Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]

[Maximilian]

The rumor sounds promissing. Now let's hope for a great job to be done by Canon.

And if this FF MILC is still working with EF lenses, then, Canon, please make a better adapter and a better AF performance than EOS M + EF shows now. Thank you

 

[mb66energy]

Just came into my mind:
Maybe Canon is waiting to have a DPAF sensor for full frame ready ... which might give a VERY useful AF system with a wider distribution of AF measurement inside the frame. Some Servo AF without being bound to 9 (or more) spots near the center region would be promising for outdoor macro work!

 

[MayaTlab]

just wondering - what would be the difference in benefits between

1. Going mirrorless, keeping the flange distance.

2. Going mirrorless, shortening the flange distance?

From memory, issues are raised with fast & wide lenses, the end being around 85mm f/1.2 (= that one would benefit, but 100mm f/2 & 135mm f/2 not). That would make a difference for a dozen lenses, maybe a couple more.

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body while keeping the same flange distance be as good a solution?

Wouldn't allowing those to protrude into the body, with a mirror locked up, be as good a solution?

Probably not much for zooms or some longer lenses, particularly as long as sensors and filter stacks pose problems with acute ray angles. But it expands the horizon for possible lens design solutions and the potential might grow in the future.

In addition I'll start to believe it's totally irrelevant only when Canon releases a 28mm f2 pancake lens (to keep overall length identical) as good as Sony's 28mm f2 (and it isn't like the latter sets the bar particularly high). Personally I'd really like to see a set of reasonably sized (basically, not much thicker than current EF flange + 40mm pancake), somewhat slow, but not too much (think f2, not f2.8 ), high-end primes, and I have a gut feeling that's not going to happen with the EF flange, but that's just a very personal wish.

Some lenses could protrude within the EF mount, but I see plenty of issues with that. For starters, you'll have to provide different lens caps - for the same mount ! - and different related accessories. Changing lenses might be more cumbersome. And some lens designs could be compromised compared to a shorter flange (because it isn't just about shoving lens elements inside, particularly for AF or zoom lenses).

But if we're going to debate the currently limited usefulness of a shorter flange distance, then we could also bring up the fact that Canon already has an adapter between the EF and EF-M mount that seems to kind of... work ? An adapter could be annoying in the field though. For example, if you have two EF lenses, one EF??? mirrorless mount and only one EF to EF??? adapter and regularly change lenses (at some point, you'll switch from the EF??? lens to the one EF lens without the adapter on it, so you'll have to unmount the EF to EF??? adapter from the other EF lens, put it on the EF lens you want to use, and finally be able to shoot). To make things a little simpler Canon could just keep the EF mount as it is, but just make it shorter. This way all current accessories will still work, and for example, you won't have to bother with two different kinds of lens caps.

I can understand that Canon take their time... it's quite a hard decision to make one way or another.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is little doubt that they will come out with a FF mirrorless. I do not prefer the "M" sized cameras, simply because my hands are too big. However, the big market is now in Asia, and small sells there.

Is it too obvious and simple to convert a EF body to mirrorless? A inexpensive and easy solution. It will sell in the US, Canada, and Europe, but not so much in Asia. We are going to see more and more of the specialized cameras.

 

[Bob Howland]

I'd like something about the size and weight of the SL1, perhaps a little smaller. I'm looking for lighter weight, not so much smaller size. It should use the current EF mount except with a 22mm flange distance and be built to 5D3/7D2 level of quality. Canon should make an adapter allowing the use of all current EF lenses on the new body while slowing introducing lenses for the shorter flange distance. Eventually, FF mirrorless would replace DSLRs with OVFs. (Putting on my flame suit now.) The current EF-M mount uses an 18mm flange distance and the 22mm distance of the new mount would require/permit an adapter to allow the FF mirrorless lenses to be used on EF-M bodies.

Slightly off topic question: does anybody know how good the EVF on the G5X is?

 

[MARSVANDER]

I currently have an M that I converted to IR because I didn't use it as much as I thought I would as a carry around camera. I just love the 5D III so much, I don't mind carrying the extra weight for image quality most of the time. I would be super excited to get a FF sensor in a smaller package to carry around when the 5D III is too big to take. I am excited to see what Canon produces in the MILC space. If it was something that would take adapters to use vintage lenses and other lens mounts even better. I really do like Canon's lens line-up, but I shoot mostly with Zeiss glass these days because my style does not require fast auto-focus. It would be super exciting though to experiment with some other glass.

 

[lw]

I don't really care whether the next Canon has 1 mirror, no mirrors or 6 mirrors.

I just want a really stellar replacement for the 6D and 5DIII that renders such debates of "mirrorless or not" pointless...

What I don't want is to have to wait another 2 years for them...

 

[tiltshift]

I would line up to buy a mirrorless Canon if it was the size of a 5d. owning a 5dIII and a7RII if I could have the features of the Sony in a native canon i would be trilled! truth is I much prefer an evf (mainly this), IBIS, and the new features that pdaf allows (ACCURATE eye af). I know IBIS and to an extent eye-af can be done with a mirror, I just really wish I could have an EVF really. it is the small size of the Sony I dont really like.... just give me a "professional" mirrorless camera Canon!!!

 

[Larsskv]

As I see it, Canon should go two ways. They can´t give up their superior EF-line of lenses, and therefore, they have to keep the DSLR´s, or have a mirrorless that is suited to use EF-lenses - that means same flange distance, a quite large body, with 5D-like ergonomics.

I do think Canon should also develop a full frame MILC to compete with the A7-series, lighter, with a shorter flange distance, and good small prime enses to work with it. F/4 zooms to keep the size appropriate to the body.

The idea of a small FF milc is appealing to many, I think.

As I see it, Sony seems to have done something seriously wrong, as many of their lenses are about the same size, or even bigger, than Canons compatible EF-lenses. Leica manages to make the lenses a lot smaller, and I don´t think AF explains it all. I have a theory, that Sony chose a sensor glass/stack that is too thick, and that this makes it harder to make especially small wide angle lenses, that perform well in the edges.

I have never really understood the point of the A7-series, as it really isn´t that much smaller than a Canon 6D, or Nikon D750, with a small prime on it. Further the lenses for the Sony A7 series are quite large. The tech is good for sure, but I think the business idea behind the A7-series was poorly planned out and poorly executed.

 

[ahsanford]

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:

The inevitable FF mirrorless future -- where we all will be using one in 10-15 years other than sports/wildlife folks, IMHO -- represents a huge matter for Canon: excess and obsolescence of all those EF lenses (including tooling, componentry, equipment, etc.). That's got to be on the order of billions of dollars, doesn't it?

We keep saying that Canon is avoiding 'serious' mirrorless for fear of undercutting SLR sales, but that's only part of the story. Any fledgling FF mirrorless offering will surely have an adapter, but native lenses will be faster focusing and native lenses will yield slightly smaller [lens + body] size. So everyone will expect to be using native FF mirrorless glass eventually.

So make no mistake, FF mirrorless' release will light the (admittedly very slow) fuse that will signal the beginning of the end of the EF lens portfolio. It might take a decade to burn that inventory down and ramp down production, but it surely will happen when (not if) the working professional market pivots towards mirrorless.

So getting the FF mirrorless mount design right is the most important technical decision Canon has had to make designing the original EF mount, IMHO. This is a bigger call than any sensor they'll ever make. Bodies and sensors evolve, but mounts last for decades and have 2-3 more zeros behind the dollar figure as far as an investment goes.

Here's hoping Canon gets it right.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Also, here's a zany idea to ramp up to mirrorless excellence:

Over a 2-3 camera body generations (say 10-12 years), offer an SLR side by side with the same sized camera without a mirrorbox plus an EVF where the OVF used to be. Yes, the mirrorless variant will be thicker than it needs to be. It will lose money for certain, but it will give Canon 2-3 generations to dial-in a world class EVF with the best ergonomics for realtime information, focus peaking, etc. without having to roll out all the nattive FF mirrorless glass.

By the time that third generation mirrorless big rig is out, they can cut over the proper form factor (like the A7 line) with a new mount with mature tech that has been battle tested. This will ensure Canon's first major FF mirrorless offering is not a dud.

- A

 

[Proscribo]

Canon releases FF mirrorless with global electronic shutter and DPAF, this way it'll have AF-tracking on all the time (like those Sony's fixed mirror cameras, but without lost light). Mark II gets Foveon-like sensor but better.

 

[ahsanford]

But surely, despite this story's title, we'll get a proper enthusiast-grade APS-C offering before Canon makes the plunge on FF, right?

One would think an integral EVF + DPAF + higher tracking burst rate in the EOS-M platform is a far smaller investment & faster product turnaround than putting out a FF rig, right?

I'd bet good money we'd see that before an FF mirrorless mount is announced.

- A

 

[sanj]

I've said this many times, but it bears repeating:

The inevitable FF mirrorless future -- where we all will be using one in 10-15 years other than sports/wildlife folks, IMHO -- represents a huge matter for Canon: excess and obsolescence of all those EF lenses (including tooling, componentry, equipment, etc.). That's got to be on the order of billions of dollars, doesn't it?

We keep saying that Canon is avoiding 'serious' mirrorless for fear of undercutting SLR sales, but that's only part of the story. Any fledgling FF mirrorless offering will surely have an adapter, but native lenses will be faster focusing and native lenses will yield slightly smaller [lens + body] size. So everyone will expect to be using native FF mirrorless glass eventually.

So make no mistake, FF mirrorless' release will light the (admittedly very slow) fuse that will signal the beginning of the end of the EF lens portfolio. It might take a decade to burn that inventory down and ramp down production, but it surely will happen when (not if) the working professional market pivots towards mirrorless.

So getting the FF mirrorless mount design right is the most important technical decision Canon has had to make designing the original EF mount, IMHO. This is a bigger call than any sensor they'll ever make. Bodies and sensors evolve, but mounts last for decades and have 2-3 more zeros behind the dollar figure as far as an investment goes.

Here's hoping Canon gets it right.

- A

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

 

[ahsanford]

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

The minute you want to get more ambitious than, say, a 50mm f/2, you no longer are pursuing mirrorless for size reasons. So chasing long or fast glass on mirrorless effectively turns this from 'Same IQ in a smaller package' to 'What can pulling the mirror box do for me that I couldn't do before?'

Fuji and Olympus have lived in the former camp and Sony has had the stones to chase both camps -- their APS-C rigs play it small and their FF rigs are directly going after FF SLR users' expectations. It's expensive to bet that way, but one of those two bets will certainly win in the end.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

You can'na change the laws of physics.

 

[robinlee]

To be honest I'd rather see improvement on the sensor department first rather than seeing Canon doing FF mirrorless camera...

 

[ahsanford]

The rumor of a new lightweight 70-200 comes to mind.

Lighter, perhaps, but very little chance it will be smaller. Sony's 70-200 f/4 is large like ours.

You can'na change the laws of physics.

I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:

"Professionals: get 95% the IQ of a FF rig with half the space and half the weight. Do you really need ISO 12800 performance, or would you rather not have back pain?"

Just a thought.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:

"Professionals: get 95% the IQ of a FF rig with half the space and half the weight. Do you really need ISO 12800 performance, or would you rather not have back pain?"

How much of that market depends on subject isolation / shallow DoF? Once you need a fast lens (outside the pancake-feasible range), the space/weight savings decrease quite a bit.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm surprised that no one has gone after the super-high-end [APS-C + tiny] mirrorless space. Fuji sort of does this, but not as compellingly as one might. Their rigs are great, but they are pushing feel/retro/love of shooting/etc. towards enthusiasts rather than saying:

"Professionals: get 95% the IQ of a FF rig with half the space and half the weight. Do you really need ISO 12800 performance, or would you rather not have back pain?"

How much of that market depends on subject isolation / shallow DoF? Once you need a fast lens (outside the pancake-feasible range), the space/weight savings decrease quite a bit.

I hear you. There is a sweet spot that Fuji seems to be working pretty well, using f/2 and the occasional f/1.4 lens. But yes, APS-C can't punch it's weight in low light or stay small/light if they go after exotic f/1.0 glass to try to match FF fast primes. It's a clear tradeoff, I admit.

- A