Now that I’m starting to draw comparisons against other brands mirrorless systems, it’s a good segue into how the rumored upcoming Canon Full Frame mirrorless offering/s compares against its (rumored) competitors…

 

Vs Sony’s offerings / future offerings:

Colors: This is a big one. You have to deal with this one way or another, almost invariably in post processing time and effort, especially if you’re still shooting a Canon/Nikon alongside it to keep consistency. What this boils down to is do you need to keep consistency, and if so, how often is your scenery changing as that group of shots can be manipulated in batch, but, if you have to repeat that frequently as you have lots of groups of shots, it could be a real problem as conditions change from one shot group to the next. Likewise even if you go all-in, that is Sony only, can you (and your clientele) adapt to the color shift? Sony skin tones are notoriously inaccurate in my book (and Nikon to a much lesser degree) and I’ve had a hard look at this topic (in a prior article for that matter) and just can’t palate it (no pun intended). It’s why to date, Sony is still not on my list of options here.

Optics: You have Sony optics for native mount, self-explanatory. However, adapted optics require an adaptor, and I’m hearing really good things about adapted optics lately, specifically Canon ones and the latest Sony bodies on the plus side. But like anything adapted, I’ve also heard it’s not as good as the real thing in regards to AF (no surprise). Also, I’ve found to taste, Sony optics produce less pleasing results in my book vs Canon or Carl Zeiss. The latter being incredibly cost prohibitive. A lot of folks forget (and I’ll remind), once again, colors, and optics, even Canon optics, vary significantly as I was just talking to a colleague about a 70-200L being very different then a 100 f/2.8L, and as I noted myself with my former 85mm f/1.2L shots I was reviewing just last night have some real punch; irises in portraits really pop with color, it’s not just bokeh on the 85 f/1.2L that matters. If Canon optics vary radically between differing L’s, you should be all the more cautious switching brands to ensure you’re getting the color, bokeh and contrast rendition desired from its equivalent optic/s and price it out to see if it makes sense (as Canon has some very strong sales in my neck of the woods, the states, every now and then).

Support: As a former CPS gold member, let me say Canon’s support is very professional, very economical, and I’ve heard plenty of stories from others of how CPS has saved many a person’s bacon between their quick response times, ample geographical availability and loaner program. Sony? They have a program I’m told, but I haven’t heard a peep about it yet, good or bad. It’s a known good vs unknown.

Weather sealing: Enough said.

Touchscreen: Sony has touchscreen AF finally, but, it’s not as good. However, I do expect it’ll get better by the next revision (Sony has a rather short lifecycle on their products) just in time for Canon’s (and Nikon’s) bombshell/s. The question is how good?

AF: Sony has top of the line silicon tech, both sensor and processing. Between BSI, LSI, stacked CMOS, and newer lithography they can pull more data faster both on the frontend and backend. They’re going to have more AF points, more FPS, more buffer depth, but is it better AF as such? DPAF is the gold standard for video, and as I just got done going through (if you read that section above) DPAF does better in low light, not as good as a DSLR, but better then hybrid AF of the Sony, which is the weak spot of mirrorless AF systems, so this is a very important point. As Canon’s DIGIC8, and DIGIC8+ / dual DIGIC8 debut potentially in the new Canon offering, coupled with DPAF, Sony’s going to be giving up its mirrorless AF crown here shortly, even if they do a mark IV of the A7/R or mark II by that time, unless they too shift to DPAF or something similar; the writing is on the wall here that Canon’s got more AF data coming off their sensor but finally will have the backend to keep up with it.

Stripping: There’s lots of folks jumping up and down over this on the web lately. Of interest, I was the first one (that I know) to nail the monkey with the peanut here as I’d read it in a Canon patent before and said, this sounds mighty familiar, and pointed out on an online forum it (and was ignored / drowned out, Sony forum after all) was related to hybrid AF pixels and fast aperture lenses/wide angles with stray light, precisely where it’s occurring I might add (hmmmm). Canon solved this issue through light absorption units on sensor that prevents the occurrence. This is Canon patented technology. Sony will have to solve this another way other than the patent (or pay to use the patent more likely), assuming there’s another way to fix it, or else I guess you’ll have to deal with it in post processing. This is lens-specific IE faster apertures and wide angle lenses if I read my patents correctly (but if you can’t shoot fast glass on a full frame without the issue, why do we need full frame again? There’s plenty of crop or smaller options that are an effective lower equivalence out there already… *sigh*).

Horizontal AF hybrid patterns: Speaking of striping (which lines up with the AF pixel stripes on Sony sensors), a good segue here, I’ve also heard that horizontal patterns (think a row of trees / poles, fencing, etc) can confuse Sony sensors in a very non-cross AF point way. This is arguably a smaller issue, but I’m going somewhere with this not just flipping over every rock here…

Sensor metrics (ISO, DR, megapixels): Sony does lead the pack here (we’re finally getting to the pros here, goodness), they can cram more pixels into the same area and yet produce a better response due to their class leading silicon fabrication. They lead the pack in DR, ISO and readout capability, while doing so at denser MP counts at that. Part of this is because they chose not to go DPAF, instead going with AF pixel stripes, thus larger single pixel sites, it’s also one part that BSI tech, fabrication, etc. You’re simply going to be hard pressed to squeeze more data out of a non-Sony sensor than you can on a Sony sensor. Sony may be paying the price in low light AF and stripping issues, but their RAW IQ (not colors) is going to be top-of-the-line because of the tradeoff. Canon choose the other way, to put AF in front of RAW IQ by going the DPAF route.

Interlude (a “dad” conversation about sensor metrics): When is enough ISO, DR or AF, etc enough? Arguably any modern (Canon or otherwise) DSLR (particularly FF) has enough of all the above, so I agree with Canon’s MO on this one as AF is going to be the weakest link in a mirrorless thus they’ve chosen to shore up that defense some time ago but did it for video reasons, but Sony choose the other way and I can respect that as it’s a tradeoff pure and simple. But to put a different perspective on this…

Imagine you have a choice between two v6 cars, one can do 80mph (miles per hour) and gets 20 mpg (miles per gallon) and freeways around here the cruising speed is 75mph without traffic (even though that’s over the posted speed limit).

The other is a beefed up v6 sports car that can do 100mph but gets 10mpg.

One looks better on paper, and everyone wants the 100mph sports car, but, what is dad going to say? What’s more practical? You’re going to use the gas mileage every day and, it’ll get you further without refilling vs the 100mph car goes faster then what you need to keep up with the regular flow of traffic, and, comes at the cost of something you can use every day…

Likewise, why do you need to go above the speed limit? Because you’re in a hurry, be it you procrastinated, have an emergency, etc.

Back to cameras (I’m coming back to my analogy), the A7R III sports 14.7EVs of DR and 3523 ISO score per DXO. The 5DIV sports 13.6EVs of DR and 2995 ISO score, and my former EOS M5 sports 12.4EVs of DR and 1262 ISO.

I’ve found that the 12.4 stops of DR of my former (crop) M5 was plenty for not only properly exposed images, but also fixing some that I either missed by a good 1 stop, or have highlights/shadows that need a good 2 stops of cleanup with good image quality.

With dynamic range, you need more than 12 stops to “speed”, that is you screwed up your shot (because you didn’t expose correctly) and now need to fix it in post. You need to speed. But how often do I need to do that (exceed the speed limit)? On a Canon, not often, they often get exposure metering pretty spot on. Sometimes I do want to raise shadows, but often doing so produces artificial (cartoonish) results if pushed too hard (something the new ALO on the M50 and thereby the new Canon FF mirrorless, doesn’t have the problem with, automatically) Hmm.

ISO? Depends. If you’re shooting a full frame with an f/2.8 or faster lens, you’re good in most circumstances. If say you’re in a nightclub, you should drag out that 35mm f/1.4L. Guess what? You’re just not going to have a problem at that point with ISO. Once again, if you do, you’re “speeding” again. True, sometimes speeding is handy, but it can only make up so much time (you can only push it so hard in post / bump the ISO so much before IQ degrades).

How about those miles per gallon? I’m talking about AF. You can use AF all the time. That same nightclub venue? What if your camera can’t take the shot (which I do hear the Sony’s struggle in low light venues) to begin with? Uh huh. Problem. My former M5, was rated down to -1EV, but in practice, I found if you set it single point, it would nail things that are easily -3EV or less on a 22 pancake, but takes a bit. The M50, by contrast is rated even lower at -2EV and it’s still the same crop sensor, just with a beefier DIGIC8 driving it’s AF calculations and I found in testing it the other day in BestBuy it behaves like it has another stop of sensitivity just as advertised. Now imagine a FF DPAF new sensor being driven by DIGIC8, or two of them!? Ahem. What problem?

In the case of a FF body, the choice is obvious, you don’t need more DR in most cases (exposed correctly) or ISO (if you’re shooting the right glass for the conditions), but AF, that’s something you can’t buy when you need it. When you run out of gas, you’re out of gas, that’s it. You either got a gas station next to you, or you’re walking with the gas can or phoning up a tow truck.

Now, when you drop to a crop body in this analogy, a little different story. Then a good 1/3 stop of ISO is a big difference as the freeway is 75mph still, but it’s a v4 that can only do say 55mph. It’s having trouble with the flow of traffic, but can drive on the same road as “the big boys”, but can’t catch them, except on a good day. Hence the analogy. In this case the other car, say the A6500, it can do 60 or 65MPH, but has less gas mileage again. At that point, yeah, you got a choice there that isn’t as obvious as you’re lacking enough ISO to do the job both with the extra oomph of the better crop sensor still. Some days I’ll want the ISO, some days I’ll want the AF on a crop.

Anyhow, back on the vs Sony…

IBIS: Sony has it, Canon probably won’t for a while (IMO).

Video: The reality is, Canon self-admits they exempt high end video options from consumer grade hardware (see M50). Sony doesn’t. Less than $2K for good 4K? Sony wins without contest, colors be darned.

Cost: That A7 III is a lot of camera for the buck. And the upcoming Canon’s, if they be a 5DSR II mirrorless or 1DX III mirrorless, neither of those start at less than $2K as they’ll (probably) be sporting a sensor from one of them and thus most likely commanding a commensurate price.

Do forgive me if you’re a Sony shooter, but to say I’m impressed by just having the latest technology and cost effective body, is not enough in my book. 4K is a big deal though, but arguably so is good 1080P which is what most people who shoot 4K do, down sample to 1080P. I get ticked at Canon sometimes for moving my cheese as it is as they upgrade their technology and upset the colors, all the more Sony just isn’t for me in particular as they’re really moving the cheese. If it’s working for you, stick with it. But if you’re a Canon shooter, buyer beware is the point I’m driving; Canon’s got an ecosystem of color, optics (cheap optics in some cases compared to others) ease of use, reliability and support. But, Sony is going to give cheap 4K, and if you can live with the hiccups in color and optics and the AF is good enough for your use, it’s hard to beat the price point of that new A7 III, either now, or later. But, you do get what you pay for, from what I’m gathering this side of the rumored offering too.

Vs Nikon

Outsourced Fabs: Nikon has used, and could still be using Sony’s class leading sensors and CPUs. They’re going to share the same ISO, DR, etc advantages as before.

Nikon 1 AF track record: But, even today, the Nikon 1’s AF system is top notch. If they can achieve in a full frame, the measure of success the Nikon 1 did, holy cow, Canon’s not getting that crown after all.

Stripping: They (like Sony) have to solve it too, somehow.

Colors: Not as good as Canon in my book, but a lot better than Sony.

Price: Big question mark.

IBIS: Probably. Once again if you’re using a Sony sensor, and Sony’s doing it ;)

4K: This is another Nikon won’t pull a Canon; the D850 and D500 have some serious 4K, and they don’t have to cost $5K+ for it. It’s a given it’ll have better 4K output than Canon at the same pricepoint as they have no Cinema market to protect and will be using more advanced sensor tech via their outsourced fabs.

Mount: If I had to guess? For the same reasons as Canon, Nikon would be wise to stick to the F mount. However, patents emerging indicate Nikon is considering a new mount entirely despite it. 50-50. They could do their new rumored Z mount, but if they do, you can bet every body will ship with an F to Z mount adapter.

Nikon is clearly the wild card here, they have the potential to really shake things up, but, just like the Nikon DL, if, they can deliver the thing, and do it on time. I find it no coincidence they’ve publicly acknowledged it as such, even though Canon won’t follow suit and publicly acknowledge their development efforts. However, the more they reassure, the more I wonder if they can deliver.

Safe bets:

Canon

If I were to bet which model Canon does first? A 5DSR II mirrorless, launched either alongside the 5DSR II DSLR, or 6 months before it, in a very Canon-like fashion for market saturation before launching another product some of those same folks might buy instead. It should come as soon as Q3 of this year, but, I’d bet Q4 this year or Q1 next year.

Why? Mirrorless is sorta like a problem in need of a solution as I’ve touched on between weight/size not being much help on a FF, but, AF, AF is its strength, precision meets intelligence between no more AFMA and eye-AF, but it’s got kryptonite too in the form of low light AF performance making it unsuitable for the most demanding low light scenarios that you might take say your 5D IV or 1DX II along for, which you wouldn’t take your 5DSR DSLR for that matter, along for, either. Something like the 5DSR is in need of high performance AF and no shutter shock for its arguable medium format competing portrait intended audience.

Another safe bet: Price. $3,899, maybe more.

Specs: My guess, more megapixels almost certain, maybe BSI which will level the playing field in low light against the A7Rs...

Who’s it for? Portrait poppers or event photographers (think weddings) with fast glass. If it gets BSI, it’ll really be for the wedding crowd though as those are both outdoor, and indoor affairs. I think it will as Canon knows they need to knock the A7R III down.

Sony

They’ll probably kick out a A7S III at a minimum in the meantime, if not another AR7 IV, as they’ve gotta know as well as Canon this is the first battlefront they’re going to encounter, and arguably because the A7R III ironically started it. Besides, the A7R II sensor (same in the A7R III), needs an update if only because it’s past its Sony life expectancy (which is to say short).

Sony only just figured out they needed to fix their colors on the A7R III via the jpeg engine, after they’d already produced a bunch of G glass that doesn’t have a clue about color before that fix (IE they got the memo a little late). Simply put, you’re stuck with it if you don’t adapt as they’ve already got those in production and they’re new already (early lifecycle), and Sony doesn’t have the same track record with glass as they do with their bodies (new one every year); we haven’t seen a 2nd gen of any G glass yet.

That said, price wise and video wise, holy cow. Real 4K for less than 2K? If you’re into video (this is coming from a Canon-shooter), perhaps you don’t need to wait for Canon to jump in right now. Canon’s just not going to catch up on the video front, they don’t want to with their Cinema offerings. Sony has this corner. And price wise? That’s what the 6D II is for, which is very underwhelming. But for portrait work though? Wait for the Canon full frame mirrorless, your clientele might appreciate the handiwork more, truth hurts, both ways (for Sony and Canon).

Nikon

Big mystery. Considering their track record, as long as they actually deliver a product, it should be pretty darn good in both stills and video (instead of having to choose), and price. These guys could actually be a best of both worlds. If you own any serious Nikon glass, you need to wait to see what happens (or doesn’t happen) before doing anything. Skip the A7’s, and skip the Canon if it comes first. Where things get interesting is if Nikon does a new mount (they might) as they could steal Canon shooters with adapters ala the A7 III, except with ALOT more penetration, ouch. This is Canon’s worst nightmare, and I hope it comes true personally; that 5DSR II mirrorless might not hang at $4K for long... (of course Canon could return the favor with their own new mount permitting F to EF adapters…)

End of the day

At the end of the day, I think DSLRs will have a place, but it’ll be a niche as mirrorless cameras are cheaper and easier to assemble (that’s important considering the photo market is contracting under intense smartphone pressure), have many benefits to portrait shooters in particular (which is a large pro audience), and Canon is poised to really kick out 2 mean beasts (maybe 3), that is we may see a 5DSR II gone mirrorless and/or 1DX III gone mirrorless here shortly and we’ll likely see 4K mainstream adoption on behalf of Canon going forward. Nikon is the wild card here and lastly Sony will probably kick out another iterative rev of their own products before either Canon or Nikon kick out there first full frame mirrorless of their own. Should be an interesting Q4 18 / Q1 19…

What will (or would) I do? Watch. Even though I’m admittedly in the Canon camp, Nikon, as I said, is the wild card here. I have no glass though, that matters. If you have glass, not to seem risk-adverse, it’s pretty obvious hold unto it if you’re a Canon portrait shooter and can wait, and see what your respective brand does shortly. Sony is just poised to become a Canon/Nikon themselves, with their own strengths, and weaknesses in my eyes. Nikon? They could have a shot at eating Canon’s lunch shortly having their first camera body that may permit EF glass via an adapter. I’d be careful of that adapter and video though; if the metabones can’t reliably do video AF now, Nikon joining the party won’t magically fix that, probably anyways.