Moving to Canon RF full frame mirrorless 13 April 2020

After ten years  I have sold all my Panasonic Lumix Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system gear and started acquiring Canon EOS RF full frame mirrorless bodies and lenses.

This one is easy. When Panasonic and Olympus introduced the first digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC) system in 2008, I could see the writing was on the wall for the DSR camera genre. It was just a matter of time and product development for all the main camera makers to go the mirrorless way.

Compared to DSLRs,  MILCs can be smaller, lighter, have fewer total components, fewer components requiring precise mechanical alignment and  lower cost.

They are a better fit with the increasingly computerised, electronic nature of modern imaging systems.

It took longer than I imagined but now all the main makers of full frame (43mm diagonal sensor) cameras have declared their intention to go the mirrorless way and have delivered a significant 43mm MILC product catalogue.  Most have indicated that there will be no further development of DSLRs or associated lenses.

The answer to this question is a little more complex.

I have for several years been advocating and using small sensor cameras, some with interchangeable lenses (MFT) and others with fixed lenses (compacts and bridge models).

I still believe that bridge type models, specifically the Sony RX10.4 and Panasonic Lumix FZ1000.2  represent the best all-in-one photographic kit one can buy.

In my view either of these models can provide enough capability for most users in most photographic situations.

I still use these cameras especially on trips away. But at the moment and for the duration of the Covid-19 lockdown going away is not an option.

I also like to have a mirorless interchangeable lens system. Until recently this has been MFT.

But in the last few years the relationship between MFT and Full Frame has been changing.

MFT cameras have been getting larger and more expensive while full frame models have been getting smaller and less expensive to the point there is not a great difference between them.

The same trend in size can be seen in lenses although not to the same extent as the bodies.

However we are seeing the emergence of full frame mirrorless f4-7.1 zooms which are in the same price range as MFT zooms and are not much larger.  In terms of equivalence an f2.8-4 MFT lens transmits less light than an f4-7.1 full frame lens.

All this means that the size/price advantage which MFT once had over full frame is decreasing over time.

The next factor is that the camera companies are extremely keen, possibly desperate, to move their product lines upmarket to distance them as far as possible from the new breed of camera-capable smartphones.

In pursuit of this most of their new product announcements are full frame bodies and lenses.

In 2019 Panasonic announced one new MFT body,  the G95,  which was a mildly warmed over G85 and one new lens, the 10-25mm f1.7, mainly for professional video use.

In the same time period they released three new full frame bodies and six L mount lenses.

One does not need to be prescient to see which way this is going.

We can see a similar relationship between full frame and APSC at Canon, Nikon and Sony, with most of the effort going to full frame bodies and lenses.

As camera sale continue to decline I think it is inevitable that camera makers will continue to chop off  the less profitable branches of their enterprise, namely compacts, MFT and APSC to concentrate on full frame where there is more margin per item.

I do not want to be left clinging to a system the camera makers themselves appear to be quietly abandoning.

The questions get more difficult as we go.

For me the options are Canon RF, Nikon Z FX and Sony FE.

Leica is way too expensive and the SL and its lenses too big and heavy.

Panasonic’s initial offerings are too big, heavy and expensive and are hampered by their reliance on contrast detect AF.

Sigma has one strange little full frame model which appears to occupy a niche within a niche within a specialised place.

There are endless reviews, comparisons and discussions comparing the various merits of Canon, Nikon and Sony full frame systems.

My take on this is that there is no significant difference between them with regard to image quality.

There are differences with respect to specifications.  features and  lenses/system, but these differences will become less with  follow up models.

Canikon will soon catch up to Sony with their full frame mirrorless lens catalogue and in the meantime Canikon’s DSLR lenses work just fine on their mirrorless models with an adapter..

The same will happen with performance issues. When one maker gets an advantage in say, autofocus the others will catch up. In the mid term there is unlikely to be much difference between them.  One, probably Sony, will want bragging rights for the fastest frame rate or similar but in practice that will mean little.

We can see this playing out with the Canon EOS R which was criticised initially for aspects of its autofocus and performance. But after a series of firmware updates I have been able to capture birds in flight with reasonable efficiency.

To be sure the EOS R would not be a professional’s first choice for sport/action/BIF but it can now do a decent job at the enthusiast level.

This leaves ergonomics, the user experience and camera-ness.

I have been very critical of Canon over the last 10-15 years for their production of a series of half baked models with mediocre capability.

But through all this I have felt that compared to Sony and Nikon, Canon has maintained a better relationship between the camera and user through what would appear to be a better understanding of the functional anatomy of human hands and the way these interact with the device.

When I pick up and hold a Canon camera it feels right. The camera feels as though it has been designed to fit my hands and fingers. With some other brands I feel as though my hands have to adapt to the camera which feels awkward in my hands.

When I operate the main controls on a Canon they are usually where my fingers want to find them and they work the way I expect them to do.

Also I strongly favour the fully articulated monitor screen.  It enables the user to do some things which are impossible with the swing-up-down type found on Nikon and Sony MILCs.

Canon’s good record for handling and controls is not without blemish.

They sometimes get things wrong, for instance the infamous M-Fn bar on the EOS R.

Current model Panasonic cameras also feel as though they have been designed to fit my hands. In interviews Panasonic representatives have referred to this as camera-ness.

For my money Canon and Panasonic do camera-nessmore effectively than most other brands.

Camera sales continue to decline and have apparently crashed in the Covid-19 shut down.

So it seems likely that some camera makers will fail  or at least opt out of the consumer camera business which is not a profitable enterprise for most of them.

There is nothing novel or unexpected about this. Over the years many camera brands have disappeared from the scene.

Most of  the corporations which make consumer cameras get the bulk of their revenue from other sources. So making cameras is a hobby business for them just as for most consumers buying and using cameras is a hobby.

Samsung sensibly opted out of consumer cameras and I expect others will follow suit.

The question is who ?

Here we enter the realm of complete guesswork.

If the entities which make cameras behaved in a commercially logical fashion most would be out of the business right now.  

Most continue making cameras for what appear to be sentimental reasons which makes predicting future actions impossible.

So I am taking a punt on Canon. We will see how that goes.