We are on the precipice of another major shift in the photography industry, as Canon and Nikon prepare to unleash professional-level full frame mirrorless cameras. Are you going to buy one, or is it too little, too late?
Can Canon and Nikon Catch Up to Sony?
If we're talking about professional users, I think that's a bit of a red herring. Canon and Nikon are the established titans of the industry, and Sony is the company seeking to usurp them (and they're progressing quite well at that). As such, the question should be: "Can Canon and Nikon create sufficiently feature-rich cameras to prevent their users from jumping ship?" A supplementary question should be: "Can they leverage their existing lens lineups?"
If we indulge the question of Canon and Nikon "catching up" to Sony, I think they have a steep hill to climb. Sony has the a7R III, a camera that can shoot high-resolution stills at sports frame rates natively (the D850 needs a grip to even come close to the a7R III's native speed). They have the a7 III, an "entry-level" camera that's anything but that we loved in our review. Both offer full-frame, oversampled 4K video. Both are aggressively priced, with the a7 III in particular leaping well ahead of other cameras in the same price range. Do I think Canon and Nikon can build mirrorless cameras with similar feature sets? Yes, of course. Do I think they'll do it at similar price points? Not so sure about that. Look at the 6D Mark II, after all. It is possible they will out of pressure from Sony, though. After all, one of the companies admitted one of the main reasons they're even getting serious about mirrorless is because of Sony.
Back to what I think are the more relevant questions. Can Canon and Nikon create sufficiently feature-rich cameras to prevent their users from jumping ship? Well, inertia is a powerful thing. When you're a pro deeply invested in a lens ecosystem, switching is a pain, both in terms of work and finances. If you own 10 lenses, you might make do with a lesser body to avoid exchanging all that glass. Yes, for those in the Canon camp, you can achieve a reasonable compromise using lens adapters in certain genres, but if you're a demanding pro, you really need to get a set of native glass. This lens issue works in Canon's and Nikon's favor in two ways. First, because they have a large contingent of pros deeply invested in their glass, and for many of them, switching is infeasible for either financial or convenience reasons, but there's a catch (more on that later). Second, because they've been around longer, they simply have larger lens libraries, particularly in the more niche and extreme realms that certain pros often venture into, such as supertelephotos. Nonetheless, the Sony 400mm f/2.8 is on its way, and you can bet they've got more in the works. The point where a photographer will decide the value of switching exceeds the hassle is different for each individual, but anecdotally speaking, I see a lot of my friends starting to reach their individual points.
Then there's the second question: Can they leverage their existing lens lineups? Well, yes and maybe. "Yes" in the sense that they have deep lens libraries that are appealing to almost any type of photographer. As mentioned, however, Sony is catching up, while brands like Sigma are helping to fill in the gaps, and Fuji has a great library themselves if you're comfortable with a crop sensor. "Maybe" in the sense that it comes down to how they handle the lens mount. The problem for both companies is the flange distance, the distance from the lens' mounting point to the sensor plane. It's much shorter on mirrorless cameras since there's no need for a mirror. All signs seem to be pointing to Nikon introducing a new mount, while the Canon side is a bit murkier, though I would also predict a new mount with some sort of EF adapter. If the two companies introduce autofocus adapters, it's not the end of the world for their shooters (possibly). Whereas a third-party adapter has the issue of dealing with another company's AF algorithms, it's possible a Canon-made adapter will handle EF lenses much better than the Metabones just by virtue of keeping it all in house, perhaps well enough to obviate the issue. The same goes for Nikon. Still, that's not as elegant a solution, but sometimes, physics forces you to be inelegant. Still, a lot of genres demand the fastest AF speed and highest accuracy at the pro level, and if the adapter is even 10-20 percent below native performance, that lens library advantage may evaporate, and suddenly, Sony will be the most established full-frame mirrorless lens manufacturer.
Even so, if they do introduce new mounts, they'll still bring out new lenses for that mount in addition to the adapters. Those will cost them money to develop and manufacture, and they'll fragment their ecosystems. I'm not saying they'll abandon their EF and F mounts; that would be insane. But continuing to develop, produce, and support two separate full-frame lines will be a tricky balancing act, and it will muddy the waters for photographers wondering what to buy, thereby decreasing the advantage.
Does It Matter?
Does it matter if Canon or Nikon catch up to Sony? I still think it's a question of balancing photographer inertia with feature sets. Sony has some remarkably sophisticated features that I don't see Canon or Nikon implementing at a similarly well-developed level in a first iteration (if they're there at all). For photographers looking to make an initial investment in a mirrorless full-frame system, I think Sony will hold the advantage. And if they can hold the feature set lead over time and continue to add to their lens library, they'll continue to lure other photographers and continue to increase their market share. If nothing else, the release of Canon and Nikon full-frame mirrorless cameras is good for photographers because of the competition it will generate within the industry.
Tell Us What You Think
Are you invested in the Canon or Nikon systems? What are your plans when their mirrorless cameras appear? What will it take? Vote below and let us know in the comments.
I wish Nikon will have a mount conversion program, it's wishful thinking I know.
I have Nikon. This company reminds me of IBM when they lost the PC market to Apple. Nikon a behemoth company took eye off the ball. One of the pitfalls of huge conglomerates. Nikon can’t seem to find the path on ground, their bloated belly keeps them off balance, so it seems. In my view, Sony did a fast break around those giants. Gonna take some years to catch up and be affordable.
I don’t get the obsession with mirrorless. For a person with normal size hands, the slr body is just way more comfortable. Sony cameras are amazing not because they’re mirrorless, but because of what they offer - the best still/video quality available, ibis, huge DR. These factors have nothing to do with the fact that they’re mirrorless.
Has to do more with the shooting experience than anything. Exposure and color preview, focus magnification and peaking, near entire frame covered in AF points, review images and change settings without removing your eye from the viewfinder, not getting blinded by the sun, semi-night vision, face registration and Eye AF, no mirror slap, and more precise AF (no AF/lens tuning).
None of those points are unique to mirrorless cameras. Granted, they do some better than slr cameras, but it’s not impossible to do them in an slr. For example, the evf on my canon 1dx mark 2 is far superior to any mirrorless camera I’ve ever used. For the type of photography I do, I hardly ever use the viewfinder. If they made the actual camera better, I’d be more than happy to use it over a mirrorless option
There should have been a "Probably" option.
I currently have the Sony A9 to test out, and as a pro sports photograhper (Soccer mostly) using Nikons, there are still a few quirks they have to iron out before pro´s are going to even consider the A9 as a daily driver. Now these are some dumb things to have been left out. And it may seem silly to let these things determine if it is a viable option or not. But I shoot soccer on a regular basis, and this is currently a huge win to CaNikon. Strange thing is that no one is talking about it. What I´m talking about is:
1. When you are transmitting photos to FTP, the camera locks up. You can´t do anything. Not even continue shooting.
2. There´s no option to crop or do simple edits to a photo in camera.
3. Battery life still sucks bigtime compared to the other big bodies.
4. No possibility to choose size and quality of JPEGs when shooting raw+jpg.
I agree that nr 3 isn´t a huge deal, and they are limited by the size of the body. But nr 1&2 are deal breakers.
Why you keep messing with 6D Mark II. A Full Frame for 1.000€, I find it a terrific deal. Of course, a Sony A7III does have better specs. But it costs you twice the money
The tech is constantly evolving, our current camera systems are not a lifelong Catholic marriage. When mirrorless cameras are ON THE MARKET in the future that have better image quality, autofocus, features and most importantly lenses, pros and serious photographers will then evaluate whether or not they want to move to mirrorless. Sony is great but the lens line up is still limited. M43 does have a lens range that is much better than Sony but the IQ of the cameras is very very good but still short of my Nikon. EVF are exponentially better than they were when I bought a M43 GH2 in 2010 however optical DSLR viewfinders are still much better in many situations.
It is silly clickbait to poll about camera models that have not even been released or even beta tested by other photographers. I liked my old M43 system and predicted back then that sometime in the future mirrorless would become the standard. We have progressed but are not there yet. Systems cameras are a big investment and commitment not only to the body but the lenses, flash and lighting systems and other proprietary accessories. That makes pros or others with a decent investment in a whole system unlikely to become a blind early adopter. Let them release the new mirrorless cameras and once they are proven in the field and have a robust selection of lens, lighting and accessory options, poll us again.
My first serious camera was a Nikon F I bought in the 70's. Now I own both the Sony a7Sii and a7Rii with G and GM zooms. For primes I go back to my old Nikkor lenses on an adapter. These old school lenses work great on the Sony body.
Niether Nikon or Canon will have to change the lens mount as all of their lens catolog can be adapted to whatever mirrorless camera they may come up with. Don't sell off your collection yet.
Nikon will suffer long term. They're just too hard headed and won't be able to implement video functionality that is on par. Canon could, but their CEO was very clear, they make no money in their camera divisions and they are willing to play second fiddle, not being innovators.
oops.
If nikon wants to beat sony and canon they will have to bring out good video features and im sure they know about this. The reason sony a7 series is a big hit is because its good at both pics and video with all the great features. im sure nikon will bring something similar or even better as both (2) their upcoming cameras are rumored to be priced around 2000$ and 4000$ and no one would buy them if they wont have great video features
This would be a better question AFTER the Nikon and Canon cameras are announced and we know SOMETHING about them.
nikon is rumored to announce 2 mirrorless cams in 1/2 months
I'm a Canon user and love my 5D3 camera and lenses. I really don't want to be negative, but I would be utterly shocked if Canon came out with something even remotely close to Sony, let alone their bottom end mirrorless cameras. Not to mention, the rumors that are flying around are talking about mid-2019. Sony will be on v4 of their A7R/S series by then and anything Canon has will be behind. They needed something this year.
On the Nikon front, I firmly believe will come close at the very least. Look at the D580.
Just have to wait and see.
In not too many years, DSLR's will be a "classic". Just in the way that vinyl records are now. Like going to Blockbuster to rent your DVD's.
When mirrorless technology matures a bit with regard to viewfinders, ergonomics and lens choices, I just can't see any reason to buy a camera with a mirror that flops around. The choice won't be as much about platform as it will be about brand.
I have a friend with a new A7RIII and along with my Canon 5DM3, I own a Panasonic FZ1000 as a travel camera. I just finished a collaborative studio shoot with my friend and the results from his Sony are AMAZING! My little FZ1000 has a remarkable viewfinder, (in my opinion, of course) is full featured and provides excellent images considering the smallish sensor. The camera is a tool. If the results are what you need, that's all that counts as far as I'm concerned.
Ok... I am switching, and actually started the process 2 months ago, but not to Sony... instead to Fuji. Both X and GFX for different work. And this is after using Nikon professionally for my personal freelance work for 30 years, and Canon products for my "office job" photographing for the military professionally for 20 years. My switch for my personal work from Nikon to Fuji comes down to 1. Half the weight (for X series), 2. 2/3rds the cost (for X series), and 3. The quality of the Fuji products. As an old school film photographer the Fuji systems are simply a joy to use, and the lenses for the most part are very high quality optics. The Fuji system also does one thing that neither Canon, Nikon, nor Sony do. They introduce new camera features via Firmware rather than force you purchase a new camera. The XT-2 that I currently own has evolved quite a bit since it first came out in 2016 when most reviewers reviewed it. It really is a totally different camera inside. And the exterior with nice dials for shutter speed, ISO, and exposure compensation, and a real aperture ring on the lenses brings me back to the days when I shot my Nikon F3, Canon F1, or Pentax K1000 from when I started learning photography back in the early 80's. It simply is a joy to use. The only real flaws I have with the Fuji XT-2 is the lag on the rangefinder when shooting wildlife, and short battery life. But I always carry spare batteries with me on a shoot so the latter is a bit of a non issue. Now if only Fuji would come up with a nice multi battery charger for those of us that use 2 to 3 batteries up in a day of shooting.
And all this praise is coming from a die hard Nikon fanboy for years that has finally got frustrated enough with the added need for portability in a system to change to another system. Also I so despise Snap-bridge and the lack of usability of that software that it finally pushed me over the edge.
I'm desperatly wating for an awesome canon full frame camera, mirrorless with EF (not EF-m) and good Video. At the time i switched to GH5 wif ef speedbooster (mainly for video) but i want a 2nd camera that is awesome at photo.
For me it is a business decision.
I keep my cameras until they wear out and then I look around to see what is available and whether it makes sense to me to invest in something entirely new or not.
The undeniable fact is that no modern digital camera is keeping anyone from making a good living in photography by virtue of IQ, DR or some other fashionable virtue of the day.
Delighting in a tool is undeniable. By the tool you love but remember that it is the work you make that matters.
I have a D850 that I'm very happy with because it's a ridiculous camera and probably wont be upgrading just to upgrade. I'd like to see an ergonomically correct camera (same size as D850ish) with the lighter weight mirrorless insides. I like the beefy feel of the camera but having 5-axis sensor stabilization. No brainer. As a digital User Experience guy, I'm happy to see someone ask the users what is valuable. Smaller camera profile, smaller hand grips, and smaller button layouts are not more valuable to me. I'm not excited about an adaptor ring but whatever. Seems hacky. Just add that much depth to the camera body and move the sensor back (with 5-axis sensor stabilization)... please?
I switched from Nikon to Sony this year. I’m very happy with my A7III! I wish Sony glass wasn’t so expensive though. I’m interested to see how Nikon AF video is on mirrorless though.
I don't understand why people think Nikon and Canon must necessarily start with baby steps and can't come out of the block with an equal to Sony if not a "Sony-killer" Canon, particularly, is a technological equal to Sony and would only he held back by a pusillanimous vision, not by technological fecklessness.
I don't get it, either. Both companies have years of experience making very good consumer mirrorless cameras, so should be more than up to the challenge of taking them to pro level all guns blazing.
Honesty, my ideal camera would be the body of a canon 5D with the features and specs of a Sony A7RIII. In other words, a Nikon
I was a long time Canon user, but just made the switch to a Sony A7R3 last month. It will be interesting to see what Canon and Nikon will offer in the mirrorless design, but the truth for me is I'm fed up with a company sitting on it's backside and doing nothing until they start bleeding. All that said, I miss my optical finder, but having the historgram right in the view box where its' needed is priceless.
I will continue to use Canon as long as they up their game with mirrorless. I have been using a Canon M5 for about 2 years now instead of my SLR. It is a nice little camera, with a few faults, but adequate for the serious amateur in my opinion. I use it most of the time with a Canon EF L 24-105 lens with a Viltrox adapter without any loss of performance. I can fit the smaller M lenses for general "snapping" and put it in my pocket. I would like to see a Canon mirrorless with 4K , at least 50 fps. full in body stabilisation. EF mount would be nice. Full frame and APS options.
Similar design and finish to the M5 but a bit bigger to make handling easier. Main manual settings on dials on the top.
This vid taken at 50 fps using the set up as above. https://youtu.be/YveDNbH-UTU
Sure, I will jump on Mirrorless Canon immediately, with Canon Mark IV, I`m very happy , Canon is great for me!
Thanks a lot for sharing!
I have an older Canon DSLR and recently bought a Fuji X-E3 because I felt like it had the best size/performance/price ratio for what I was looking for. I bought it as a secondary camera, so in order for me to replace my Canon with a mirrorless model it would have to support the existing lens lineup. I'd be OK with an adaptor, as long as it was reasonably priced and fully supported all lens features. It would have to have great battery life and great ergonomics. The omission of the OVF would have to be outweighed by the advantages of going mirrorless, and I wouldn't consider a smaller size to be a huge advantage—that's why I bought the fuji. Full frame would be a must, otherwise I'll just invest more heavily in Fujifilm.
More importantly, will Canon and/or Nikon be with us in five years?
Yes...they may be owned by DJI by then but the name will still be here.
I made the jump from canon to Sony. One of the best things I’ve done
The article focuses mainly on lenses you own. I suppose that depends on how many you use.
If it's just a few its a cost of business to upgrade to a better system. You can't get to comfortable
with a system that will not keep you current. If it's better for your style you will move on.
To me it's more about the look, color science.To me that's what matters. Who cares about a few lenses and what they cost. Write it off and use what works for your business.
The puzzle for me is why anyone would want a mirrorless camera. The ability to hold the camera at an odd angle while analyzing the image on a pivoted LCD seems of only occasional usefulness. Would someone please enlighten me about its general utility? I own Canon film and digital bodies, and an excellent array of lenses. When I switched from OM (sigh) to Canon full-frame, I decided the move would be permanent. When it comes to photo equipment and supplies, I want Polaroid integral materials that (unlike the wretched "Impossible" materials) are stable and work in an SX-70. (hah-hah-hah). If I still had my OM lens set, a mirrorless body might make some sense, given the OM's overall ease of handling.
They all very keen to pull money from our pockets... but right now i have Nikon d3300 and it's perfect....few years ago features like this model offer were ,,pro level,,....I would rather buy another prime lens instead wastin money on nowadays rubbish gadgets...