Full Frame Mirrorless in the Works [CR2]

[Larsskv]

Canon 6D + 70-200 f/4 IS( or 35L II)
680g + 760g = 1440g

It should be 755g. 680g is body-only without card, strap or battery.

Sony a7 II + 70-200mm f/4 OSS
556g + 840g (without mount) = 1,396g

Sony a7 II + 35mm f/1.4
556g + 630g = 1,186g

Still lighter.

A little lighter, but poorer ergonomics and handling.

 

[wsmith96]

It would be great if they could retain the EF mount.

 

[ahsanford]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

Agree with Neuro, Dolina. If you want a camera, you get a camera. In the days prior to mirrorless digital ever existing, someone would buy a point and shoot, a superzoom, an SLR, etc.

These mirrorless rigs are not 'form factor revolutionary' like the Sony Q lens+sensor combos that pair up with cell phones, they are not GoPros or life-blogging cameras. They fall well within the continuum of still camera products. As such, I have a hard time thinking there's a sizeable chunk of people who had no interesting in a dedicated stills camera at all until mirrorless arrived.

- A

 

[dolina]

A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.

Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.

But that's the nature of technology, it will obsolete itself every cycle or so.

It will eventually do the same with mirrorless or smartphones in about half a century from now where in your eyeballs are cameras.

I'm honestly not bothered by it. I look forward to it.

Make the technology convenient and cheap enough and whatever dominant technology at present will become as relevant as RFs, TLRs and pagers.

Canon's smartening up if they focus more on mirrorless and higher end dedicated still cameras. Most vulnerable camera brand now is Nikon.

 

[ahsanford]

A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.

Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.

But that's the nature of technology, it will obsolete itself every cycle or so.

It will eventually do the same with mirrorless or smartphones in about half a century from now where in your eyeballs are cameras.

I'm honestly not bothered by it. I look forward to it.

Make the technology convenient and cheap enough and whatever dominant technology at present will become as relevant as RFs, TLRs and pagers.

Canon's smartening up if they focus more on mirrorless and higher end dedicated still cameras. Most vulnerable camera brand now is Nikon.

Please don't mistake my position. Mirrorless is coming, it will supplant the majority of SLRs someday and I welcome that. I'm not butt hurt that my chosen horse in the race will go away someday. Not at all.

I'm simply arguing that mirrorless isn't bringing that many new photographers to the market. It's just another form of dedicated camera. Mirrorless rigs are just another option for the existing pool of folks interested in photography.

When we talk about new photographers being created, I think of the GoPro, a DXO One, a Sony Q module, and yes, the cell phone -- in which something out of the realm of traditional 'cameras' gets people jazzed enough to shoot regularly.

It goes without saying that the cell phone plus (critically) the internet is creating orders of magnitude more photographers than any dedicated rig ever will.

- A

 

[scyrene]

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.

How difficult was the conversion? I've got an EOS-M that I don't use much, but converting it could be useful for astro work.

 

[scyrene]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

Yes. At least more so than CaNikon's ever-same marginal iterations of big, heavy, semi-analogue, totally antiquated mirrorflippers.

*Eyerolling so hard I may need an optician*

I think he was asking for evidence.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The thing with mirrorless is that it is attracting new users for dedicated still cameras.

Is it?

Yes. At least more so than CaNikon's ever-same marginal iterations of big, heavy, semi-analogue, totally antiquated mirrorflippers.

*Eyerolling so hard I may need an optician*

I think he was asking for evidence.

Don't hurt yourself on my account.

It's easy to toss off statements like that with nothing to back them up. As I noted in another thread, the Reuters article on Canon's Q3 report suggested the, "...the growing popularity of lighter mirrorless cameras has taken away market share from higher margin single-lens reflex cameras," which is not supported by CIPA data for the last couple of years (in 2014, dSLRs outsold MILCs by 3.2-fold units, 3.4-fold revenue. In Jan-Aug 2015, dSLRs outsold MILCs by 3.1-fold units, 3.2-fold revenue. Not exactly strong evidence of 'growing popularity'.)

 

[sdsr]

C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!

For me, much of the appeal of the a7 line is that the mount allows, via adapters, a huge array of third party lenses to be used easily (a lot of them, especially older ones, considerably smaller than their modern counterparts), including FD Canons. I hope any mirrorless Canon will be similarly versatile and have IBIS; if it has a standard EF mount I will be much less interested. Of course, since my particular interests are likely not widely shared, Canon may well not much care....

 

[TAF]

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.

That is the camera body I am hoping for. Approx. the size of the 5D (to maintain the ergonomics and all the controls); mirrorless for the potential technical benefits (universal shutter, sync, no vibration, etc); FF for best high ISO capability and overall image quality.

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 lenses 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.

On this I disagree. Developing an entirely new line of lenses for a full frame MILC with a different flange distance doesn't seem like an investment that will be recovered. What about this notional new line is going to bring enough customers to pay for itself?

Perhaps in the long run it might. But in the near term, I'd suggest starting with a proven system and try out the waters. It would be easy to remove the mirror from the 5D3 and put in an EVF. Try that and see what happens.

As I have said before, I'd really like to see a Canon version of the Rollei 3003 with FF and EF mount. That would be even easier to implement, and that physical configuration has much to recommend it. Imagine our current back oanel screen as the EVF. That would be nice...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Any chance Sony allows Canon to use one of their sensors for what would be an a7 competitor?

Hoping for an enthusiast m though but my expectations are kind of low based on past experience.

Sure, now that they spun off the sensor division it makes sense for them to try to give their sensors to everyone they possibly can.

One could hope a 5D4 gets the A7R II sensor and delivers everything the A7R II does, but with DSLR AF, Canon UI and 6fps in FF mode (7-8fps in APS-C RAW, not JPG, RAW crop mode would really make it something). I tend to doubt it. probably no sony sensor, no 4k, but same old sensor and touched up AF and 8-10fps 24-28MP.

 

[tcmatthews]

C'mon full frame with an FD lens mount!

For me, much of the appeal of the a7 line is that the mount allows, via adapters, a huge array of third party lenses to be used easily (a lot of them, especially older ones, considerably smaller than their modern counterparts), including FD Canons. I hope any mirrorless Canon will be similarly versatile and have IBIS; if it has a standard EF mount I will be much less interested. Of course, since my particular interests are likely not widely shared, Canon may well not much care....

Admittedly I am an early adopter. Full frame with built in image stabilization, focus peaking perfection. I also have a FD 24mm f2.8, FD Vivitar 28mm f2.5, FD 35mm f2, and several 50mm. It turns out that the EF 85mm was only 25 dollars on more new on sale then used FD 85mm so I just bought it. Full frame prime kit is not perfect but I do not need an instagram filter for the 28 it comes with one built in. How long will it take before canon puts image stabilization in a camera.

 

[Darkroom317]

I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome

Canon L2 + 50mm 1.4

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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

Why would it use the current EF mount, but have a different flange distance? That's a recipe for mass confusion, EF lenses would fit, but not work, Canon would have to come up with another gimmick to keep the wrong lenses from being attached. Its bad enough with EF-s and EF lenses, but at least they have the same flange distance and EF lenses work on all EF mounts.

Reducing the flange distance from 44mm to 22mm can make the camera 22mm (0.87 inches) shallower. As for confusion, everybody except Canon making lenses for EF-S cameras uses the EF lens mount, that can also fit on FF cameras. People somehow manage to figure this out.

Those lenses work though. A short flange back lens with a EF mount would not work.

I've seen people struggling with 3rd party APS-C lenses on FF, not knowing what is going on. We just saw a post with the poster confusing E Mount APS-C with FF.

I'd vote for a EF mount with EF flangeback. So much simpler.

 

[tcmatthews]

I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome

I have always seen the Sony Nex6 and A6000 as modern take on rangefinder cameras. But the Fujifilm really take the retro/modern rangefinder crown. I like their look and lenses but decided that they were a little expensive for what would always be a secondary camera.

I would like to see both a rangefinder style and a DSLR style mirrorless camera from Canon. I mean serious cameras with actual manual controls. I hate touch screens on cameras. A sorry touchscreen is no substitute for a physical dial or button.

 

[Dylan777]

I just hope they take some design cues from their rangefinder heritage. It would be awesome

Mark my words. If Canon comes out this body type FF mirrorless(fixed 35mm f2 or interchangeable), I will sell all my Sony gear.

I will buy that and:
1. Canon 5DR
2. 24-70 II
3. 85L II
4. 11-24

Many people keep wishing for mirrorless in 5D body size. Just to remind all, there are cons in mirrorless, EVF drains battery faster, EVF still slagging compared to OVF, AF tracking will not be as good as DSLR. Can Canon improve all these features at this moment? Maybe yes...bigger question, are we willing to pay for it?

To me, adding Canon FF mirrorless to current Canon FF DSLR is a good step forward for Canon. AF tracking doesn't need to be at A6000 or A7r II level, save that for 7D II, 5D3 or 1Dx. However, AF speed is more important for mirrorless. Throw in some pancake lenses I think we will have a winner.

 

[douglaurent]

Canon had a lucky strike with the video mode in 2008 and has been sexy and a few years ahead. They probably made the Kodak mistake and thought it will remain forever. Now since 2013 Sony is ahead regarding mirrorless full frame, and when Canon comes out with an alternative in 2017+x, they will be way too late. Probably they will even come out first with another system that should protect their DSLRs, so it might be 2019 when they finally come out with a serious product. By then Sony already might have released an A7R Mark 5. And the people who jumped to this system between 2013-2019 will have no reason to go back to Canon then.

If Canon would be clever, they should go the medium format route right away. It will be very difficult to bring more than 50 megapixels to a full frame sensor combined with lowlight capabilities. Medium format sensors might be able to do that in the future. At least that's probably what Sony will deliver to Hasselblad, Pentax and Phase One next.

 

[Ruined]

A lot of people are bothered that mirrorless and smartphones are shrinking point and shoot and older SLR sales.

Understandable because it will narrow choices on the system people have invested in.

But that's the nature of technology, it will obsolete itself every cycle or so.

It will eventually do the same with mirrorless or smartphones in about half a century from now where in your eyeballs are cameras.

I'm honestly not bothered by it. I look forward to it.

Make the technology convenient and cheap enough and whatever dominant technology at present will become as relevant as RFs, TLRs and pagers.

Canon's smartening up if they focus more on mirrorless and higher end dedicated still cameras. Most vulnerable camera brand now is Nikon.

In the US, full frame mirrorless as implemented in the A7R II has proven pointless to all but the hobbyist user who primarily value style first; even the casual user, it is not of use to as these users have migrated to smartphones and not mirrorless cameras. The small size of the Sony FF mirrorless body comes with a massive tradeoff in ergonomics, functionality and battery life that frankly is not worth it if you are even only at the semi-pro level, nevermind pro level. The lens size advantage evaporates after 35mm, and since that is the case you still end up trucking around big lenses and hence a big camera bag with an A7R II if you shoot anything other than wide angle all the time.

Maybe someday if there is a FF mirrorless with ergonomics similar to the 6D with an EVF that works as good as an OVF and no major sacrifices in functionality, that would be something that could replace a DSLR as a pro/semi-pro could use them reliably at the same level as a DSLR in all aspects. The current Sony cameras, however, are nowhere near that level.

Also grouping mirrorless cameras and smartphones together as if they are similar, is inappropriate. Smartphones are reducing P&S and DSLR sales immensely, yes. Mirrorless is floundering in the USA market aside from a tiny minority segment of hobbyists, and here have truly made minimal impact on P&S and DSLR.

Bottom line, if you want "small size/low weight mirrorless," you want APS-C or m4/3 mirrorless, period. FF mirrorless discussion should not include size, as that argument is already lost to the size of FF lenses which will remain large due to physics. Comparing body size and weight as if it makes a difference is a bit silly when a telephoto lens obliterates any chance of true portability with FF mirrorless and further calls into question the ability for small body FF mirrorless cameras to handle large FF telephoto lenses in terms of ergonomics.


IMO, Canon should keep it simple:

Line 1: EOS M, APS-C mirrorless using EF-M lenses
Line 2: EOS 6DM, FF mirrorless variant using 6D chassis, updated electronics and EF lenses

The slightly lesser depth a shorter flange can provide is not worth the sacrifice in ergonomics or lens compatibility in full frame, as full frame will remain relatively large as a result of the large lenses anyway.

 

[ahsanford]

Bottom line, if you want "small size/low weight mirrorless," you want APS-C or m4/3 mirrorless, period. FF mirrorless discussion should not include size, as that argument is already lost to the size of FF lenses which will remain large due to physics. Comparing body size and weight as if it makes a difference is a bit silly when a telephoto lens obliterates any chance of true portability with FF mirrorless and further calls into question the ability for small body FF mirrorless cameras to handle large FF telephoto lenses in terms of ergonomics.

+1. Agree with everything you said.

- A

 

[moreorless]

If you talking size saving I actually think that small flange distance becomes much less of an advantage on FF than other aspects of mirrorless. For one thing most lenses will still be fairly long on FF anyway and judging from the FE system the old "simpler smaller non SLR lens designs" is really just a fantasy on AF digital, if anything Sony FE lenses are often longer than DSLR equivalents to correct light angles or simply due to the focal lengths involved. For another on FF the savings on cutting out the prisms/mirror/AF sensor become significantly greater as they naturally need to be larger on FF.

You look at a Sony A7 camera with lens and compare it to a DSLR like the 6D with both cameras having decent lenses on and really the size saving isnt in depth its in height and grip size(obviously nothing directly to do with SLR/mirrorless tech). A 6D like camera without the mirror and an EVF instead plus perhaps a slightly smaller grip could probably get quite close to the A7.

Were I think there might be a market for a small flange distance mirrorless is actually something quite close to the current EOS M3. The same quite limited lens selection as well with not too fast primes in the wide/normal range and a slower variable aperture short range kit zoom. Canon could use it in the same way I spose as well, selling it on the cheap to try and devalue the market for competitors.