p.3 #1 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
gdanmitchell wrote:
Again, you don't have to "pick sides" on this. As with so many things that lead to heated positioning in photo forums, it is a bit more complex than "A is great! B is awful!".
All DES-1 was asking for is something more firm to back up some of the con claims being made regarding IBIS. I don't see any sides being taken here...just wanting details on some of these claims.
p.3 #2 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
ted1000 wrote:
Panasonic must have had a reason to eliminate IBIS on the GH5S
Ted
They claim it was because professional filmmakers complained that the suspension mechanism wasn't strong enough to keep the sensor locked down during jostling from high-velocity action shoots.
p.3 #5 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Holger wrote:
I read in some forums that Nikon many times proved their statements wrong. One guy was told during a product demonstration in a big company in 1990 (after Canon introduced AF in lens), that Nikon couldn't do that, the F-mount was too small to allow AF in lenses. Two years later, AF in lenses was introduced.
Another was was told that a successor for the 105/1.8 wouldn't be made, the F-mount being too small and electrical contacts would make the rear elements too small (now 105/1.4 is available).
So I am not convinced that Sony and Canon can't make f1.2 lenses in their new mounts, although of course distance and mount diameter restrain the maximum speed of the lenses. ...Show more →
I wasn’t implying they couldn’t, just that having a smaller mount opening limits the glass in some ways. For example if you have a 46mm opening compared to a 54mm opening that will mean OOF at the edges will be more severely clipped due to mechanical vignetting as a consequence of the smaller exit pupil. Nikon did not release any AF f/1.2 lenses or faster, but already look like introducing f/0.95 glass for mirrorless, admittedly with a not much larger 49mm opening if the leaks are correct about the Z mount.
p.3 #6 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
People can debate the merits of IBIS till the cows come home, but I know I could not have gotten this shot if I did not have IBIS.
It would be nice if you shared the focal length, shutter speed, iso etc., otherwise we just see a nice image and can't associate it your your "claim" ;-).
p.3 #7 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Holger wrote:
It would be nice if you shared the focal length, shutter speed, iso etc., otherwise we just see a nice image and can't associate it your your "claim" ;-).
p.3 #8 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
retrofocus wrote:
To all the benefits of a potential new Canon mirrorless with whatever lens mount they will use, I am mostly interested to see how this camera will work with other adapted manual focus lenses including rangefinder ones. I am sure reviews about this in comparison to Sony FF cameras will pop up quickly after Canon releases its FF mirrorless camera. This would be my #1 criteria to determine if it is worth to consider Canon FF mirrorless (plus the sensor of course).
If it continues to be EF-M mount, then I predict it will be terrible with wider RF lenses, likely for the same reasons as Sony - sensor glass thickness. Probably also the case if it's an entirely new mount because it will still have to be backwards compatible with the millions of EF lenses still in use.
I tested the EOS-M5 with all of my wide RF lenses and was generally disappointed with the results, and that's an APS-C sensor. For example, the Canon 22/2 trounced the results I got with the Leica 21/3.4 on the M5. Probably as with Sony, Canon won't be concerned about compatibility of 3rd party lenses. It's in their interest to sell their own lenses. As we've seen with those who adopted Sony, starting out adapting 3rd party lenses, many have transitioned to native glass. Given the depth of EF lenses available and how well most already work adapted to EF-M, I expect the number of alt lens users of the new Canon system will be a very small minority. But I will welcome the ability to use off-brand lenses on such cameras. I just don't expect the system to be optimized for such compatibility.
p.3 #9 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
1/15 sec., f4, ISO 3200 Batis 25mm
Thanks.
How do you like the Batis 25? I have it on my list. I wanted to use the Sigma 24 Art with Metabones, but am not convinced about the reliability of the AF performance under demanding conditions (weddings) according to my testing.
SAR indicates Sigma to announce several lenses next month. Maybe a 24 is included.
p.3 #10 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
rscheffler wrote:
If it continues to be EF-M mount, then I predict it will be terrible with wider RF lenses, likely for the same reasons as Sony - sensor glass thickness. Probably also the case if it's an entirely new mount because it will still have to be backwards compatible with the millions of EF lenses still in use.
I tested the EOS-M5 with all of my wide RF lenses and was generally disappointed with the results, and that's an APS-C sensor. For example, the Canon 22/2 trounced the results I got with the Leica 21/3.4 on the M5. Probably as with Sony, Canon won't be concerned about compatibility of 3rd party lenses. It's in their interest to sell their own lenses. As we've seen with those who adopted Sony, starting out adapting 3rd party lenses, many have transitioned to native glass. Given the depth of EF lenses available and how well most already work adapted to EF-M, I expect the number of alt lens users of the new Canon system will be a very small minority. But I will welcome the ability to use off-brand lenses on such cameras. I just don't expect the system to be optimized for such compatibility....Show more →
Couldn't agree more, I share the same concern. I see Canon FF for me simply as additional option in the market that Sony pricing will be positively affected for consumers.
p.3 #11 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Holger wrote:
Thanks.
How do you like the Batis 25? I have it on my list. I wanted to use the Sigma 24 Art with Metabones, but am not convinced about the reliability of the AF performance under demanding conditions (weddings) according to my testing.
SAR indicates Sigma to announce several lenses next month. Maybe a 24 is included.
Love the 25. Great size and the image quality ( contrast and colours ) are best i’ve seen for this focal length.
My travel kit is the Batis 25 and 85 along with the Sony 35 2.8.
Who says mirrorless doesn’t reduce weight and bulk...my kit is very small and light.
p.3 #12 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
chez wrote:
Love the 25. Great size and the image quality ( contrast and colours ) are best i’ve seen for this focal length.
My travel kit is the Batis 25 and 85 along with the Sony 35 2.8.
Who says mirrorless doesn’t reduce weight and bulk...my kit is very small and light.
I don't really see the weight as a compelling argument to make a switch on FF platform. More or less lenses weigh the same for the two systems. I have 4 primes and 4 zooms and Sony counterpart (same FL and aperture) would not give me any gain.
p.3 #13 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
fplstudio wrote:
I don't really see the weight as a compelling argument to make a switch on FF platform. More or less lenses weigh the same for the two systems. I have 4 primes and 4 zooms and Sony counterpart (same FL and aperture) would not give me any gain.
It was for me. I always travel with 2 cameras for backup and just the savings in weight of the two cameras alone is substantial compared to equivalent DSLR cameras which would be the 5dsr's. Sure the 1.4 lenses are large, but if you can get by with slower lenses like 1.8 or 2.0, then again there is a good weight savings. Take a look at the Batis line like the 18mm which is stellar yet small. Look at the 12-24 and compare to the Canon 11-24...big weight savings. The lens I own, the Sony 35 2.8 is tiny yet great.
You can also get into some really small lenses from the Leica mounts which can be used with an adapter that gives you AF and with the IBIS, really amazing results.
If one wants a compact kit with mirrorless you sure can get one...I just did not have this ability with my Canon DSLR based systems.
54mm - f/2.8 - 1/8sec - ISO 800
Handheld, no flash
Taken with a 12 year old Canon XTi w/ Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
I can assure you, it was no fluke capture. I could expect a handful of keepers working with shutter speeds in that range even with longer focal lengths, such as this one nearly at 55mm.
p.3 #16 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
It is possible to produce quite sharp handheld photographs at relatively low shutter speeds without image-stabilization. However, when we try to push that slow shutter speed boundary, we necessarily decrease the odds of success. And in most cases IS (of any sort) can increase the chances of a relatively steady shot in those boundary conditions.
I also have handheld shots in both categories — surprisingly long handheld exposures without IS that turned out very sharp and others where IS saved the day.
p.3 #17 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
I absolutely agree. My post was intended to be lighthearted. After all, this is the Canon forum, so I could not let the first volley go unanswered
On a more serious note, that old body (XTi) and lens (17-55mm f/2.8) combo happened to be a good one. The lens performed less impressively on my later 7D with its tiny pixels, poor AA filter, and relatively poor high ISO performance.
p.3 #18 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
amacal1 wrote:
I absolutely agree. My post was intended to be lighthearted. After all, this is the Canon forum, so I could not let the first volley go unanswered
On a more serious note, that old body (XTi) and lens (17-55mm f/2.8) combo happened to be a good one. The lens performed less impressively on my later 7D with its tiny pixels, poor AA filter, and relatively poor high ISO performance.
That XTi was the first Canon DSLR I owned. I was considering a move from film to digital at that time (2003?) and had been shooting a variety of very early digital cameras for almost a decade, but more as experiments than as serous photographic tools.
The XTi was inexpensive but had the potential for fine image quality in that era, so I picked one up with a couple of inexpensive lenses and used it for a bit of serious photography. (To this day I regret that the early experiments relied on mediocre lenses. I have a few photographs from that era that I like a lot but which are hampered by some of the lenses I was using — I'll never be able to print them very large.)
I have not owned the EFS 18-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, but I considered it pretty carefully. I was very impressed by the testing of its image quality — it was in the same category as competitive L lenses — and the IS was a definite plus.
By the way, my old XTi may still live on. I gave it to one of my sons and the last time I checked he was still using it occasionally.
p.3 #19 · CR: Canon Sends Invitation For Major Mirrorless Presentation
Not to hijack this thread much further, but it's nice to hear from someone else who appreciates the XTi! It was never the best, but it was the best I could afford at the time. I really cut my teeth on that camera. Mine was stolen, and I decided to move up to a used 7D afterwards. I was surprisingly disappointed with the image quality from the 7D. It took me a while to adjust my technique to compensate, but I was almost never completely satisfied from most images I took with it. I recently sold it and bought a 6D, and I am blissfully living in IQ heaven!
I haven't owned a lot of high quality lenses, but I've had a couple. 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM, 70-200mm f/4L. Hands-down my favorite has been the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It easily tops the lot with respect to color and contrast, and is surprisingly sharp even compared to the primes. The IS was impressive in its day, and still doesn't disappoint compared to newer offerings. Almost all of my "best" images have been taken with that lens.
54mm - f/2.8 - 1/8sec - ISO 800
Handheld, no flash
Taken with a 12 year old Canon XTi w/ Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
I can assure you, it was no fluke capture. I could expect a handful of keepers working with shutter speeds in that range even with longer focal lengths, such as this one nearly at 55mm.
Yes if only all lenses had IS...but unfortunately they don't...and that is where IBIS shines.
