Why isn't Canikon putting any effort into mirrorless?

Oh wow yet another thinly veiled sonyfag thread

probably just waiting for mirrorless to get on par with DSLR. let the small companies take the hits and make bad cameras so once the kinks get sorted out by sony/fuji/olympus they can jump into the market with something that steals all their tech but has better name recognition and better support.

sony is almost there with the a7 series but it's still not perfect. once sony has it nailed canikon will come through with an excellent camera that blows the sony out of the water.

>>2977233
Because mirrorless requires new sensor tech for good autofocus, and canon haven't invested in sensor tech for years.

Also, evfs are fucking expensive if you want to buy a good one, which is why sony are unbeatable on price/performance, they make their own. And is why the evf on canons and fujis last gen sucked dick.

And canon can't afford to come out with a new mount that jeopardises ef. If they keep their mirrorless as a joke, it won't concern their bread and butter professional clients.

>>2977239
I shoot Nikon you dipshit, I'm just genuinely wondering what Canikons plans for the entry level market is

EOS M is actually pretty competant. When I shooting Canon, it was awesome to have a little M as a backup.

The new one is pretty cool. Good camera. The lenses will come. The little 22mm is stellar

>>2977233
> it's going to be harder and harder to convince casual photographers to carry around a big-ass DSLR when they can just use their phone
They probably already were using P&S for that scenario rather than DSLR, but even that market is obviously shrinking.

> has that space been eaten up by cameras like the Sony A6000?
The E-mount and MFT established their place pretty firmly and it is probably not possible to usurp them in the near future. They'll probably just gain more customers.

There perhaps is room for more, but I think that "more" is currently the X-mount rather than EF-M, unless Canon improves massively.

You're talking about the companies who haven't had camera to phone interaction until recently. People are genuinely impressed when I transfer photos from my D750 to my phone on the fly, but it's slow as hell, and should have been a built-in feature for every camera of the past decade. If Nikon/Canon can't even figure out how to make a decent phone app, how can you expect them to know how to run the entry-level market?

>>2977268
Is Sonys implementation of wireless transfer better? Seems like they're using NFC which should be more reliable than Bluetooth.

>>2977275
I think it also has NFC, but I've never used it.

I'm using the WLAN connection, and it's ~as fast as you'd expect from 802.11n. Works fine for me.

>>2977284
PS: Bluetooth of course should be reliable in theory, works *perfectly* fine for me at version 4+ with other devices.

But I don't even know if any of the Sony cameras have that. I don't think so.

>>2977275
I have no idea, but I find it ridiculous that it's [year] and we're stuck with the slow, clunky mess of an app that can't even adjust exposure settings or set a self-timer. There are so many software possibilities, but we barely have remote shooting.

Would Sony be interested in making E mount an open standard? They don't seem to care about making lenses anyway. If so, would Canikon be interested in making E mount lenses (and maybe cameras)?

>>2977233
I've actually heard that the eos m5 is pretty good, I think it'd be more popular if it weren't so ugly

>>2977303
If you worked at sony, you'd get fired for even suggesting that. If they could get away with it, they'd make a new mount for each body and much more besides.

>>2977355
>I think it'd be more popular if it weren't so ugly
And competing with literally any other product on the market, which it isn't/

>>2977303
> Would Sony be interested in making E mount an open standard?
No, but they are interested in disclosing it to partners:

http://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/e_mount/index.html

Basically, they went with the thing that is usually one step removed from an open standard. Still much further than basically anyone but MFT.

Because there's no money in casual use cameras. When you develop your product line for professionals (DSLRs) you're tapping a more lucrative market. Professionals make bigger investments and are also more likely to buy other peripheral gear.

So quit your bitching and buy a 6D.

>>2977551
> Because there's no money in casual use cameras.
Not just no money. Casual use cameras are probably VERY niche going forward. Most manufacturers won't find a market.

Smartphones obsoleted dedicated casual cameras for better connectivity, all the hardware and software advantages, and compactness.

That said, right now, many people will pay good money to get a higher-end Sony sensor in their smartphone. Same as on DSLR/MILC.

> Professionals make bigger investments and are also more likely to buy other peripheral gear.
Hobbyists and professionals that want the high end of lenses and cameras will likely be the only major user base of standalone cameras going forward.

"Everyone" else is going to go with the usually adequate ubiquitous interconnected all-in-one easy mode carry & workflow smartphones.

>>2977243
>canon haven't invested in sensor tech for years

The recent iterations have brought the ADC on chip.

>And canon can't afford to come out with a new mount that jeopardises ef.

If that was even true, where would their buyers go? Sony that dumped A mount like a used up whore or Nikon that would have to introduce an SD Quattro knockoff if they wanted to keep the F mount?

The only reason Canon hasn't invested more is because of PDAF limitations.

>>2977233
eos m5 is not effort enough?
nikon 1 is ded though.

I live in the third world.

When they ask about cameras, they always ask:
>Canon or Nikon

Imagine a 15 yr old getting an a6000 vs a d3300 or a t6i for Christmas. What are her parents gonna think?

>Canikon looks pro

And that's all the thinking done behind it. Is it a wasted opportunity for Canikon? Not really if the competition looks less "pro" than them.

>>2977255
>There perhaps is room for more, but I think that "more" is currently the X-mount rather than EF-M, unless Canon improves massively.

We can only hope.

>>2977635
So being appealing to mainly the third world's old people who aren't looking stuff up on the english global interwebs yet is maybe a good business plan for CaNikon...?

>>2977642
never said that.

>>2977651
No, you did not say that - but it seems to be the implication.

Canon / Nikon should be fine if they go with "professional looks" of bulky DSLR, rather than trying to actually compete with MILC on releasing better performing devices.

Because [third world] parents who don't know anything about cameras will still buy them for their daughters.

File: .jpg (794KB, 2000x1089px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 2000x1089px

>Dual Pixel AF already obliterating competition
>Compatible with all Canon lenses with adapter
>STILL smaller than m/4turds
They really don't need to.

>>2977867
>Dual Pixel AF already obliterating competition
"Obliterating" nothing. Perhaps marginally better than an A6000 in most ways (with aspects that are actually quite a bit worse, like that 7 FPS burst rate you get with AF enabled), but not even quite at A6300 levels. Which basically describes the whole EOS M5 quite well.

The privilege costs you ~2.5 times as much as an actual A6000, though. Not too fantastic.

>>2977867
>smaller
>f2.8 lens vs f6.3 lens
The comparable lens in this case is the 12-32 or 14-42 ez.

>>2977867
>he fell for the maymay

>>2977867
do you have eyes?

>>2977951
My eyes tell me that u4/3 is pretty useless. I feel really terrible for the folks heavily invested in it. The kind of sad I feel when a little turtle on the beach is stuck on his back and can't flip over, and you really really want to help him, but totally don't want to risk spilling your margarita

>>2977985
The only somewhat decent use for M4/3 is extreme telephoto at a somewhat reasonable size. Too bad you still gotta compensate for less light.

But really, you can just get a 1" sensor superzoom instead.

>>2977268
Canons NFC implementation is utter shit though.

On my 80D, the NFC has worked twice. Literally twice. What the fuck.

>>2977233
because even this little toy beats the canon 5d mark 3

my professor at the university caught me on the hallway " anon come inside, i have something funny for you "
he tested the dp3 merril vs a canon 5d mark 3
both tripod, same objects..
canon > blurry as fuck no detail
sigma > sharp as hell, better wb, better contrast and details

fuck canon

File: Sigma-DP3-Merrill-Test.jpg (34KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x480px

>>2979870
forgot pic lol

>>2977985
but they don't tell you that m4/3 is smaller? the picture you posted alone proves that.

>>2979870
Well everyone knows the dp has one of the best sensors on the market

also I think the 5d mark 3 photos have to be sharpened to look good but when you do it it's great

>>2979870
What is so funny about that? Your professor sounds a bit stupid, and you do to. That camera has unique sensor technology and needs over 10 seconds to save one RAW file.

>better wb
I LOVE Foveon, but you clearly have no experience with it.

>fuck canon
You would get very similar results with other Bayer sensor cameras, and worse if they are APS-C like A6000.

Fuck canon, fuck white males!

>>2980029
Canon is for moms, and crap like events, birding and sports.

>>2980031
>canon is to get paid

pretty spot on, in fact.

>>2980032
go shoot a kids birthday faggot

>>2979870
Not sure what the fuck you did, but a 5D III with a sharp lens like the 300mm f/2.8 is sharp to almost the last damn pixel.

Because it doesn't really depend much on the pixels, but on the lens.

>>2977243
>canon haven't invested in sensor tech for years
what is this bullshit? I don't like Canon, but come on.

>>2980035
>confirmed for never seeing a merrill foveon image in the flesh
Literally no comparison m8.
It depends a lot on the pixels.

>>2977233

Canon EOS M series is actually pretty solid cameras.

Of course, they have so few lenses they make the barren x-mount look well rounded.

But then again, most camera companies don't pump out 10 lenses a year, so give it some time.

>>2977275

It uses NFC to pair with your phone over wifi.

Some limitations though. It will only transfer jpegs. It only transfers.on camera shut down too, not when you take a shot.

The tethering app on the other hand is actually pretty nice. Full access to exposure settings from your phone.

>>2977985

m43 is supposed to be smaller, cheaper, and faster(specifically af) for only a minor performance loss.

In reality, an a6000 is considerably cheaper, has faster af, a smaller body and only marginally larger lenses while blowing m43 sensor performance out the water.

Unless you absolutely NEED every gram of weight and mm of space you can get. It always makes more sense to buy a Sony or a Fuji.

>>2980293
> an a6000 is considerably cheaper,
For midrange or better primes.

I think there is a consideration to be made for MFT when using just zoom lenses.

That said, I clearly ended up on the E-mount myself.

>>2977233
It's easy to convince anyone to get a DSLR
To take good photo you need big dick.
Bigger dick = better photo, and you can look cool at the same time.

>>2980342
spot on

>>2980293
I'm an MFT shooter who agrees with this.
In my case every gram counts, since I bicycle almost everywhere. (And if you aren't familiar with serious bicycling: every gram matters). I love my camera and the lenses are even better, but I would always recommend either a nice Sony ilc or a Fuji fixed lens for the performance and image quality advantage.