It's not exactly news that Sony and Fujifilm are progressing by leaps and bounds with their mirrorless offerings, while many are staring at Canon and Nikon, waiting for a response. A Sony executive recently predicted that just such a response is coming soon, and Canon confirmed it.
DPReview recently sat down with Kenji Tanaka, Senior General Manager of the Digital Imaging Business Group at Sony, during which he predicted that by CP+ 2019 (likely held in early March), both Canon and Nikon will have entered the full-frame mirrorless market. As I write this, both companies are likely trying to address the issue of flange distance and if this means they'll have to abandon the huge lead they hold in lens libraries or embrace larger mirrorless models or adapters. Nonetheless, I think few will argue that regardless of what they decide, they need to enter the market sooner rather than later.
For their part, Canon has been increasingly adamant that they're taking mirrorless seriously and putting significant resources toward research and development. At a recent corporate conference, CEO Fujio Mitarai said that Canon will "go on the offensive" to take a bigger share of the mirrorless market, with the overall goal of a 50 percent share of the total ILC market. Altogether, it looks like the next year will be a very interesting one for photographers.
50% market share ? That's sweet
Somehow they just keep pumping out cameras with 4k video functions but with a crop.
Nikon's D850 does NOT use a Sony sensor.
I was illustrating the fact Nikon has sought a second manufacturer. On nikonrumors.com, they gave some evidence (which I can't remember) that the upcoming mirrorless would use the same sensor manufacturer. I seem to recall it being a company based in Israel.
Yeah, most are manufactured by Sony. I don't think that's a problem if, as you stated, they have a second manufacturer.
I can't prove it but was under the impression, the Israeli company did the manufacturing.
TowerJazz is the Israeli sensor manufacturer.
I couldn't remember the name. Thanks.
I saw rumors of this online, but it appears those rumors may have been started by the guy who was confident the d850 was going to have a hybrid ovf/evf. Do you have a credible source that confirms Towerjazz is the manufacturer of the d850's sensor?
No I don’t. Just responding to Sam forgetting the name of the Israeli company.
I wonder if a tear down would reveal the manufacturer? Not that I recommend anyone do that!
I've been hoping someone will do a tear down on a d850 and provide the answer, but, if they have, my very quick googling didn't reveal it.
I must admit, if I had a d850, the last thing I'd consider doing is pulling it apart to isolate the sensor from its surrounds!
Agreed! I’m content with knowing it’s an amazing sensor without pulling it apart to check.
....and Canon's sensor is no slouch compared to Sony.
What do you mean by "sensor"? While pretty much every Sony sensor is, literally, spectacular, there are only two sensors I know that Canon makes that are comparable, one in in a $6000 camera, and the other is in the Mk IV.
I agree! I think the sensor in my 1D Mk IV is pretty good!
Think Spy Black meant 5D Mk IV
Both, actually. :-) But yes, 5D Mk IV.
I hope they start taking mirrorless seriously. Canon's M50 took a lot of hate, but I think it's a step in the right direction, and the only improvements they need in video are 4k with full-frame sampling (no crop). Their C-Log and DPAF are industry leading from what I can tell. And Nikon have everything to gain by going full-frame mirrorless. But I would really appreciate it if they made a Df II as a swan song for the FX mount.
+1 on a DF2 but not as a swan song. I would give up photography before using a mirrorless camera. It's fine for everyone else.
I'm actually in the same boat. I love DSLRs because I have yet to find an EVF that can rival the clarity of a high-quality pentaprism. I think I'll be keeping my Canons for quite a while, but mirrorless seems to be the natural evolution of ILC photography, so I'll have to upgrade eventually. By eventually, I'm thinking an 8k EVF with a 120Hz refresh rate and battery life of 900 shots per charge... It might be a while ;)
My reasoning is different. I get real joy when I photograph something. I feel connected to it. I can see it in ways I normally couldn't but the fact is, I'm really seeing it. With an EVF, no matter how good, I'll "know" I'm not really seeing it. No joy.
For daily shots I use a fuji X100F: mirrorless but with the option to look through an actual viewfinder (rangefinder-esque). Sorta best of both worlds, and the IQ is lovely.
But I get where you’re coming from. I then look through my dslr, or better yet a TLR film camera like my Rollei, and I’m like “oh yeah, that what taking photographs looks like!”
Maybe I didn't state that correctly. I'm talking about DSLRs which do NOT have EVFs. I don't have to convince myself an experience is more or less enjoyable. It's easily discerned. And, while the results are theoretically no different, if I don't enjoy the process, it could easily affect my efforts and, therefore, the result.
I meant that my current cameras don't have EVFs. My feelings about them have nothing to do with the state of the technology but rather, the reality of the process. I hate typing anything on my phone which, by the way, is not very smart! :-)
It wouldn't matter. It's psychological...not physical. Kinda like having sex with any woman other than my wife. It might be physically satisfying but I would never want to do it. Yes, I know it's a silly comparison but all I could think of right now.
Do you have any examples of subjective preference that is not "psychological."
This all seems like a really tedious way of telling someone that you think they're wrong.
But that doesnt automatically imply some kind of self-deception, which seems to be the thrust of your comment.
Of course it's subjective, which is a perfectly legitimate reason to choose something. But you're moving the goal posts. You started off with "I think it's likely that you're convincing yourself" so on and so forth That's kind of obnoxious actually.
It's like, it's perfectly acceptable to prefer the feel of a 6-speed throw shift transmission to some bleeding-edge 8-speed double-clutch automatic that is technically faster. It's intangible and no one has to justify that.
Mirorrless are nice for some, but I don't see myself shooting with a 100 % electrical battery sucker. All I expect from a camera is to be like a digital Nikon FM: give me 4 dials, a kick-ass sensor, and last forever (that's is, the battery and the body). I find my FM more enjoyable to use than any of my D5300 or D810…
So you purchased the Df?
No. Too expensive for such an outdated sensor.
Not quite.
First of all, the shutter can work from the energy of a cranked spring (that's basically how old mechanical DSLRs work), so… that's not much.
Then, a 42 Mpx Sony A7 R III battery of 2280 mAh is rated for 530 to 650 shots/charge. It's 700 shots/charge on the 24 Mpx Sony A7 III. Whereas the Nikon standard battery (for D500-600-7000-800 series) of 1900 mAh is rated for 1200 shots (CIPA norm) to 3800 shots (Nikon norm) per charge on a 36 Mpx D810. It's at least twice as much pictures with a 1.2 times smaller battery. The culprit is obviously the screen of the mirrorless, and maybe the computational power inside (Sony is more an electronics company than an optics one).
I would say, sometimes it doesn't hurt to check the docs on the Internet before posting inaccurate comments. I mean, the info is all out there, it took me litterally more time to write this than to get the figures.
The spring is cranked with a lever, usually the same that advances the film, the one you push with your thumb : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqmTmtbpClQ
Even modern DSLRs have their shutter springloaded : https://www.diyphotography.net/springs-levers-electromagnets-makes-dslr-....
I might not know all the differences inside, but I have some sense of physics and engineering (spoiler alert, that's my job), and some real world references to compare.
If you consider that a thumb can produce a force of 0.8 Newtons applied 4 cm far from the rotation axis over a path of 90° (pi/2 radians), a mechanical DSLR needs less 50 millijoules of mechanical energy (Energy = Force × radius × angle) to crank the shutter + the mirror spring and advance the film. Convert that into electrical energy, assuming a 7 V battery, it's 0.002 mAh. With that, you could shoot almost 1 million frames with a 1900 mAh battery on a film camera (neglicting the lightmeter and the AF). So that's basically all a DSLR needs for its moving parts, all the rest is consumed by the electronics (and it's a very pessimistic approximation).
If you continue with this approximation, assuming 3600 shots / 1900mAh battery (Nikon D810), you get an average of 0.53 mAh/shot in which the shutter and mirror part takes less than 0.3 %. So more than 99.7 % of the energy consumed on a modern DSLR goes to the AF, sensor, and microchip.
DSLRs have a screen that is optional to use because you mainly shoot through the optical viewfinder. Mirrorlesses have 2 screens (the electronic viewfinder and the back screen) and one of them has to be always on, meaning the sensor is always on as well, so a lot of energy is wasted into that.
Sony is not an optics company, most of its lenses (if not all) are manufactured by Zeiss.
I'm commenting on specific cameras examples because it puts context and real figures, thus turns a pub discussion into a case study.
I know you bet and weren't sure, but don't do that on the internet while you could just use Google to check your facts. That brings no value to nobody.
Sure, express whatever uninformed opinion you want, the megabytes you consume are free and the Internet is made for that anyway.
Or maybe not.
Wow what an intelligent and informed response! I’m so glad I scrolled down and read your description. I mean, duh, mirrorless cameras require more power than DSLRs, but how great to give such detail.
Best comment of this article! Thanks
If Canon and Nikon's mirrorless FF cameras are expected to be on the ground (entering the market) by this time next year, then all decisions have already been made and they're working with suppliers, developing marketing strategies, etc. So, the decision regarding the flange distance has already been made.
Also, Canon and Nikon don't have a "response", IMO, to the current mirrorless market. They have their own independent products and (internal) roadmap. They aren't responding to anything. Because 1) that's not how this all works and 2) they're SOOOOOOOOOO far behind that, at the rate they typically release products, they'll literally never catch up - at least not in the next 2 decades.
Comparing Canon's sensors and AF tech (ie, DPAF) to Sony's is embarrassing to Canon (and this is coming from someone who loved his 5D Mark IV). For stills, DPAF can't come close to keeping up with Sony's AF tech. Canon needs to put a LOT more processing power behind it. A... LOT... MORE...
Canon's DPAF is ground breaking in video and will probably be incredible in the pro mirrorless putting them way out front.
Yeah, it's great for video AF. Probably class leading, honestly. But for stills, as I mentioned, Sony CLEARLY outperforms DPAF.
You're assuming that they would be taking the same develop, release, improve, re-release steps that the other mirrorless companies have taken. What if Canon and Nikon have been developing their mirrorless technology behind the scenes, but just haven't released a FF version yet because it's not to their standards yet? I'm not fanboying Canon or Nikon, I think Canon is behind the curve right now and there are serious problems with their methods that seem to protect all but their high end cameras.
Just going off of history as opposed to speculative futures. Sure, Canon and Nikon could launch their respective FF mirrorless series with 4 bodies each (a sports body, high resolution body, do-it-all body, and a video-oriented body) along with 3 f/2.8 zooms, 6 f/4 zooms (1 of which is pretty much a dedicated video lens), 4 variable aperture zooms, and 11 primes - many of which are repeated focal lengths but with different maximum apertures, but I think it's pretty unlikely. And that's just Sony's lenses. 24 of them. And the crazy part is that there are still several key lenses which are missing from Sony's catalog (notably, ultra wide primes, medium telephoto, and telephoto primes, along with a medium speed 35mm). I haven't mentioned all of the third party options available for FE TODAY. Obviously, many, if not all of those third party options will be available for eventual Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless cameras, but will it be on launch day? A month later? 3 months later? 6 months? A year? 2? 3? Who knows.
I also think it's unlikely that Canon and Nikon have developed superior on-sensor AF (speaking of both speed and accuracy) than Sony and haven't implemented it yet. I would also be shocked if they have the technology to implement a no-blackout EVF combined with a sensor which doesn't produce distortion when photographing a moving subject.
They also won't have older mirrorless bodies available at the retail level which lack the latest technology, but which attract consumers with a lower budget or who have lesser technology demands.
Canon and Nikon are used to 3-5 year camera body cycles so older cheaper bodies are a long way away. And, it'll be a LONG while before they can catch up to Sony's dedicated mirrorless lens catalog. Third party options will help substantially, but MANY Canon and Nikon shooters are averse to anything other than first-party lenses.
I do agree that many of the hurdles have already been jumped by Sony and Canon and Nikon have surely learned from them, but the breadth and depth of the FE portfolio (cameras and lenses) as well as Sony's sensor tech will, IMO, keep Sony at the top of the mirrorless heap for quite some time. Anyone who is equally served by Sony, Canon, or Nikon within the first few years of C/N mirrorless offerings will, IMO, fit into one of 3 categories. 1) a dabbler - someone who's simply interested in playing around with this stuff. These folks will have another setup entirely which serves their primary photographic purposes. This could also be someone who is TOTALLY okay with adapting lenses. 2) A generalist - someone who is okay with whatever the initial offerings happen to be and they're not too demanding when it comes to specifics. 3) The specifist - someone who has an exact, specific need and Canon and/or Nikon just so happens to satisfy it - probably more by luck than anything else (for instance, someone who ONLY shoots 35mm and 50mm primes).
I think both Canon and Nikon have been working on mirrorless technologies for almost a decade, behind the scenes. But again, the sensor tech would have been implemented already if it were ready and also a financially sound option. No matter which way you slice it, Sony is going to be the mirrorless FF market leader for a while and I think that Canon and Nikon entering the market will actually help Sony from a volume perspective. Sure, market share will drop but market share matters a LOT less than volume.
More competition is better for us, the consumers, but I highly doubt Canon could take back 50% of the market at this point in time. Slightly bias towards Sony staying on top though seeing as I'm a Sony shooter who learned shooting on Sony.
Well think about this.... there is a lot of Canon L-glass out there that gives them an embedded base. I was thinking about an A3 until I read this article. I will wait now because I have canon lenses. I really didn’t want to go the adapter route and clearly didn’t want to start a new lens system
I've been saying for a while that Nikon should produce a digital S3; thereby competing in the same space as the Leica M10. But they screwed up with the Df, so they won't.
Meanwhile, this Nikon DSLR shooter can see absolutely no reason why I would want to purchase (the yet to be released) Nikon mirrorless, given that in all likelihood it will have no substantive advantage over the brands which are already in that space.
I agree. There's no point in waiting to see what they actually release. :-/
For a Nikon shooter, having an F mount adapted mirrorless camera with excellent autofocus would be an advantage over all the other brands in that space.
I'm no optical engineer, but using F mount lenses would negate the purpose. If you are changing to mirrorless then you are going to want new lenses.
The primary advantage of mirrorless is the evf, with its associated features such as focus peaking, live histogram, zebra stripes etc. The market advantage for Nikon (and Canon) is the incredible lens lineup they offer, which many photographers are heavily invested in.
Nikon and Canon would be insane to throw away such a huge advantage. Any Nikon FF mirrorless camera will need to have a good F mount option, either directly on camera or via a removable adaptor.
The killer feature would be a built in speedbooster to accommodate DSLR lenses.
Not sure exactly how it would work, but that would maintain their lens advantage and give their sensors an added boost Sony would not be able to compete with.
Nobody hits it out of the park on the first try. Expect it to take a second or third version to be compatible to the current Sony's, and by then Sony will be 2 more steps ahead. I'm guessing 3 years before those two are finally competing head-to-head with Sony mirrorless. Regardless, the competition is always good for us consumers. Maybe it will bring the price of Sony lenses down if Canon and Nikon get here sooner.... get on with it boys. Just don't expect me to come back when you do.