• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Rumours about Canon mirrorless...


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#41 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,353 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 22 May 2017 - 02:49 PM

FWIW, for a more realistic market perspective the B&H Best Seller list is probably a better reflection of reality:

https://www.bhphotov...00&N=4288586281

 

Although you still have to scroll for quite a while to find Canon there. At least the M5 beats the YI M1 in this list ;-)


Chief Editor
photozone.de

#42 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 22 May 2017 - 02:50 PM

Following your argument there are a magnitude more YI M1 users than EOS M5/M6 users out there. Even the Nikon 1 J5 outperforms those two cameras by a margin then. I'm stunned by Canon's success in the US then ...  :D

The price of that J5 is low now. The EOS M was nr 3 for some time in the US too, when its price was low. The Canon M3 and M10 both sell more in that list than the J5. 



#43 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:14 PM

dave, with calipers you can't measure down to 0.01 mm reliably. I should take the converter which is neither worn out or malfunctioning to the grinding-lab where they can measure down to 0.1 µm and find out how parallel it really is. Again, even given  perfect manufacturing, an adapter is always only second best. If you enjoy  little read about that:

  I read it, Roger is a knowledgeable man no doubt, when he tests multiple lenses for centering /resolution and reports back his percentages of de-centering, you know your unlikely to get the best lens of the bunch, yet you still buy lenses......

       

     ...same with adapters, buy try keep/return!

 

    It's lottery out there!........

 

 

             

 

  The Nikon TC is +/- 0.03mm measured across the faces of the bayonet at 4 X 90°. I've never noticed anything wrong other than I don't like TCs in general. My guess is it's twenty years old.



#44 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:17 PM

Sales-numbers you are looking for should be coming from the source: the manufacturers and they keep them as a secret. Btw. numbers of Walkmen-sales could not foresee the success of iPods, so researching the numbers of mirrorless with no bigger than APS-C sensors son't say much about a possible success of a FF or bigger sensor device.

 

If you're all convinced, mirrorless FF need new lenses, then the other form factor defined by sensor size also comes into play again. I look forward to it with some interest, but will not jump on the first Nikon mirrorless system camera. And the Fuji GFX50S feels cheaper than the price indicates.



#45 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:20 PM

Canon's execs said in the past that they think that mirrorless only makes sense when you do it compact, since that is the advantage of mirrorless.

 

Compactness is by far not the only advantage of mirrorless.

To name a few:

  • WYSIWIG through the use of EVF: what you see is what you get by opposition to an OVF (to some people it's a cons, but to many it's a plus).
  • Larger EVF than most OVF, independant of body and sensor size.
  • Ability to do much more than a traditionnal DSLR: almost unlimited features to be displayed in realtime in the EVF: histograms, blinkies, face detection, etc. ; face recognition, etc. pretty much anything that can be programmed on an image. In terms of features, we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg which is the opposite of the situation with traditional  DSLRs.
  • AF accuracy with any lens at any aperture ; no focus adjust ever required.
  • Silent shutter.
  • Electronic shutter speed up to 1/32000 (there might be rolling shutter artifacts but if the subject doesn't move fast, it happens rarely)
  • Simpler to manufacturer, hence cheaper to produce (even if it's not reflected in the price ; technically it's much cheaper to manufacture). Corollary to the previous statement: theoretically more reliable over time (no/less mechanical parts).
  • In terms of technology mirrorless systems are CPU/memory bandwidth bound, whereas DSLR are mechanically bound. The later has little room for improvement and can't compete as far as technical advancements go.

--Florent

Flickr Page


#46 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:27 PM

The Nikon TC is +/- 0.03mm measured across the faces of the bayonet at 4 X 90°. I've never noticed anything wrong other than I don't like TCs in general.

 

A 500 mm Tele doesn't react on a difference of 0.06 mm (that's what ± 0.03 means  ;) ) With a (heavy) wide-angle, it's another thing. Mind you, you did not measure the play between mount and lens. This adds as well as the play between adapter and lens. So very soon you come to ± 0.3 mm if it comes worst to worst.

 

Sure you can buy, measure and send back to some extent. If you have enough nerves to spend on this selection...



#47 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:30 PM

thxbb12, you mentioned face recognition twice, but not the silent shutter  ;)



#48 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:41 PM

thxbb12, you mentioned face recognition twice, but not the silent shutter  ;)

 

Ah right, thanks Joachim, fixed :-) (I also added the 1/32000 shutter speed).


--Florent

Flickr Page


#49 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 03:46 PM

As this "shutter speed" actually serves as an electronically gradient filter, but doesn't act as time freezing super shutter, I'd hesitate to mention it. Especially because the Fuji version is very sensitive to fluorescent light. But that's true to the silent shutter as well.



#50 thxbb12

thxbb12

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 550 posts
  • LocationGeneva, Switzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 04:06 PM

As this "shutter speed" actually serves as an electronically gradient filter, but doesn't act as time freezing super shutter, I'd hesitate to mention it. Especially because the Fuji version is very sensitive to fluorescent light. But that's true to the silent shutter as well.

 

I use it constantly when shooting wide-open (f1.2 or f1.4) portraits of my daughter/wife in bright light with zero issue whatsoever.

It's a feature I would sorely miss on any other body not allowing me to shoot at 1/32000. Otherwise I'd have to mess around with ND filters on most of my lenses which is a pain in the arse.


--Florent

Flickr Page


#51 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 22 May 2017 - 04:28 PM

A 500 mm Tele doesn't react on a difference of 0.06 mm (that's what ± 0.03 means  ;) ) With a (heavy) wide-angle, it's another thing. Mind you, you did not measure the play between mount and lens. This adds as well as the play between adapter and lens. So very soon you come to ± 0.3 mm if it comes worst to worst.

 

Sure you can buy, measure and send back to some extent. If you have enough nerves to spend on this selection...

 There is absolutely no movement with the 500 and the tele/ camera body. I hate any sort of lens play!

 

  I have a Pentax K to M42 adapter, (chrome brass non Pentax) it had quite a bit of movement between the camera bayonet and the adapter, (pentacon bokeh monster)  I isolated the cause and rectified it by hammering the adapter by flattening the mount so the "lugs" were closer to the flange, the play disappeared!

 

   As for buying testing and return/keep..........is there any other method?

 

  As a matter of interest , how many adapters do you own JoJu? 



#52 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 22 May 2017 - 10:19 PM

Depending on your count: If you ask for mirrorless Nikon adapters: not more than you. The TC17 has some play and most lenses as well, be it Nikon or Sigma. Everything else would surprise me. They have to turn in the bayonet. This is not possible without some play. For Fuji, there's also the converter for the 100-400 and the metabones to Nikon adapter.

 

But who am I to tell a mount blacksmith about play?  :lol:

 

thxbb12, I know what you mean with the ND filter. In the Canon G10-11-12 it's inbuilt which I found very clever and useful. I'm not complaining about the Fuji method to readout with lower amplification or higher scanning speed (don't know what's technically going on), but in reality it doesn't freeze as much as a mechanical 1/8000 does.

 

The 56/1.2 APD did come with a ND filter for that reason. The electronically shutter was not so fast when they put the package together.



#53 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 23 May 2017 - 02:18 PM

JoJu wrote:

                  "Depending on your count: If you ask for mirrorless Nikon adapters: not more than you. The TC17 has some play and most lenses as well, be it Nikon or Sigma. Everything else would surprise me. They have to turn in the bayonet. This is not possible without some play. For Fuji, there's also the converter for the 100-400 and the metabones to Nikon adapter."

 

   I find this strange, I have been checking fpr play and  slack here in my lenses and tele-converters and extension tubes, apart from a little " Rotational play" which is normal for any lens and is due to the lens locking pin elongating the lens locating hole, I found nothing, and being heavy lenses this would be a worse case scenario,  I hope this is not the play you are talking about?

   Just to be clear, as you say, there has to be some "clearance" between each bayonet, however well manufactured this can be  very minimal (a few microns), to the point that there is "no perceptible movement" experienced.

  A ball race has a clearance for example, but it shouldn't have any play. (within it's designed usage)

    I've just checked the Tammy 150-600 mm and the Nikon 500mm with or without the tele-converter+ the Sigma macro, nothing other than a tiny rotation.

 

 

 We have to limit the description of play as a general looseness/ slack; angular/lateral/verticle/horizontal slack, normally there should be none. 

 

 So just to be clear;

                                           I hope we are not talking about rotational play here! 



#54 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 23 May 2017 - 07:18 PM

No, we're not talking about any rotational movement. How did you check the clearance or play? Camera mounted on solid tripod head or lens and body in hands? Holding both in hands I don't feel any play. Putting the body (or the long lens) on a solid tripod head I can move the lens up and down a little bit.



#55 dave's clichés

dave's clichés

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,581 posts

Posted 24 May 2017 - 10:09 AM

 I just checked play by checking movement of the lens on camera.......the animal process!  :o

 

 However, with a heavy tele, be it the Nikon or the Tamron, any sort of "movement" when clambering around in the wild, play becomes immediately apparent, the V1 Tammy had the tiniest bit in the lens-hood, it was so slight, but you felt it, very annoying!

 

  I think you have been a little unlucky there JoJu.........don't Rolex make F mount adapters?  :P



#56 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,429 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 24 May 2017 - 10:27 AM

Sure. At Rolex prices or Chinese "genuine Rolex" copies?






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de