Canon to stop producing new EF designs.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
I'm all for eye-AF as well. I don't use it yet for video, though, because my a6500 only allows it for stills. But my dream camera would have an APS-C sensor recording ~4k BRAW with the DR of the UMP, and an E-mount allowing reliable eye-AF on my beautiful f/1.4 APS-C Sigma primes.

BTW: OVF and video eye-AF don't play well together, you'd need an SLT instead of an SLR, which I guess nobody is making anymore.
 
Eye AF is good for some things. Interviews. The push into a close up.


Currently, i like having spontaneous control over the focus. But i don’t like shooting those things that make focus difficult.
 
If only AF was all this, but bunches of test vids characterized as extreme torture tests that are not remotely that. Would be great to see the actual unedited dark wedding receptions. How would you even select your face detection targets? Your footage is rolling real time; if you’re screwing around tapping the screen while the bride is constantly on the move showing her backside and the guests and photogs are jumping in front blocking your shot. No, that doesn’t work in the real world. The best autofocus is your two fingers on the focus ring as you push and shove your way to the front to keep the couple framed, in the dark, often without without aid of practicals of any kind. You also can focus by distance, set your focus distance and keep the subject at that distance. That method does not fail focus no matter how dark. But street practicals, sodium vapor lamps in high contrast, single subject moving around in front of studio key lights, those are not challenges to AF systems that you would believe they are.
 
Grug said:
it's still hard to top a reflex system that lets you look through the actual lens. For anyone shooting studio work with strobes, an optical system is VASTLY more pleasant than the horrific gained up nonsense you see through an EVF.
Click to expand...

Back in the SLR days I loved OVFs that allowed you to change focusing screens, so you could tailor your focusing screen to the type of job you were shooting. Do any of the DSLR cameras still offer interchangeable focusing-screens ?

As far as shooting with strobes and EVFs, it all depends on the EVF. I really like the EVF in the new Panasonic S FF cameras, and the independent 1080p EVFs I've played also looked dang good to me.
 
TheDingo said:
Back in the SLR days I loved OVFs that allowed you to change focusing screens, so you could tailor your focusing screen to the type of job you were shooting. Do any of the DSLR cameras still offer interchangeable focusing-screens ?

As far as shooting with strobes and EVFs, it all depends on the EVF. I really like the EVF in the new Panasonic S FF cameras, and the independent 1080p EVFs I've played also looked dang good to me.
Click to expand...

I could on my 5D/2 and 3. They stopped it on the 4 because of the new LCD VF information overlay. You may still be able to on the latest 1D’s, but I don’t know. I just used the grid overlay screens. Never tried the screens designed to show DoF with fast lenses. I think there was a third party company doing screens compatible with the newer LCD overlaid OVF’s.
 
I wish I can find the numbers of how many F6 bodies Nikon managed to sell last year as opposed to sales of FM2 or F3 on a used market?


The costs of establishing a new system is way higher then maintaining the old one for few more years. Storm is coming anyway for all of us!

SLR was for everyone.
DSLR was mainly for entousiastics and pro shooters.
Mirrorless was for minority within minority of a minority who still uses single function devices.
R, L, Z lens mounts are intended for rare weirdos in a dark corner of a obscure theme helloween party. How many are out there!? Very few…

Sure, they are loud, they show off on YT, they agitate, but still, for one RF users there are 100s of EF users.

For new system to survive, it would have to be massive acceptance! But there are no masses anymore…and possibly no future!

Smartphones are massive!!!
Single function devices that only take picture and record video are not.

As the oldies are getting out of the game, whole world’s population of emerging art/film/photo students, eccentric enthusiasts and working pros who might use new lens mount will amount to a suburb population of a medium size chinese city all whom all use IINSTGM and smartphones… so few system adopters that new developing photo/video systems are rendered as financialy unfeasible for both manufacturers and users.

Divided between 4 new lens mount systems, it will be so overwhelming, confusing and expensive for prospective users that they will go back and settle on EF and F lens mounts.

RF, S, L, & Co. are last straw of a drawning man! Or if you want, instead of carrot, they wrapped an asparagus on a stick. another, higher managment joke, trying to steal as much money on a new con-trick before they start running away!

Canon, nikon, oly, panny folks are people of whom 90% will be without job in next 4-5 years because their era of single function devices is long gone :(
New Lens mounts are just a bait that whoever swallows will be dead pretty soon.

To throw in 100% financing for something that has 3% increase in quality and performance…are you kiddin’ me?!

New systems are BETTER I hear some of you saying…
Yes they are! I admitt. they are somewhat better.

But not 2 or 3 times better!!! And it certainly doesn’t bring 2 or 3 time higher pay if you use them. The quality superiority of RF against EF is so minor that most of the people don’t give a freacking blink about it…

Macy’s is out of biz. Barney’s is out of biz. Even bloody Opening Ceremony is out of Biz. Video game sector is in decline…
Who are you gonna shoot for, all these big glittery ad campaigns of the past that pay well?! If not for these companies, where else you gonna work for, that will pay back 3000$ for body only, that you just poured in for your brand new “tool”!?

Maybe clients like these!?Wanted.jpg


After this risky adventurous joke called RF/S/Z system faces the destiny of Contax 645, Hasselblad V, Olympus 43 or Sigma FOVEON (all superior systems to their competitors) then the remaining world of eccentric weirdos who still use single function devices (photo/video camera), will settle on EOS EF digital and Nikon F analog systems. There will be so much of equipment on used market that nobody gives a sheize if canon stops producing them. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Rokinon will …they just need to manufacture for the system that already exists and is in use - alive and well!

After all, canon was never made by canon. it was Magic Lantern that made canon (by introducing 24fps hack and other…).

Majors are already loosing battle against all these 7artisans ,Laowa, Zhongyi and other brands that sell on ebay and change the name and models and quality every 3 months (and that nobody realy knows where are they truly manucactured?!?!).
With canon stopping EF lens production, will only liberate other to offer the same product for less money!
 
Maest said:
Smartphones are massive!!!
Single function devices that only take picture and record video are not.
Click to expand...

I agree, the smartphone is basically going to replace cameras for the vast majority of consumers. The problem with DSLRs and Canon's slowness at shifting to mirrorless is that they are not single function devices for picture and video. They are single function devices for photos that sort of work for video, but not well. I can't tell you how thankful I am that I'm able to stick my eye on the Fuji XT-3 viewfinder and shoot away. It stabilizes the camera, is easier to judge focus, and works in the daylight. I would never buy an SLR for video use anymore. You have to hold it out a foot and half while trying to keep it stable. It's just bad for handheld shooting unless you rig it up, which at that point, why not just buy a video camera.

So what's Canon to do? They should've started this transition years ago. The smaller you make the camera the more likely someone will choose to take that with them in addition to their phone. There's still a market for big sensors because you can't get a big sensor on a camera. And it does produce a superior image. But it's an increasingly small number of people that will put up with the bulk of it.
 
You guys are depressing me with the truth! I agree with what you're saying, I'm just lamenting the end of the era.
 
Kevin Kelly said:
Think of it this way - after someone shots their cell phone epic, they need a $30000 USD computer system to make it look presentable.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed how many people are buying expensive hot rod computers to try to natively edit formats such as 10-bit H.265, that are not editing codecs, they were designed for distribution.
All people have to do is convert it to an edit friendly codec. Our business is so rife with misinformation and uninformed users, it's insane. I'm sure the rise of the semi-pro cell-phone auteur
will continue this and amplify it.
 
puredrifting said:
I'm amazed how many people are buying expensive hot rod computers to try to natively edit formats such as 10-bit H.265, that are not editing codecs, they were designed for distribution.
All people have to do is convert it to an edit friendly codec. Our business is so rife with misinformation and uninformed users, it's insane. I'm sure the rise of the semi-pro cell-phone auteur
will continue this and amplify it.
Click to expand...

Same. You do not need a $15,000 Mac Pro to cut 4K. You don't even need it to cut 8K. Just transcode to ProRes and spend your money on fast storage.
 
One interesting thing I read today: VW sold about 11m cars last year, and Tesla only 367,500, yet Tesla’s market value is higher than that of VW. Maybe the technology gap of Canon and Nikon with respect to Sony is not that big, though.
 
Samuel H said:
One interesting thing I read today: VW sold about 11m cars last year, and Tesla only 367,500, yet Tesla’s market value is higher than that of VW. Maybe the technology gap of Canon and Nikon with respect to Sony is not that big, though.
Click to expand...

Tesla's US sales are down by 39% in the 3rd quarter, as most of the tax rebates expired.

As to the camera (sensor) quality gap, it's evened out by the feature crippling and niche model pricing.
 
jbregar said:
Same. You do not need a $15,000 Mac Pro to cut 4K. You don't even need it to cut 8K. Just transcode to ProRes and spend your money on fast storage.
Click to expand...

With Red, i just simultaneously record prores proxies. 10bit LT looks great and the whole project can fit on an internal laptop ssd. And old 2011 on a spinny drive edits prores proxies like butter.
 
How many lenses options are really missing from EF that there would be gaps at this point? Even if Canon itself doesn’t fill one of those rare and obscure gaps there is still companies like a Tamron and Sigma. Sigma has been kind of killing it recently with lens designs.

I also wonder what this will do to cinema cameras sort of unofficially adopting the EF mount as a industry standard. Will they continue to do so or will they explore another option going forward? Is there a logically other option right now? I’m not really a fan of locking into another mount owned by a specific manufacturer like Sony.
 
RED's choice of using a RF mount for their new camera kind of tells us what some of these board meetings were about.

EF will eventually become phased out (will take years). It's the best choice for now for manufactures with their relatively inexpensive cinema cameras.

Sony and Canon will continue pushing their mounts, but will always offer PL too.

I've always been surprised that there aren't more F-mount lower-end cinema cameras as the mount has a pretty decent lineup. Of course it's easy to adapt manual Nikon glass to EF mounts, but all of the third-party electronic Japanese/Chinese/etc. options that are available for EF are usually available for the F-mount as well.
 
jbregar said:
Same. You do not need a $15,000 Mac Pro to cut 4K. You don't even need it to cut 8K. Just transcode to ProRes and spend your money on fast storage.
Click to expand...

Your point is taken but it is not a one size fits all situation. Transcoding takes time. So you are trading your time for a fast computer. Yes, fast storage is a side expense but the file sizes will be a lot larger. So your fast storage needs to be "a lot of fast storage" if your are shooting anything longer in nature. Then there are the backups. Do you backup the huge files or the originals since the originals did not get used in the edit? So now you need 2X the fast storage which probably puts you closer to the faster computer...

I prefer to work with the original files because they will never look any better than they do out of the camera. The NLE will work with the files in the color space/bit depth chosen, so transcoding will do nothing but make it easier to process and maybe degrade it a tiny amount. And the backups are smaller and consistent. It is probably a wash in the end.
 
Thomas Smet said:
How many lenses options are really missing from EF that there would be gaps at this point? ...
Click to expand...
This depends on what new camera you are using. Many older EF lenses don't work well with the auto focus; some don't work at all (that's because they're manual ... I kid, I kid).

But EF is on is way out. RF is on its way in.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Your point is taken but it is not a one size fits all situation. Transcoding takes time. So you are trading your time for a fast computer. Yes, fast storage is a side expense but the file sizes will be a lot larger. So your fast storage needs to be "a lot of fast storage" if your are shooting anything longer in nature. Then there are the backups. Do you backup the huge files or the originals since the originals did not get used in the edit? So now you need 2X the fast storage which probably puts you closer to the faster computer...

I prefer to work with the original files because they will never look any better than they do out of the camera. The NLE will work with the files in the color space/bit depth chosen, so transcoding will do nothing but make it easier to process and maybe degrade it a tiny amount. And the backups are smaller and consistent. It is probably a wash in the end.
Click to expand...

Unless you are down scaling, master quality Prores files are typically larger than compressed camera originals. They don't save storage space.
They are much less processing intensive to decode than many camera codecs, so run much more efficiently in an NLE. Typically you will wind up with a better delivery export from Prores than from camera originals if you are working with master quality Prores files because they are easier to compress without introducing artifacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top