking at an A7III my A7 is half baked and I wouldn't object to people saying that within context :D
 
Messages
22,917
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I don't subscribe to the apparent confusion surrounding EOS M, painting it as some kind of b*****d child that does't seem to fit with the rest of the Canon range. I see it almost as a stand-alone range that capitalises very successfully on the small/light aspect of mirrorless and appeals to a large demographic of 'enthusiastic snappers' for want of a better term, who want better than smartphones but have no desire for a vast range of lenses beyond the ten or so Canon offers, ranging from 11-200mm. Sounds just right to me and it's actually selling very well to everyone apart from photo forum members ;)

Long term, this sector may be vulnerable as the smartphone and computational photography sweeps everything before it :( I seriously believe that will happen in the next few years. No wonder Canikson is pushing upwards with the emphasis on full-frame.
 
Messages
7,818
Edit My Images
No
I don't subscribe to the apparent confusion surrounding EOS M, painting it as some kind of b*****d child that does't seem to fit with the rest of the Canon range. I see it almost as a stand-alone range that capitalises very successfully on the small/light aspect of mirrorless and appeals to a large demographic of 'enthusiastic snappers' for want of a better term, who want better than smartphones but have no desire for a vast range of lenses beyond the ten or so Canon offers, ranging from 11-200mm. Sounds just right to me and it's actually selling very well to everyone apart from photo forum members ;)

Long term, this sector may be vulnerable as the smartphone and computational photography sweeps everything before it :( I seriously believe that will happen in the next few years. No wonder Canikson is pushing upwards with the emphasis on full-frame.
The system lacks native lenses though
 
Messages
6,412
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Thank you Bob. It obviously needed saying twice :)
It seems both the EOS M and R's target market is to shift units to their existing user base, brand loyalty pays off.
Stick a Canon badge on a pile of dung and it'll still sell :D lol
 
Messages
5,891
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't subscribe to the apparent confusion surrounding EOS M, painting it as some kind of b*****d child that does't seem to fit with the rest of the Canon range. I see it almost as a stand-alone range that capitalises very successfully on the small/light aspect of mirrorless and appeals to a large demographic of 'enthusiastic snappers' for want of a better term, who want better than smartphones but have no desire for a vast range of lenses beyond the ten or so Canon offers, ranging from 11-200mm. Sounds just right to me and it's actually selling very well to everyone apart from photo forum members ;)
....I too think the EOS M5 has been positioned very cleverly by Canon in the market > Not only can it stand-alone with its own very compact (though currently very limited in range) lenses but also it works very well within the whole EOS system due to its adapter for a very extensive range of EF lenses.

I bought my M5 solely as a way of being able to more easily carry a second body already mounted on my Canon EF 100mm F/2.8L macro lens when on walkabout with a 100-400mm on a full size D-SLR body, hence not losing valuable time while changing lenses and shooting with one and getting physically at much closer distance for another set of shots.

I have more recently found that it's also a practical alternative to mount my M5 on a Canon EF 24-70mm F/4L as an extra option on walkabout for wildlife.

I may be one of a minority who use a M5 in that way but I don't care about that - Yet again, Canon have looked after my needs.
 
Last edited:
Messages
23,300
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
If the M wasn't a Canon you wouldn't have bought it would you?

...

You have your opinion and I have mine :D
It’s not my first mirrorless, the first wasn’t a Canon, because Canon didn’t make one I thought I could use.

I bought the Canon because it made more sense than spending thousands on lenses for a ‘fun’ camera. As it will for a lot of people. And that’s why Canon are where they are. Not because of sheep or fanboys, but because they make products that people want whether you like it or not. :)

You’re entitled to your opinion, you’re not entitled to shout down those that disagree, or suggest their judgement isn’t up to your standards. ;)
 
Messages
510
Edit My Images
No
It seems both the EOS M and R's target market is to shift units to their existing user base, brand loyalty pays off.
Stick a Canon badge on a pile of dung and it'll still sell :D lol
Would certainly explain the M10.

Not sure what the deal with sales figures is anyhoo. Samsung and Apple sell the most mirrorless cameras, and they come with a free phone attached.
 
Messages
6,412
Name
Riz
Edit My Images
No
Would certainly explain the M10.

Not sure what the deal with sales figures is anyhoo. Samsung and Apple sell the most mirrorless cameras, and they come with a free phone attached.
Yup and probably use Sony sensors :D lol
 
Messages
87
Edit My Images
No
Perhaps Rixy meant half-hearted because of the stingy lens line up for the M series? There is a point to that. Otherwise I can't see much else wrong with them, I'd be happy enough with something like an M50 and some nice lenses. I see them as mini 80D, they share the same sensor, they even have more up to date processors. What Canon did get right was at least offering an adapter that makes their existing lenses work as good as if they were native on the M bodies.
I didn't do a very good job of explaining what I meant by half hearted, but yes, that sums it up Cagey75. Also, didn't mean to come across as sounding like the M series are not good enough or a capable series of cameras.

I get a feeling that this RF mount is going to go places, Canon have put a lot of thought, time and I'm sure, money in to this stunning line up of launch lenses. I get a feeling that this mount could spell the end of EF lenses in the future.

(Edited: typos)
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,891
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
I get a feeling that this RF mount is going to go places, Canon have put a lot of thought, time and I'm sure, money in to this stunning line up of lunch lenses. I get a feeling that this mount could spell the end of EF lenses in the future.
....I think that it's a very safe bet that Canon's RF mount and R bodies are definitely going to go places and do so irrespective of how good their competitors are. But if indeed EF lenses do end they won't do so until the RF lens range is equally extensive.

The very recent release of their version III EF 400mm and 600mm primes suggest that Canon aren't giving up on EF just yet!
 
Last edited:
Messages
12,707
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Sure, but we were talking sales figures. Canon M series aren't that great in comparison to the competition but allegedly out sell them.

Every system has it's merits. The competition: the Sony A6K line, Fuji X and M43 - the Sony ML have the upper hand in ISO performance only really IMO, M43 have the best IBIS on the market bar none and a better native lens line up than the others, IMHO M43 also has the best ergonomics in cameras like the G80, GH5, G9 and Em1 mkII. Fuji have the supposedly best all-round build and on-body controls but they got some quirks too, people rave about Fuji's glass also, though it's not the cheapest - and the Canon M series have that excellent dual pixel AF [ok, only 1080 for video but not everyone cares for 4K] and as good as native adaption for the vast Canon EF/EF-S collection. M43 will remain popular too for the foreseeable future, because of the excellent video capabilities, 4K, Ibis and flip-screen. One thing Canon did right that the other 2 APSC ML did not, was include that flip screen. Fuji tried it with their budget XT100 but it didn't have much else going for it really.

Phones out-sell because they are phones, not because of their cameras. Otherwise wouldn't most vloggers just use their phones?
 

StewartR

Efrem Zimbalist Jr
Advertiser
Messages
12,043
Name
Stewart
Edit My Images
Yes
....The manufacturer's profits and the consumer's enjoyment of their products are strongly intertwined and every manufacturer will be more successful when they follow that ethos.

I expect that you follow this ethos in your business don't you Stewart? - In fact, having been a customer I know that you do all you can to make the experience of using you an enjoyable one.

However, unless I have misinterpreted your post, you seem to be hinting that manufacturers don't care about consumer enjoyment and that Canon don't care about us and, if so, I disagree.
I'm afraid you have misinterpreted my post, but on reflection I could have made it clearer. When I said that Canon's priority is not "our" enjoyment, the "we" that I was referring to is this strange little group of people who like to talk about cameras on Internet forums. "We" are not typical. For every one of us who bangs on about card slots or buffer depth or half a stop of dynamic range, there are probably 1000 or 10000 people who find that the EOS M series cameras suit them very nicely thank you. We should not forget that.
 
Messages
874
Edit My Images
Yes
If these new cameras from Canon and Nikon add enjoyment and functionality to the basic things cameras do and do them a bit better I will maybe buy one of them. Personally, I don't need any fancy new add-ons or innovation in every new release but would be happy with them doing the basic things a camera should do a bit better every time. I'm pretty baffled by internet "reviewers" slagging off Canon, and on this occasion, Nikon, for lacking in innovation.

It seems everyone was having a breakdown over the 5DmIV because it didn't have the headline novelties to appease the iPhone generation. It supposedly wasn't a big enough leap from the III whereas people who actually looked beyond the "wow it's new" stuff saw that the sensor was massively improved ( especially in the latest obsession of being able to pull detail from underexposed shadows), and the AF system which was an quantum leap forward.

We're obsessed with new tricks. Currently the best one is underexposing images and then seeing what they look like pushed 5 stops. It then becomes a big deal and an "essential feature". Wow!

IBIS is a necessity without which we can't take pictures properly. It might be important for some. It doesn't matter to me.

What I want is good ergonomic design, good AF, good lens range, good IQ, ( not necessarily 21 stops of DR ) good customer service and a reliable ( preferably weather - sealed ) product. A manufacturer who does this will win my business over one serving up frothy bells and whistles I will never use or need.

Folk seem to expect some new bit of glitz every year because their phone, or computer, or TV, or something has to be the latest and comes with some meaningless piece of crap they don't need and doesn't work that well.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,891
Name
Robin
Edit My Images
Yes
If these new cameras from Canon and Nikon add enjoyment and functionality to the basic things cameras do and do them a bit better I will maybe buy one of them. Personally, I don't need any fancy new add-ons or innovation in every new release but would be happy with them doing the basic things a camera should do a bit better every time. I'm pretty baffled by internet "reviewers" slagging off Canon, and on this occasion, Nikon, for lacking in innovation.

It seems everyone was having a breakdown over the 5DmIV because it didn't have the headline novelties to appease the iPhone generation. It supposedly wasn't a big enough leap from the III whereas people who actually looked beyond the "wow it's new" stuff saw that the sensor was massively improved ( especially in the latest obsession of being able to pull detail from underexposed shadows), and the AF system which was an quantum leap forward.

We're obsessed with new tricks. Currently the best one is underexposing images and then seeing what they look like pushed 5 stops. It then becomes a big deal and an "essential feature". Wow!

IBIS is a necessity without which we can't take pictures properly. It might be important for some. It doesn't matter to me.

What I want is good ergonomic design, good AF, good lens range, good IQ, ( not necessarily 21 stops of DR ) good customer service and a reliable ( preferably weather - sealed ) product. A manufacturer who does this will win my business over one serving up frothy bells and whistles I will never use or need.

Folk seem to expect some new bit of glitz every year because their phone, or computer, or TV, or something has to be the latest and comes with some meaningless piece of crap they don't need and doesn't work that well.
....HEAR! HEAR!!

From what I have read and seen so far, and most importantly because I am already a Canon EOS system user, I am impatient to get my hands on a EOS R < Not because it's the latest body but because it would appear to satisfy me much more than my Canon mirrorless M5 does (I have a love-hate relationship with it) and I would swop. I would also add my 7D-2 to a part-ex, even though it's a crop-sensor with more 'reach', if a future EOS R body version has a much higher frame rate. 2 card slots would be a bonus but not essential to me at all < We each have individual requirements and preferences.

For me and I'm sure for many other existing EOS system shooters, a high spec EOS R body would be not a spare body but a second body (to my 1DX-2) to live on a second lens carried in the field. As a second body, an EOS R would be ideal mostly due to size but also bring some additional shooting features to the party.

Whether it's been done before or not is academic, IMO the programmable control ring on the EF adapter (and on the native RF lenses) has the potential to really improve the 'keepers' number of well exposed wildlife action images. And the programmable M-Fn slide bar has great potential too.

I am impatient to handle and explore the possibilities of Canon's new offerings. Photographing wildlife is very challenging and anything which helps capture those special moments to enjoy and share is what it's all about.

:)
 
Messages
12,707
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
If these new cameras from Canon and Nikon add enjoyment and functionality to the basic things cameras do and do them a bit better I will maybe buy one of them. Personally, I don't need any fancy new add-ons or innovation in every new release but would be happy with them doing the basic things a camera should do a bit better every time. I'm pretty baffled by internet "reviewers" slagging off Canon, and on this occasion, Nikon, for lacking in innovation.

It seems everyone was having a breakdown over the 5DmIV because it didn't have the headline novelties to appease the iPhone generation. It supposedly wasn't a big enough leap from the III whereas people who actually looked beyond the "wow it's new" stuff saw that the sensor was massively improved ( especially in the latest obsession of being able to pull detail from underexposed shadows), and the AF system which was an quantum leap forward.

We're obsessed with new tricks. Currently the best one is underexposing images and then seeing what they look like pushed 5 stops. It then becomes a big deal and an "essential feature". Wow!

IBIS is a necessity without which we can't take pictures properly. It might be important for some. It doesn't matter to me.

What I want is good ergonomic design, good AF, good lens range, good IQ, ( not necessarily 21 stops of DR ) good customer service and a reliable ( preferably weather - sealed ) product. A manufacturer who does this will win my business over one serving up frothy bells and whistles I will never use or need.

Folk seem to expect some new bit of glitz every year because their phone, or computer, or TV, or something has to be the latest and comes with some meaningless piece of crap they don't need and doesn't work that well.

I much prefer it when they're not kissing their asses tbh.
 
Messages
874
Edit My Images
Yes
I much prefer it when they're not kissing their asses tbh.
Absolutely agreed. But I just feel sometimes that there are so many who are only interested in the headline grabbing novelties. I wish they'd look at how the thing works and hold the manufacturers to task. One fellow I really like is Thom Hogan. Disagree or not but he gets down to the important stuff in a well - reasoned articulate way. If you look at the amount of "comparison sites" ( and even more bafflingly - comparison videos - where you watch text scroll by for 2.5 minutes while crappy music plays in the background :confused: ) just list a bunch of specs as you watch ! and the style of reviewing that flows from that mentality it gets very depressing.
 
Messages
12,707
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Absolutely agreed. But I just feel sometimes that there are so many who are only interested in the headline grabbing novelties. I wish they'd look at how the thing works and hold the manufacturers to task. One fellow I really like is Thom Hogan. Disagree or not but he gets down to the important stuff in a well - reasoned articulate way. If you look at the amount of "comparison sites" ( and even more bafflingly - comparison videos - where you watch text scroll by for 2.5 minutes while crappy music plays in the background :confused: ) just list a bunch of specs as you watch ! and the style of reviewing that flows from that mentality it gets very depressing.

Noooo! Never watch those comparisons, they're terrible. You can get spec comparisons much faster and just glance through yourself if needed. There was a lot of bandwagon jumping after these latest cameras were sent out, it's like they were trying to out-do one another. One gets a little controversial and finds a fault nobody else spotted - BINGO!! watch the viewer count clock up! Others clearly showing nothing but bias in favour of their chosen manufacturer ... it's all been a bit as you say, depressing. End of the day those who can't help convincing themselves that they need the bare few new features the latest models offer are going to buy regardless. They'll forgive and forget with firmware updates and remain 'loyal' [trapped in some cases] - Let them at it, it got boring even discussing this new wave of gear long ago, pity it's 90% of what's discussed on here lately. It'll pass though ;)
 
Top