Canon Mirrorless FF Discussions/News/Rumors

That isn't quite fair. Canikon were pretty much starting from almost no historical experience in mirrorless. At this point in time Sony has had 5 years plus advantage in system development. It would be unreasonable and unrealistic to expect canikon to bring out a 'Sony' beater in most or areas of significance, right off the bat. A first foray in to uncharted waters should not result in an immediately superior product - it would be most unusual if it did. Canikon are going to spend a few years trying to catch up to Sony. Of course, whether Sony will allow its advantage to be eroded in that manor is another question.

C_N_RED_AGAIN wrote: Addy why are we comparing this camera to the a7rii?

Well, not just, also to the A7r3. But I agree it is up against the mark 3, not the mark 2. I just thought you're too negative at points. It is competitive without surpassing (or even matching) the A7r3, but basically surpasses the A7r2.

I think this is in-between the A7r2 and A7r3, maybe even has some advantages of its own. But it seems the A7r3 still has the better specifications.

C_N_RED_AGAIN wrote: Btw addy eye af on the canon is in afs only.Much prefer it in afc for obvious reasons.

Me too.

Your remark on the fps btw is more less right, I wouldn't call it "Very slow fps" but "disappointing slow fps" - 8 fps without AF is okay, but it drops so low with AF it is like a 10 year old camera. My remark on that was a bit cheesy, sorry...

whiteheat wrote: That isn't quite fair. Canikon were pretty much starting from almost no historical experience in mirrorless.

That is incorrect. Nikon had the 1-series and Canon is still making the Canon EF-M cameras - in fact, Canon sells more of those then does Sony E-mount cameras.

addy landzaat wrote: Also, Canon has a EF-M 28/3.5 Macro APS-C lens, so, they really think we need wide angle macro lenses. Most macro lenses these days have image stabilisation, you can turn it off when you use it on a tripod

If it was a standard 35mm/1.8 prime I could see it but why go to the extra effort of making it a Macro (assuming 1:1)?
A 28mm Canon APS-C (1.6x) = 45mm FF (same as Sony have a 30mm Macro for APS_C on both A & E mount) which is nearly the classic copystand macro length. But who is using copystands anymore ...?
So, you have a Macro (assuming 1:1) presumably with a very short working distance & with the ability for very little depth of field.

addy landzaat wrote: Somebody will have a use for this lens. In fact, both people who want a fast 35mm and a shorter macro will use this lens.

... like the SOny 30mm macro. It's nice to have a widish-standard focal length lens which will focus close, even if you aren't down to 1:1.

Cliff wrote: The 50mm f1.2 @ $2,299? Sony's 50mm is $448 and a Zeiss is $1,498. What could possibly make a Canon 50mm prime worth that kind of money? It is the better part of the Zeiss plus 2 Sonys. I don't see $ 1,850 value added in f1.2 vs f1.4 for the Sony or $800 over the Zeiss for that matter. Can in lens stabilization be worth almost as much as an A7iii body with IBIS plus a Sony 50mm?

The RF 50/1.2 doesn't have IS, but you can buy two of these RF 50/1.2 for one Z 58/0.95

You don't see the added value of a f/1.2 - but people want what they want. For instance, Sony has a perfectly capable almost pancake like 35/2.8 and a 35/1.4 for those who want/need a faster lens. But still people are bitching for a 35/1.8 - these people have two very good 35's available or they could simply use the 28/2 and just make a step forward, but still, to some the biggest hole in the Sony FE line-up is a 35/1.8

I don´t understand. Canon and Nikon have 4-5 years to do a camera that will blow Sony away. And they fail big time.

photoorb wrote: I don´t understand. Canon and Nikon have 4-5 years to do a camera that will blow Sony away. And they fail big time.

You are right. I think the reason they haven't been able to do so, (personal opinion now follows without any hard evidence to support it and should be viewed as an a priori advocation) may be because they fell asleep at the wheel. They became complacent thinking that mirrorless capabilities could not seriously challenge their traditional DSLR hegemony. Then, when they finally realised that mirrorless capabilities can now at least rival and in some cases, surpass what traditional DSLRs can do, their customer base was already being seriously eroded. True, some of that erosion by mirrorless encroachment into their market may have been masked by the even more serious impact that mobile phones were having particularly on their higher end point and shoot ranges.

But overall, by the time they woke up to the fact that mirrorless was the future and anything mirror based, was going the way of the dodo, mirrorless manufacturers had got a bunch of years head start in terms of investment into their respective mounts. Canikon have had their mirrorless apsc offerings for some years now, but they hadn't really put any serious development investment (other than small incremental steps) into expanding the capabilities of their mirrorless ranges. That's my take on it.