Canon and future of DSLR's

umphotography wrote in post #19325424
So you assume we wont see lens calibration issues with Mirrorless. I would think again. I have see a few posts already about calibration issies and RF lens going back.

I'm not assuming anything and I've read about that as well. I have yet to experience anything on both my EF (all sold) or RF lenses. Not sure of the cause but since it focuses on the sensor technically MFA is not required.

MFA is not that complex because it's not a mechanical adjustment. Just programming so Canon could have left it in I guess but they didn't. I don't really know why some have experienced this issue with ML bodies as I haven't really kept up with it. I don't recall reading about any issues with DSLR's using LV. Often that was used as the base to see how much your PDAF was out. I've used it for that purpose.

Wilt wrote in post #19325426
It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I can't immediately understand 'missed focus' with mirrorless, when the sensor image is what is used for accurate focus determination, unlike the AF sensor distance misposition in the base of the dSLR compared to sensor distance. So it will be interesting to learn if there is some fundamental reason that any missed focus occurs with mirrorless.

Some folks consider MFA an essential feature, yet I have never found missed focus to be occurring with any of the multiple dSLRs owned over the past 2 decades. That some folks have found issue is not necessarily a surprise that it occurs, but the potential for dSLR focus error is a fundamental issue inherent to AF sensor placement vs. image sensor distance. But why 'missed focus' ocurring in mirrorless, driving the need for MFA in mirrorless? Apparently the feature is provided in certain brands of mirrorless, but why is there any need?!

One would think it's either mechanical or electrical mis-calibration of some type. IBIS is new. I think I read some had the boards replaced but not sure if it was for that specific reason. It will be interesting to see how many R3's have this issue. Also any stats out there? Percentage? Only EF or both? How many of each? Adapter problems?

I do know that my 100-400 II needed about +3 on my 7D2. When I put the 1.4 on it needed +13. I think Archibald had the same numbers. My 100-500 and 1.4 is spot on with both my R and R5.

digital paradise wrote in post #19325446
One would think it's either mechanical or electrical mis-calibration of some type. IBIS is new. I think I read some had the boards replaced but not sure if it was for that specific reason. It will be interesting to see how many R3's have this issue. Also any stats out there? Percentage? Only EF or both? How many of each? Adapter problems?

I do know that my 100-400 II needed about +3 on my 7D2. When I put the 1.4 on it needed +13. I think Archibald had the same numbers. My 100-500 and 1.4 is spot on with both my R and R5.

it just occurred to me that 'mirrorless missed focus' might be due to the fact that long used 'manufacturer standard' for visual acuity is NOT up to the scrutiny of the 20/20 US optometric standard, 'manufacturer standard' assumes poorer visual acuity. So if the standard for electronic focus determination uses the far bigger circle of confusion size of 'manufacturer standard', the achieved focus might well be 'within the defective vision' standard, but it is neveretheless missing the 20/20 visual acuity standard which is needed, especially when folks zoom in to assess precision of focus!

For example, 50mm f/2 focusing at 20' distance, manufacturer standard DOF is 6.3' total depth, while 20/20 DOF is only 2' total depth. So if a lens was misfocused to 2.2' behind the focus plane, the substandard eye using manufacturer standard says 'within DOF' while the 20/20 eye says 'missed focus'!

As TeamSpeed said there may be a little of this too for people going into higher megapixels. Caught me off guard a bit. Hope you are OK with me using your excellent graphic.

digital paradise wrote in post #19325473
As TeamSpeed said there may be a little of this too for people going into higher megapixels. Caught me off guard a bit. Hope you are OK with me using your excellent graphic.

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=193​25473&i=i57538275
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

I did a spreadsheet some time ago (not kept up to date)...assuming you look on a 2560x1440 27" monitor:

• looking at 6DII image at 100% is looking at a 40X enlargement
  
• looking at a 5DS image at 100% is looking at a 55X enlargement
  

It's just a big eff you to all the Ef Mount people. Think of all the money invested in lenses that will just be garbage at that point. There is not a big reason to change the Mount. They do it for money only. Will there be an announcement when they put out the last dslr? Because I'll surely buy a fresh on for my lens collection.

Frodge wrote in post #19325549
It's just a big eff you to all the Ef Mount people. Think of all the money invested in lenses that will just be garbage at that point. There is not a big reason to change the Mount. They do it for money only. Will there be an announcement when they put out the last dslr? Because I'll surely buy a fresh on for my lens collection.

Couple points, first, EF lenses are not rendered useless on the new R mount cameras. They work just as before with adapter. Second, the reason for the mount change is that the flange focal distance changes due to there no longer being a mirror to account for. This allows both the body and lens to be smaller and lighter without sacrificing image quality..

umphotography wrote in post #19325346
My opinion

The MFG's cannot make enough improvements for sensor technology to continue to sell DSLrs and remain profitable. So, they are forced to put new advancements with technology like Eye focus and object focus into a body that you have to purchase if you want to use that technology.

Canon decided to change the mount and incorporate all new technology into the new cameras. End of story

Canons top of the line DSLR's are very very good. The sensors on them are very very good. But if you want a camera that has the new features like auto eye focus and auto focus for objects like birds and cars....you are now forced to buy the new mirrorless cameras.

Keep in mind.....for sensor technology and improvements....there is virtually no difference in performance. We are talking about 1/2 - 3/4 stop improvement on the mirrorless sensors. Canons 1Dx3 and 5D4 sensors areas good as an R6/R5 for sensor performance. Maybe a 1/2 stop difference when you compare at the sensor size......20-23Mp and 30-45Mp.....not a hell of a lot there.

As for the glass. I think the RF glass is better.....but not by a lot unless you compare specific lens like the RF50

The RF85 v/s the 85 1.4......not a lot there.
But Canon will do things like adding IS to a RF24-70 v/s a EF 24-70

Some of the new technology is really good.....that doesnt mean the older technology is really bad

The DSLR is dead because canon and others cant stay in business and continue to market with DSLRs

Mirrorless forces photographers to buy into the new systems if they want to stay in the photography business...Nothing more

I agree with all of what you are saying. My gripe is that Canon should continue to service dslr cameras and lenses for many years to come. It's unfair to just say screw you, we are moving on. I could buy parts for my 1970 beetle at a VW dealer into the 2000s. I already can't buy batteries for a t3i rebel. Not good. If it were jus the bodies that would be one thing. But they're basically telling you all your glass is useless too. Leaves me with a real bad taste in my mouth. How long do you folks think they'll continue to make prosumer dslrs? Will they let people know before the end is near? Just to preserve my glass investment I'd buy another body when the time rolls around. How long will they service the bodies for?

I personally know several people who are truly bitter about some of the new mirrorless tech (ie. eye-AF) making it too easy for beginners. Ironically, these are also the same people that claim their skill, and not their gear, is what makes them a professional. You can't have it both ways.

My overly simplified thought on this entire move from DSLRs to mirrorless is that if you want to be taking pictures for the next 20+years, and care at all about using current technology, you might as well start making the shift now. It's frivolous to complain about the changes or point out what should or shouldn't be done. Regardless of the reason manufacturers are leaving behind DSLRs, or how betrayed you may feel, it's still happening.

Frodge wrote in post #19325566
I agree with all of what you are saying. My gripe is that Canon should continue to service dslr cameras and lenses for many years to come. It's unfair to just say screw you, we are moving on. I could buy parts for my 1970 beetle at a VW dealer into the 2000s. I already can't buy batteries for a t3i rebel. Not good. If it were jus the bodies that would be one thing. But they're basically telling you all your glass is useless too. Leaves me with a real bad taste in my mouth. How long do you folks think they'll continue to make prosumer dslrs? Will they let people know before the end is near? Just to preserve my glass investment I'd buy another body when the time rolls around. How long will they service the bodies for?

But Canon said they no longer serviced the 5D (classic) years ago, well before they had decided to take a share of the mirrorless market from Sony. It was not turning their back on EF in favor of RF that led to that announcement of discontinued service support.

I had a Sony digital video camera that was no longer supported by Sony for accessories or repairs, many, many years ago. Same issue for Sony noise cancelling headphones. So Canon is not alone in abandonment of users of their products.

And Canon is not unique in abandoning a lens mount as the product line evolves. Pentax screw mount abandoned for Pentax K mount. Multiple mechanical lens mounts abandoned for digital linkage lenses. Olympus OM mount abandoned for 4/3 mount. Nikon F mount transition to E mount. Canon EF mount has had a life of just about 35 years.

My FF mirrorless can
- use IBIS with all my non IS lenses
- show me my exposure in the VF before I even take a shot
- focus peak for my manual lenses and macro shots, superior to OVF manual focusing
- do eye and object AF and tracking
- shoot 20fps
- use all of my EF and EFS lenses
- show me the scene even in nearly total darkness through the VF
- allow me the luxury to review images even in the brightest of days with overhead sun
- allow fully working AF with my 100-400 and 1.4 or 2x or other very slow combinations that even give a 1d series fits
- no need so far for AFMA


My DSLR FF canon do any of these things.

I've been on the sidelines with photography for a couple years, sadly. Are there conversion mounts not only for the r but to the Rf from ef mount? How about ef to m?

The R, Rp, R5, R6, and R3 are RF Mount, and yes there are adapters that allow EF and EFS lenses to mounted. No, there is no way to use EFM lenses on the R bodies and no way to use RF lenses on the M series.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19325709
The R, Rp, R5, R6, and R3 are RF Mount, and yes there are adapters that allow EF and EFS lenses to mounted. No, there is no way to use EFM lenses on the R bodies and no way to use RF lenses on the M series.

I suspect the M mount cameras were an interim solution when Canon recognized that they were seriously behind in mirrorless development. I would be surprised if they continued to expand the M mount lineup. I believe the last M mount lens was introduced in 2018 and I have not sen any rumors of any new ones in the works.

I don’t agree, the M bodies have been around a very long time, with something like maybe eight different models. It is a very mature line and was wildly popular, and still is. The M50 was the first apsc mirrorless with eye AF too, when introduced with the Rp.

I don’t consider a decade long offering an interim solution.