Does Sony's success open the door for Canon?

ksbal wrote in post #17885573
Personally, I'm not for a million af points on the screen. I want a nice selection I can use different zone settings, covering much of the area as possible.. but I don't need hundreds. Love to see where I could select MY wanted AF points, in any combo, and then roll thru them on a dial. Like my own custom AF layout. THAT would be exceptional and fast. There are times I need the camera to do all the af for me, but many times I know where I want that point of focus at. Most of the time I don't need or want a zillion, and they get in the way when there are too many.. being able to select a sub set, and roll thru them is my ideal camera.

The Sony's have such a high number of AF points because the AF points span the entire frame, and because they provide a greater density of AF points when tracking, and thus, are able to make smaller, more precise movements when tracking.

That said, in real use, you're usually designating AF zones or movable AF points that you can toggle to different sizes. A small point is limited to 1 PDAF point, medium is a cluster of points, and large is a larger cluster of points. Personally since I shoot primarily portraiture, I don't mess with AF points at all and rely primarily on continuous eye focus and face detect. When not shooting portraiture, I use lock-on focus to acquire the subject via the center-point....and let the AF system lock onto my subject as I frame the shot. As these AF systems grow ever more intelligent, toggling through AF points is growing ever more antiquated.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17885324
EVFs have viewfinder lag. OVFs have mirror lag and mirror slap. Pick your poison.

1. EVFs have not been free of shutter jar; dpreview.com writes, about the A7R, "Of course, image shake and shutter shock or motion blur did affect some of our images before we adjusted our expectations."
   
2. The newest A7RII has been improved from previous cameras for shutter lag, " Even shutter lag has been impressively minimized to Nikon DSLR levels."...pointing to the fact some shutter lag has indeed been an issue on earlier EVFs from Sony!
   
3. As for responsiveness, dpreview states, about the A7and A7R, "The shutter sound of the Sony a7 and a7R have earned a lot of ink, and for good reason: It's noticeable, whether the room is empty or politely occupied. What's probably not been said is that it's not just loud, but slow. Even at 1/8,000 second, it seems like the camera is taking its sweet time."
   

Eye focus was tried in a Canon camera long ago, and later abandoned. Even in the newest A7RII, dpreview.com assesses its AF and describes as Cons:

• No direct AF point control
  
• Lock-on AF still remains unpredictable and often unreliable
  
• Camera focuses stopped down in AF-C, often crippling AF at small apertures or in low light
  
• Eye-AF and Lock-on AF not available with 3rd party lenses, nor in video
  ...
  
• Viewfinder eye sensor is over-sensitive
  

I will be the first to acknowledge that the perfect camera for every enthusiast looking for a full frame camera probably does not exist. That does not preclude the need to identify the shortcomings of ANY product placed on the market, so the consumer can make intelligent choices in advance, rather than suffering the purchase of a 'wrong product for me' and incurring loss of money in later selling it on the used market.

mystik610 wrote in post #17885458
Regarding EVF lag....

A display technology that can eliminate perceivable lag in the EVF already exists: OLED displays...which Sony already uses in their mirrorless cameras. LCD's have been the dominant display technology for a while, and as such, have been what most have been accustomed to regarding response time, but response time has always been one of LCD's many shortcomings. The fastest LCD response times clock in at 1ms which is already faster than the eye can perceive., but current OLED's are achieving response times below .01ms.

Given that a fast enough display technology is already in place, the challenge now is to further optimize the pipeline between the image sensor and the EVF to eliminate any perceivable display lag. Accomplishing this is a matter of increasing sensor read-out speeds and beefing up the cameras processor....both of which will be resolved over time if we have any faith in moore's law.

Also....minimizing the amount of processing of the live view image can greatly reduce EVF lag even in existing mirrorless cameras. If EVF lag is an issue, just turn live view display off.

The detriment of viewfinder lag is unique to sports and wildlife photography. But sports and wildlife photography do not represent the entirety of professional photography. As you mentioned it is a non-issue for landscapers, but it is also a non-issue for wedding, portrait, studio....any photography that isn't sports and wildlife. Beyond that, having exposure preview and things like focus peaking, zebra patterns, etc etc offer distinct advantages that cannot be achieved with an OVF

But what about the fact that even the viewfinder image is electronic (I deliberately preclude the display on the back of the camera)...it suffers from the inherent delay of RAW-to-JPG conversion, followed by the refresh rate of any electronic display (60 Hz). That refresh rate does NOT go away with OLED, the tendency for some LCD displays to have 'ghosting' might be relieved, but all -- LCD and LED and OLED -- have the refresh of the display that HAS TO occur...once every 60 sec. (today), perhaps faster (e.g. 120Hz) in the future.

Wilt wrote in post #17885619

1. EVFs have not been free of shutter jar; dpreview.com writes, about the A7R, "Of course, image shake and shutter shock or motion blur did affect some of our images before we adjusted our expectations."
   
2. The newest A7RII has been improved from previous cameras for shutter lag, " Even shutter lag has been impressively minimized to Nikon DSLR levels."...pointing to the fact some shutter lag has indeed been an issue on earlier EVFs from Sony!
   
3. As for responsiveness, dpreview states, about the A7and A7R, "The shutter sound of the Sony a7 and a7R have earned a lot of ink, and for good reason: It's noticeable, whether the room is empty or politely occupied. What's probably not been said is that it's not just loud, but slow. Even at 1/8,000 second, it seems like the camera is taking its sweet time."
   

Shutter shock is eliminated with the implementation of an electronic first curtain shutter in the a7II/a7rII. An electronic first and second curtain shutter is also available for a truly silent and 'still' shutter.

The a6300 announced just yesterday has reduced shutter lag/black-out significantly and is as fast as DSLR's in this regard (last part of this video: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=83ZSD-zj73A)

Wilt wrote in post #17885619
[LIST=1]
Eye focus was tried in a Canon camera long ago, and later abandoned. Even in the newest A7RII, dpreview.com assesses its AF and describes as Cons:

• No direct AF point control
  
• Lock-on AF still remains unpredictable and often unreliable
  
• Camera focuses stopped down in AF-C, often crippling AF at small apertures or in low light
  
• Eye-AF and Lock-on AF not available with 3rd party lenses, nor in video
  ...
  
• Viewfinder eye sensor is over-sensitive
  

The Canon implementation of eye-focus used the metering sensor to try to detect the eye...the problem is that the metering sensor is extremely low resolution (fractions of a megapixel) and not very reliable at detecting objects in the frame. Because mirrorless cameras can use a combination of PDAF and CDAF via live view, the AF system has the entirety of the image sensors pixels at its disposal to intelligently find and track objects in the frame. Hence, a much more reliable implementation of eye focus than is possible when the image sensor is blocked by the mirror.

Works phenomenally well when shooting portraits, and is personally a game changer...hit rate is damn near 100% and not having to mess with AF points lets me focus on composition, interacting with my subject, and timing key moments and expressions.

Eye focus is the first sign of the great deal potential available to an AF system that can intelligently find and track objects in the frame. Very interested in seeing what comes out of this next.

Quick test of eye focus I did when I first got the a7rII:

Wilt wrote in post #17885619
I will be the first to acknowledge that the perfect camera for every enthusiast looking for a full frame camera probably does not exist. That does not preclude the need to identify the shortcomings of ANY product placed on the market, so the consumer can make intelligent choices in advance, rather than suffering the purchase of a 'wrong product for me' and incurring loss of money in later selling it on the used market.

This is true on both sides. Though we've grown accustomed to them and have even ingrained their limitations into fundamental photography techniques, DSLR's have their own set of weaknesses and limitations. Mirrorless cameras have been able to resolve many of these weaknesses, while also bringing distinct advantages to the table As such, mirrorless camearas are worth considering for both hobbyist AND professional use.

Wilt wrote in post #17885626
But what about the fact that even the viewfinder image is electronic (I deliberately preclude the display on the back of the camera)...it suffers from the inherent delay of RAW-to-JPG conversion, followed by the refresh rate of any electronic display (60 Hz). That refresh rate does NOT go away with OLED, the tendency for some LCD displays to have 'ghosting' might be relieved, but all -- LCD and LED and OLED -- have the refresh of the display that HAS TO occur...once every 60 sec. (today), perhaps faster (e.g. 120Hz) in the future.

The solution is exactly as you described it....higher refresh rates. If the refresh rate is sufficiently high enough, the the blur will not be perceivable. Its very hard to perceive any blur with modern 120hz and 240hz TV's with very large screens, and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't expect the same to one day be possible on a tiny OLED screen.

mystik610 wrote in post #17885672
The solution is exactly as you described it....higher refresh rates. If the refresh rate is sufficiently high enough, the the blur will not be perceivable. Its very hard to perceive any blur with modern 120hz and 240hz TV's with very large screens, and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't expect the same to one day be possible on a tiny OLED screen.

The issue absolutely isn't 'blur'...the issue is that for any moving object, its relationship to its surroundings (as seen in the viewfinder) will be different than it was at 1/30-1/60 earlier in time, which is where any EVF would be depicting the subject to be.
Fast subjects are more in error in their relationship (e.g. 90 mph race car is 26.4" past the finish line although the EVF shows it AT the fininsh line, so after any shutter lag the race car is really >27" past the finish line when I see it in the EVF at the finish line) and capture it on the sensor.
Slower objects (a 100m dash sprinter) might be only 1/4 of that error and even slower objects (a toddler's hand) might be only 1/6 of that error, but the error is real and cannot go away entirely due to processing speeds and EVF update rate.

Reduce the refresh rate (to 120 Hz) and the error in space is cut to one-half of 26.4".

• 13.2" EVF error in the case of the race car at 90 mph crossing finish line
  
• 6.6" EVF error in the case of the sprinter at 23 mph running across finish line
  
• 4.4" EVF error in the case of the toddler at about 16 mph movement of hand
  

Wilt wrote in post #17885688
The issus isn't 'blur'...the issue is that for any moving object, its relationship to its surroundings (as captured in the frame) will be different than it was at 1/30-1/60 earlier in time, which is where any EVF would be depicting the subject to be.
Fast subjects are more in error in their relationship (e.g. 90 mph race car is 26.4" past the finish line although the EVF shows it AT the fininsh line, so after any shutter lag the race car is >27" past the finish line when it opens for the exposure.
Slower objects (a 100m dash sprinter) might be only 1/4 of that error and even slower objects (a toddler) might be only 1/6 of that error, but the error is real and cannot go away entirely due to processing speeds and EVF update rate.

Actually when viewing an object via the viewfinder, the difference between the subjects actual position and their position in the viewfinder is irrelevant. In terms of timing the shot, all that matters is the position of the subject in the live view monitor portrayed in the viewfinder as that's what the camera will see when you open the shutter. But yes, the lag can screw up your timing if you're for instance looking at an object with your eyes, then quickly bringing up the viewfinder. Again this can be resolved simply by moore's law: faster processors and faster refresh rates are an inevitability, and just like anything else digital, the hardware will at some point evolve to a point where the lag between the image on the screen and reality will not be perceivable.

I agree that shutter lag has always forced us to anticipate the peak of action (high jumper arching over the bar). With EVF we have to understand that where we see the high jumper relative to his surroundings is actually at least 1/60 sec. later in the EVF than reality, so we have to add that delay to our anticipation of the peak of action.

mystik610 wrote in post #17885203
Circling back to your question about whether Sony has opened the door for Canon or not....the ability to use Canon lenses on a mirrorless body is not unique to Canon anymore, as Sony has unlocked that capability in the a7rII, a7II, and now the a6300. As such, Canon cannot capture the mirrorless market by simply leveraging their DSLR lenses alone. Photogs tied down with thousands of dollars of Canon EF lenses are no longer tied down to Canon cameras, and many have already left Canon cameras and brought their Canon lenses with them. The progression of mirrorless technology will accelerate the market's shift towards mirrorless cameras. Given the current trajectory, mirrorless cameras at some point will surpass the performance of DSLR's, and the winners in this new space will not necessarily be determined by the status quo in the DSLR space.

So if/when Canon brings a FF mirrorless camera to market, it absolutely needs to be competitive in all of the areas the Sony has had a head-start of several years to refine: On-sensor autofocus performance, image sensor performance, EVF performance, in body image stabilization etc etc etc. The assumption is that Canon will nail it on their first try....I'm personally skeptical because nothing we've seen of Canon's current camera and sensor offerings indicates that this will be the case, and because Canon has already stumbled out of the gate three times with the EOS-M. Meanwhile, Sony is raising the bar higher and higher year over year as they continue to bring innovations that push the technology forward as they did today (a6300).

I would argue that the reason many have left Canon bodies, but not their lenses, is because Canon hasn't offered a compelling solution for them. Naturally I can't speak for you or anyone else, but all things being equal, I would assume most people would choose a native option vs an adapted one. One less link in the chain, and no worries about which lenses will work and how well.

Very much agree with your second paragraph, although I'm hopeful to see something exciting come out of Canon if for no other reason than to keep Sony on their toes and innovating.

Wilt wrote in post #17885224
Nightdiver, I think a key question behind the issue of whether or not Canon should try to directly compete with its own EVF offering, is whether or not it is necessary for any company (Canon, Nikon, Sony) to compete in all segments of the camera business, even if it uses some lines to merely be 'feeders' to its mainline product(s). One way of looking at that question is whether it is more expensive to try to enter a market subsegment vs. the financial returns of doing so. Thus far it seems that while there is a definite subsegment for EVF, the segment has stalled in its growth. Why? If a momentary leveling of demand, in the long term it could make sense to enter that market. But if other external forces account for the stagnancy, maybe it is a segment best left alone by Canon.

Just as BMW and Mercedes do not bother to compete in the $20-25K sedan segment, leaving it to others, perhaps Canon's well established dSLR market among pros and enthusiasts might net a greater return for the same $1 invested in EVF. The bean counters at Canon might be behind Canon's apparent reluctance to chase the EVF segment, after all, the EOS-M was not a success (even if hobbled by Canon's own decisions), would a fourth time be a charm -- enough to chase it yet again?

OTOH, if EVF is an product alternative using different technology, and can knock the dSLR off its throne, Canon is foolish not to pursue it. But, as I have pointed out via the EVF lag post, it cannot displace dSLR fully. While I identified two such cases (NLB, race cars), that same issue can also exist for birders attempting to track flying speedsters. No doubt there are others for whom any display lag is inferior to the purely optical viewfinder. And screen refresh rates in the EVF can be speeded to some degree, but the RAW-to-JPG chain leading to EVF update hampers it as well. The Pellicle proved to be inadequate for Canon to establish that technology for reatime optical viewfinder -- in spite of three tries there, too! Perhaps the EVF has a similar issue, limiting it to the amateur market that can live with inherent viewfinder lag.

Thanks for the response Wilt. Some good points in there for sure. Although I'd say the failure of the Eos-M had little to nothing to do with EVF vs OVF, and everything to do with a pathetic native lens library, lack of marketing in the US, and lack of performance in relation to other offerings.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #17885967
I would argue that the reason many have left Canon bodies, but not their lenses, is because Canon hasn't offered a compelling solution for them. Naturally I can't speak for you or anyone else, but all things being equal, I would assume most people would choose a native option vs an adapted one. One less link in the chain, and no worries about which lenses will work and how well.

All things being equal, then yes I suspect most people will stick to their native brand on the grounds of familiarity with the brand alone (for practical purposes, there's no such thing as a native brand when you start adapting lenses), but as we've seen with the EOS-M vs the Sony mirrrorless cameras, consumers will favor the better performing product regardless of the brand. Consumers in the prosumer and professional space are very well informed, and branding alone doesn't mean a whole lot if its inconsistent with the performance of the actual products....particular​ly once the strangle grip on lens mounts have been relieved with the adaptability of lenses.

The million dollar question is can Canon catch up to Sony, who in the mirrorless space and in the realm of sensor development is pushing the envelope year over year? It's anyone's guess, but based on what we've seen historically, I'm not confident in Canon's ability to do so. We'll see when Canon brings their horse to the mirrorless race later this year.

mystik610 wrote in post #17886093
The million dollar question is can Canon catch up to Sony, who in the mirrorless space and in the realm of sensor development is pushing the envelope year over year? It's anyone's guess, but based on what we've seen historically, I'm not confident in Canon's ability to do so. We'll see when Canon brings their horse to the mirrorless race later this year.

history has shown that Poor #2 Canon caught up with Dominant #1 pro film SLR Nikon to take over, with the EOS line of bodies and cameras, after trailing for decades. So it is not inconceivable that Canon beat Sony 'at its own game' since they have taken over once before.
More Nikon share was lost to Canon when the Canon dSLR had its low noise high ISO, and Nikon loyalists changed their camera system from Nikon to Canon.
However, keep in mind that the EVF market is STALLED in growth, just as the dSLR market is stalled, too. There might not be a reason for Canon to invest heavily in a segment of the industry doomed to a limited growth market.

Wilt wrote in post #17886125
history has shown that Poor #2 Canon caught up with Dominant #1 pro film SLR Nikon to take over, with the EOS line of bodies and cameras, after trailing for decades. So it is not inconceivable that Canon beat Sony 'at its own game' since they have taken over once before.
More Nikon share was lost to Canon when the Canon dSLR had its low noise high ISO, and Nikon loyalists changed their camera system from Nikon to Canon.
However, keep in mind that the EVF market is STALLED in growth, just as the dSLR market is stalled, too. There might not be a reason for Canon to invest heavily in a segment of the industry doomed to a limited growth market.

DSLR sales are declining year over year, while mirrorless cameras sales are actually growing year over year, so while the camera market overall is shrinking, there is a shift within what's left of the camera market towards mirrorless cameras:

http://www.dpreview.co​m …us-mirrorless-sales-surge

This means two different things for Sony and Canikon.

For Sony it represents a growth opportunity in an emerging market which, unlike the DSLR market, is relatively uncontested. They've invested heavily in the development of new cameras and sensors, and increasing their production capabilities by buying competitive sensor manufacturers and it has paid off. Their imaging products division has experienced growing margins year over year.

For Canon, who has a large share of the camera market due to their position in the DSLR space, the shift towards mirrorless markets represents something entirely different: a threat. Mirrorless are largely replacement products for DSLR's, and investing heavily to capture the mirrorless market would simply cannibalize their existing position in the DSLR space, as they'd have two products going after the same product segments. So heavy investment for little or no incremental margin.

In this context you can see why Sony has the motivation to innovate and Canon does not. Of course, a case can be made that Canon needs to make long-term moves to protect their position in the market overall, but large publicly traded companies like Canon favor padding margins in the short-term vs establishing long-term market positions. Canon seems to have more interest in doing things like the 1 billion dollar Axis (security company) acquisition than bringing a proper mirrorless camera to the market. (can't really fault them there actually).

Wilt wrote in post #17885619

1. EVFs have not been free of shutter jar; dpreview.com writes, about the A7R, "Of course, image shake and shutter shock or motion blur did affect some of our images before we adjusted our expectations."
   
2. The newest A7RII has been improved from previous cameras for shutter lag, " Even shutter lag has been impressively minimized to Nikon DSLR levels."...pointing to the fact some shutter lag has indeed been an issue on earlier EVFs from Sony!
   
3. As for responsiveness, dpreview states, about the A7and A7R, "The shutter sound of the Sony a7 and a7R have earned a lot of ink, and for good reason: It's noticeable, whether the room is empty or politely occupied. What's probably not been said is that it's not just loud, but slow. Even at 1/8,000 second, it seems like the camera is taking its sweet time."
   

yes, Sony has improved its products over time, but being an EVF does NOT inherently relieve the EVF design of so-called issues of reflex optical cameras.

In other words, the lack of a reflex mirror action in the body does NOT INHERENTLY make for a faster responding camera to the press of the shutter button. And even truly fast cameras like the Canon Pellix or Canon RT with no mirror action at all have proved that speed alone does not a success in the marketplace make, in the long term.

I said mirror slap and mirror lag, not shutter. Shutter vibration can be completely eliminated with electronic shutters, while shutter lag can be greatly improved. Taking away the movement removes the technical limitation - that it hasn't been completely removed yet is a matter of implementation rather than an inherent limitation. With a mirror, you'll always have mirror slap and mirror lag, regardless of what you do to the rest of the system.

You're talking about two different definitions of 'eye focus'.

Canon's version (and something that would be incredibly useful, if it could be implemented better) was a means of focus point selection.

Sony's version - and something that can only be implemented with a through-the-sensor (live view or EVF) approach - is not a means of focus point selection, but a setting whereby the camera will automatically focus on the nearest detected eye within the scene. Which is ripe for refinement into a zone-based approach (nearest eye within a particular part of the frame) or expanded to include animal, not just human eyes.

mystik610 wrote in post #17886317
DSLR sales are declining year over year, while mirrorless cameras sales are actually growing year over year, so while the camera market overall is shrinking, there is a shift within what's left of the camera market towards mirrorless cameras:

http://www.dpreview.co​m …us-mirrorless-sales-surge

The June 2015 comment on nikonrumors does not seem to supoort your above contention: "DSLR sales are falling down - we all know that, but mirrorless cameras shipments appear to be generally flat since 2013 and mirrorless still represents only a fraction of the DSLR market." And here is the graph that accompanied that statement:

mystik610 wrote in post #17886317
In this context you can see why Sony has the motivation to innovate and Canon does not. Of course, a case can be made that Canon needs to make long-term moves to protect their position in the market overall, but large publicly traded companies like Canon favor padding margins in the short-term vs establishing long-term market positions. Canon seems to have more interest in doing things like the 1 billion dollar Axis (security company) acquisition than bringing a proper mirrorless camera to the market. (can't really fault them there actually).

Sony's motivation to create a new segment (EVF) is simply that Nikon and Canon have too much of a command of the dSLR market. When you have a hard time winning market share, make your products appear 'different' and 'better' in the buying community. Marketing 101, and what they teach in every business school.

In the traditional SLR world, Nikon largely had a strong grip on share, and Canon took advantage of the EOS line with its electronic lenses to differentiate itself from Nikon. The rest is history, but in the case of electronic SLRs and lenses, they were a true substitute technology for the traditional mechanical lenses and bodies. Ih the case of EVF there are some significant obstacles to still overcome before the EVF is in everyone's hands...viewfinder lag is inherent to an electronic viewfinder.

The mirrorless circlejerk is strong in this thread. I predict that DSLR vs. mirrorless will go the same route as DSLR vs. Rangefinder. Each has its own purposes. To trumpet one over the other and exaggerate a mass exodus is writing a fictional narrative. Canon has maintained 43% market share, Nikon has dropped 2% and Sony has picked up 2% over the past two years to reach 14% this year.

As of october, Canon market share is 43%, Nikon 31%, Sony 14%
http://www.dslrbodies.​com …cing-pricing-pricing.html
The plateau in all ilc sales, both dslr and mirrorless, is due to market saturation.
http://www.dslrbodies.​com …-final-2015-shipment.html
Mirrorless is stronger in Asia than Americas and Europe. Chinese market is down this year:
http://www.dslrbodies.​com …ews/regional-cameras.html