Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.18 #1 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's what I hear. Also, while it is true that Sony sensors have produced somewhat larger DR, the significance of this is sometimes exaggerated. Basically, all modern sensors do quite well in this regard, even if they are not precisely equal. To my mind (and YMMV) the difference in DR performance is real but small... and arguably offset by other real but small differences, such as the ability to get a 50MP sensor instead of a 42MP sensor.
To be clear, my point is that both are real differences... and that neither is likely to be definitive in all but a very few cases... and among those cases the difference could suggest going either direction.
Or, to put it more simply...there are a lot of really good cameras from a variety of manufacturers these days.
It seems to me the you are making three points here. First, excellent lenses have to available as the cameras are introduced ("NEED TO BE READY not coming soon"), that Canon should learn from Sony about lens pricing and not apply "stupid price(s)" for native lenses unless "it's a killer," and that Canon needs a "surefire product" rather than a "half asses" attempt.
There are a few things to consider in all of that.
Lets start with the second point about learning from Sony, who took an unusual (unprecedented?) approach to introducing their full-frame mirrorless products — an approach that was diametrically opposed to your other two points. (To be clear, I think that Sony's marketing department made brilliant decisions regarding how to introduce a new mirrorless system given their "outsider" status at that time by comparison to Nikon and Canon.)
Sony introduced its full frame mirrorless system with virtually no native lenses, not only relying on adapting DSLR lenses, but relying on adapting lenses from another manufacturer who was their main target! That was a very smart and successful strategy for Sony, as it encouraged Canon-using photographers to give Sony a try without having to buy new lenses. (Sony also had the highest MP full frame sensor at that time, creating an additional attraction to Canon users, especially those who were least likely to be put off by the AF issues.)
For several reasons, that strategy is unavailable to Canon. Canon, in fact, must quickly provide its own Canon-branded lenses for the new system. Canon's decision was to start like Sony did by providing (free!) an adapter (several, actually, some with added functionality) that allows current Canon users to bring their existing lenses along for the transition to mirrorless. Canon has been "learning from Sony" when it comes to reducing the initial lens costs to as low as zero for those who want to try the first R bodies.
Not only is Canon "learning from Sony" here, but Canon is arguably going Sony one (or two) better. Word on the street is that existing Canon EF lenses work as well or better on the R cameras with adapters. (That was not universally true with adapted lenses at the Sony introduction.) At the same time, Canon is quickly introducing new R-mount lenses — the pace of introductions is unprecedented — that hit almost all the major lens type expectations and so far have all equalled or exceeded the performance levels of the EF predecessors. (You'll have to adapt your TS and super-tales for a while longer.)
The third point ("... Canon needs to gamble with a surefire product not a half assed attempt...") suggests that it is worth going back and remembering another element of Sony's introduction of full frame mirrorless cameras. While I would not go so far as to call them "half assed attempts," the initial A7r body was not exactly a mature, "surefire product." At the time, there were quite a few issues — many of which have since been addressed — including poor AF performance with the adapted lenses that were required by those cameras, a user interface that was largely regarded as sub-par, and so on.
That being noted (the "that" being that Sony's initial introductory attempt was anything but a mature product), Canon cannot introduce a product that is only as mature as the introductory versions of the Sony full frame cameras — Sony was the aspiring outsider, but Canon is introducing theirs as the well-known and established biggest player. Their initial products have to be as good as or better than comparable products in their existing line-up. Canon has been pretty clear that mirrorless replacements for all DSLR product levels are in the pipeline... but that they won't be introduced until they achieve that level of performance.
There is a lot to learn from the Sony introduction. As an outsider to the high end camera market trying to gain a hold there, Sony's strategy was brilliant: Introduce a body type that no one else was making, give it the then-highest MP sensor, allow easy and inexpensive adaptation of existing lenses owned by potential buyers in your target market, move fast with a body that may not have been perfect but which attracted early adopter types. I still say that Sony's approach to this should be a case study in marketing studies.
Canon could not do that — if the A7r cameras had come with a Canon label (and then-available Canon 22MP sensors) they would have been a failure, to the point that they might have set the mirrorless market as a whole back for years.* The interface that early Sony adopters accepted would have been roundly criticized if Canon had supplied it. The initial problems with adapted lenses would have been unacceptable to the point of near-scandal. Canon could not introduce that sort of product... which is a good part of why they have been slower to bring mirrorless systems and corresponding lenses to market. But now, at least by the normal time-scales of the photography equipment business, they are moving with extreme speed to bring out an entire system of bodies and lenses.
This is NOT a "Canon versus Sony — Camera Wars!" post. Please note that a) none of this is meant to deride Sony (read two paragraphs up again if you think it is), b) that both companies make very good products that photographers are using to produce excellent work, and c) Canon is not perfect in all things.
Dan
* Case in point. Look at the current criticisms from some quarters of the Canon mirrorless introductions... cameras that are objectively far more mature than those initial Sony introductions. ...Show more →
Dan, I think your long response at the end of this post is excellent. Thank you for that.
I do want to respond to this statement, however:
"Also, while it is true that Sony sensors have produced somewhat larger DR, the significance of this is sometimes exaggerated. Basically, all modern sensors do quite well in this regard, even if they are not precisely equal. To my mind (and YMMV) the difference in DR performance is real but small... and arguably offset by other real but small differences, such as the ability to get a 50MP sensor instead of a 42MP sensor."
The problem with this response, IMO, is that it completely lacks any proportionality. According to Bill Claff's photons to photos site the Nikon D850, Z7, and the Sony A7r III all have over 1.8 stops more dynamic range than the Canon 5DS or 5Dsr. These are photographic stops so that mean in high DR situations the other cameras can handle over 340% more light than the Canon. I don't think you can call that a small difference using any sensible criteria, over 340% just isn't small. Now maybe a given photographer doesn't shoot in high DR environments much, or when they do they are comfortable using variable grad filters or blending, but, IMO, calling a difference that large small just isn't sensible. By the way, note that Canon has really drastically shrunk that difference with the 5D MK IV and 1DX II at 64% and 128% respectively. Still a fairly big difference but much much smaller than 340%.
Now contrast that with the differences in resolution. On the long side the Canon 5Ds or 5Dsr has 8688 pixels. The Nikon D850 has 8,256 pixels and the Sony A7r III has 7,952 pixels. That is a resolution advantage for the Canon of 5% over the Nikons and 8% over the Sony in linear resolution. You can probably print 5-8% bigger or crop 5-8% more with the Canon. It is a big silly, however, to equate 5-8% greater resolution with 340% greater ability to handle light in high DR situations as if they are both small. They obvious are nowhere near the same size difference in terms of percentage if you understand the math that underlies both measurements. Now to some people the small in percentage terms resolution may equate to the large in percentage terms ability to handle light in high DR situations, because for them resolution matters a lot more than ability to handle light in high DR situations--perhaps because they don't shoot in high DR situations hardly ever. In an absolute sense, however, one of these differences is very large and one of these differences is quite small and in my view they should not both be talked about as small.
|
