Canon #1 in mirrorless by 2017?

[MCAsan]

On top you can see the mirrorless share graph of the last 12 months in Japan. I am a bit surprised to see Sony loosing shares the last months. But it still remains the number one in Japan closely followed by Olympus.

The original BCN report also states that Canon wants to become the number one in the mirrorless market by end 2017. I guess Canon will have to launch a mirrorless Full Frame system to achieve that...

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/canon-wants-to-become-number-1-in-the-mirrorless-market-by-end-2017


So do we think Canon will start a parallel 35mm crop or FF mirrorless body line? I would guess it would use the exiting mount. If Canon does this....can Nikon afford to be far behind?

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Could they do it? Sure. Market acceptance of mirrorless is far greater than it had been, and Canon's embrace in the crop/FF market could certainly move a lot of flipping-mirror hold-outs and even a fair number of those who are currently "compromising" by buying a "lesser" brand of mirrorless.

It's only a matter of timing. I don't see either company taking the mirrorless crown straight out of the starting box, so if they're looking for a win based on annual sales (rather than a few months in late '17) we'd have to see a product introduction within the next 12-18 months in order to be running full-tilt by '17.

Once either Nikon or Canon say, "You don't need a flipping mirror to take professional-quality images" they well could move a fair number of bodies, for both still and video. Why would a videographer buy a DSLR with a locked-up mirror if he/she could have an EVF along with the other monitoring options?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Maybe this is the direction Nikon might move in?

 

[coldsweat]

I'd absolutely love a Canon Mirrorless body with an EVF & all the benefits it brings, but it'd need to take my EF lenses & have an AF system at least as good as the current 5D3!

 

[phrehdd]

We have seen the crown for point and shoot cameras change hands more times than I can count. Given how the mirrorless market is growing and technologies are changing, we could certainly see top position change hands in a matter of months. Whether it is Canon or not, we shall see.

As for me, I'll remain within the 'minority' and enjoy my Fuji X series equipment and hope one day to see a larger than FF sensor come out that is within consumer reach financially.

 

[maflynn]

Canon is huge and does a great job when they get behind a technology. I can see if them being on top of the ML sector.

 

[Rowbear]

Sure Canon can do it, but I don't see the point if we have to use the EF (or EF-s) lens. One of Mirrorless's advantage is its smaller size, so they would need to create a new smaller lens system equal in quality to an L lens if they want to be serious about it. They did that when they went from the FD to the EF system, so maybe its time to go from EF to ???

 

[ChrisA]

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/canon-wants-to-become-number-1-in-the-mirrorless-market-by-end-2017


So do we think Canon will start a parallel 35mm crop or FF mirrorless body line? I would guess it would use the exiting mount. If Canon does this....can Nikon afford to be far behind?

There is no advantage to a mirrorless EOS body over a SLR body if you keep the same EOS mount. The EOS mount has a defined flange to sensor distance and taking the mirror out would not make the body any thinner.

They COULD offer a mirrorless body with a new lens mount and then an adapter ring for using EOS lenses. The adaptor would be maybe 18mm or so long so as to keep the lens the right distance from the sensor. This is what Nikon did.

For those wanting a mirrorless EOS body why not simply use a current EOS body in live mode?

 

[576316]

Naa, it's time for some different players in the camera market. Sony are doing amazing things right now and I hope that continues.

 

[MCAsan]

There is no advantage to a mirrorless EOS body over a SLR body if you keep the same EOS mount. The EOS mount has a defined flange to sensor distance and taking the mirror out would not make the body any thinner.

They COULD offer a mirrorless body with a new lens mount and then an adapter ring for using EOS lenses. The adaptor would be maybe 18mm or so long so as to keep the lens the right distance from the sensor. This is what Nikon did.

For those wanting a mirrorless EOS body why not simply use a current EOS body in live mode?

Removing the mirror, prism, and related hardware reduces quality or parts which reduces cost of parts, cost of assembly labor, warranty costs, and body weight. As for size....we will probably find out in the next year.

If I wanted 35mm mirrorless, I would be shopping Sony.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

There is no advantage to a mirrorless EOS body over a SLR body if you keep the same EOS mount. The EOS mount has a defined flange to sensor distance and taking the mirror out would not make the body any thinner.

They COULD offer a mirrorless body with a new lens mount and then an adapter ring for using EOS lenses. The adaptor would be maybe 18mm or so long so as to keep the lens the right distance from the sensor. This is what Nikon did.

For those wanting a mirrorless EOS body why not simply use a current EOS body in live mode?

Why not live mode? Sometimes it's nice to have an eye-level viewfinder.

One of the key advantages of FF DSLRs has always been the continued use of legacy glass. Mirror/no-mirror is far less important for many of today's photographers. So a mirrorless that preserves that investment in lenses and delivers an appealing feature set (more compact box/ergonomics, EVF, perhaps more video-focused features) would seem to have some potential.

It also depends how you define "advantage." Outside of a TTL OVF, what's the intrinsic advantage of a mirror (whether flipping or pellicle/half-silvered)? Meantime, an EVF, while flawed in its way, offers a WYSIWYG view of the exposure and DOF. To my mind, both OVF and EVF are flawed, it comes down to a particular photographer's needs and priorities. As I noted previously, anyone shooting video has no need for the mirror, pentaprism, or focal plane shutter at all. Why not put the money into different features? Further, on-sensor hybrid phase-detect/contrast-detect AF systems show that a mirror is not essential to having the benefits of phase detection, either.

Canon already has the EOS M3 in crop sensors - the only question is whether they move mirrorless into the full-frame (or, gasp, larger-than-full-frame) "professional" market, and how soon before, in crop sensors, mirrorless models outnumber DSLRs.

Because of the shorter flange-to-sensor distance, it's conceivable that they could produce a series of mirrorless bodies and lenses that are no larger than today's top-line DSLRs, yet have a larger sensor. How appealing might that be?

 

[Mavimao]

There is no advantage to a mirrorless EOS body over a SLR body if you keep the same EOS mount. The EOS mount has a defined flange to sensor distance and taking the mirror out would not make the body any thinner.

They COULD offer a mirrorless body with a new lens mount and then an adapter ring for using EOS lenses. The adaptor would be maybe 18mm or so long so as to keep the lens the right distance from the sensor. This is what Nikon did.

For those wanting a mirrorless EOS body why not simply use a current EOS body in live mode?

I think it'd be possible to create a full frame "prosumer" camera using the current flange distance - thus insuring a small(er) size and full lens compatibility. Just take a look at old classic 35mm SLRs from the 60s and 70s.

Let's look at this example:

Now, this is the old FD mount, whose flange distance is just 2 mm shorter than the EF mount of today, so a newer camera could look just as svelt. The main issue is where to put an LCD screen, since the sensor would have to be flush with the back of the camera - much like how 35mm film was.

If Canon were to try a similar concept, they'd probably have to forgo a screen and go completely EVF. Would consumers accept this? Hmm...