Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]

[ahsanford]

Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.

Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.

Yep. Half of what mirrorless offers is what mirrorless truly offers. The other half is a chance for the company to revisit core tech decisions that the current platform doesn't support (or they have resisted supporting). In short, a new platform is an opportunity to offer something the company has never offered before, and that is super exciting.

For instance, ask Nikon folks what they are more interested in: having the upsides of mirrorless or access to f/0.9 glass. One does not require the other.

'Non-mirrorless-dependent opportunities of a new platform' includes:

• IBIS (as mentioned above)
• Big throat diameter in the mount for large aperture glass
• Electronic shutter unlocking super fast shutter speeds (1/16000, 1/32000, etc.) -- mirror would be up but could still exist
• Leaf shutter lenses with explosively quick flash sync speeds (like 10x faster than what we have on SLRs)
• Onboard wireless speedlite control
• Opportunity to take on an altogether new control set -- leverage tactile screens, possibly augmented reality in the VF or external viewer, etc.
• Embedded Arca (or new company standard) mounting hardware in the body

Very few of these things will happen. But they might with a new platform while they probably never would with an existing one. That is part of the allure of these new systems.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I don't know the history of camera, but I only see it in Sony & rumored Nikon FF mirrorless. Still, there are other features I would like
No lens calibration, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, and silent shutter just giving the previous poster why some people want mirror less tech.

I shoot weddings. I don't see silent as a huge deal compared to other features. Canon 5D IV is good enough for me.

The A99 II has a mirror and IBIS. Many Pentax SLRs do as well, I believe. Totally possible.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-42mp-a99-mark-ii-with-5-axis-stabilization

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1/feature/02.html

- A

 

[Rocky]

Ahsanford, That is a good idea. Just hope that Canon can work out the mechanical stuff. That will give the optical designer a lot more freedom on lenses shorter than 50mm focal length. That should lead to better short focal length lenses. Extra deep rear lense caps have been used by Leica for decades. the rear most lens element can always be protect by the rear lens bellow. Infact, Canon is doing it on the EF-M 14-45 and 11-22 now.

 

[fullstop]

'Non-mirrorless-dependent opportunities of a new platform' includes:

• IBIS (as mentioned above)
• Big throat diameter in the mount for large aperture glass
• Electronic shutter unlocking super fast shutter speeds (1/16000, 1/32000, etc.) -- mirror would be up but could still exist
• Leaf shutter lenses with explosively quick flash sync speeds (like 10x faster than what we have on SLRs)
• Onboard wireless speedlite control
• Opportunity to take on an altogether new control set -- leverage tactile screens, possibly augmented reality in the VF or external viewer, etc.
• Embedded Arca (or new company standard) mounting hardware in the body

Very few of these things will happen.
- A

Totally agree. All of these functionalities could have been implemented already in Canon (and Nikon) mirrorslappers. But those stupid, lazy, un-innovative, octogenarian-run corporations just refuse it. Even those functionalities that would be fairly simple to do and not cause significant cost impacts or engineering headaches, like
* integrated Arca-grooves in the bottom of each camera body and in each collared lens' foot -> end of separate plates
* integrated Arca-grooves and/or 1/4" threaded insert nut on one vertical side of camera body -> end of separate L-plates
* modular/integrated Canon RT system wireless flash commander - ideally just an additional tiny [Micro-SD?!] slot, covered by plastic lid - for good radio reach and to easily allow for different firmware/hardware versions if and as mandated by varying legal regulations re. use of radio-frequencies in different markets. It would fit in any size EOS body, right down to EOS M (1st gen) "XS size" -> end of OEM and 3rd party flash-shoe trigger warts
* pinpoint precision laser AF-assistance light [as on Sony F707 many years ago] and distance meter plus display of measured distance in viewfinder/camera LCD
* really right implemented "trigger trap AF" functionality in every Canon EOS camera [purely firmware]
* really right implemented version of A-DEP mode in every Canon EOS camera [purely firmware]
... etc.

Not to mention somewhat more involved functionality like
* new, "really right" version of Eye Control AF plus fully functional "AI-AF" mode in all Canon EOS cameras
* global shutter sensor with full X-Sync all the way down to shortest time value
... etc.

But oh no, "innovative" Canon can't be bothered to deliver *real-life relevant* functionality. All R&D resources are seemingly tied up for new paint jobs on Mk. 99 versions of a few big fat off-white tele lenses. Despite all their [blocking!?] patents, Canon and Nikon are rather "un-innovative" corporations. In a truly competitive industry like cars, smartphones or TV sets they probably would have gone under many years ago.

 

[Kit.]

circles are going to increase cost, does anyone want that?

Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs for extra capabilities, aren't they?

Besides, the idea was to reuse the otherwise "wasted" space for image processing logic, if feasible.

 

[fullstop]

Or a "compact" FF camera with a lens mount for mediocre lenses.

I am looking forward very much to some "mediocre" FF lenses.

1.) a few moderate speed, decent IQ, affordable FF primes ... e.g. along the lines of the recent Samyang AF lenses:
* Samyang AF 24/2.8 [L = 37mm, filter = 49mm, 93 grams, 300€ )
* Samyang AF 35/2.8.[L = 33mm, filter = 49mm, 86 grams, 250€ )
and similar future mirrorless FF lenses, eg 50/1.8 and 85/2.4

2.) along with a few "mediocre", compact, decent IQ, affordable f/4 zooms ... eg 15-35/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4

There are more than enough [aging, unwilling to carry and operate heavy, conspicouos, expensive gear] folks interested in exactly this type of setup. 4 or 5 nice and very compact primes, And/or 3 decent, compact zooms.

Any more specialist, bigger, heavier, expensive lenses: rental, only when really needed: long [white] teles, f/1.2 pickle jars, fast astro-UWA or T/S lenses. If a little adapter is needed to mount them: no problem, we'll rent one of those for an extra buck day as well.

 

[fullstop]

Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs for extra capabilities, aren't they?

Yes. Especially those "4k in every stills camera"-whiners. I am sure, all of them would be happy to pay a bit extra for good video capabilities.
Canon should charge them via more expensive "video-enabled" camera versions. 20% surcharge on stills-camera price for HD video recording, 40% surcharge for 4k video.

 

[bokehmon22]

The A99 II has a mirror and IBIS. Many Pentax SLRs do as well, I believe. Totally possible.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-42mp-a99-mark-ii-with-5-axis-stabilization

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1/feature/02.html

- A

While not unique to mirrorless, a new platform will give them the opportunity to offer something new. For whatever reason, Nikon and Canon isn't offering it in their DSLR. Nikon rumored specs include IBIS. Maybe Canon FF mirrorless will too.

 

[TAF]

Yes. Especially those "4k in every stills camera"-whiners. I am sure, all of them would be happy to pay a bit extra for good video capabilities.
Canon should charge them via more expensive "video-enabled" camera versions. 20% surcharge on stills-camera price for HD video recording, 40% surcharge for 4k video.

Remember the rumor about Apple buying Canon? Can you say "In App Purchase" (or in this case, "In Camera Purchase").

That would be one way to find out what people are REALLY willing to pay for.

 

[Kit.]

I am looking forward very much to some "mediocre" FF lenses.

I don't. I have a PowerShot for that.

These days, my pime FF lens is 100-400 II.

 

[melgross]

Maybe. See the discussion thread and have a look at the pros and cons and the subsequent discussion.

I think it's a really clever idea to save full EF for the long term, but it has some non-trivial drawbacks / question marks.

- A

I don’t see much in the way of cons myself. The only lenses that would really benefit in design are shorter focal lengths below about 85mm. But that’s a major hinge point in lens design, becoming more extreme as focal lengths shorten. But a bigger mount is also stronger, and makes parallelism problems easier to minimize. So for long, heavy teles, a bigger mount on a stronger body is of benefit.

I’m only)) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want.
I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour.



According to ebay, people are paying big bucks for the 50/1.0L, even if it can’t be serviced, and the autofocus is slow and imprecise. I would probably pay a bit more than I should to get a new 50/1.0L. Especially if it comes with IS and faster AF than the old one.

i know all bout those,older lenses. I even had an f 0.95 Canon lens.

I’m talking about the usefulness of those lenses on today’s, and future digital,cameras. Sure, some people are going to pay outrageous prices for them. I can’t account for taste. But those film lenses don’t work well on digital anyway.

And by the way, something that most people don’t know is that lenses for roll film cameras were not really flat field, on purpose, despite manufacturers talking about how flat field their lenses were. Not film is flat in the gate in roll film cameras because of the need for enough room in the gate for the film to advance. So,there is enough room between the front rail and the side/rear rales where the pressure plate sits for,that. Then, all films have different thicknesses, so camera manufacturers needed to,make sure the thickest film went through without a problem.

The difficulty is that even with the tension on the film, particularly if the film wasn’t perfectly flat out of the roll or cartridge, the edges of the film would curl forwards in the gate, pressing the center of the roll out. So, the film in the gate more resembled a cylinder than a flat surface. Lenses accounted for this very slight curl. It’s one reason why film lenses on digital cameras, particularly hight resolution models, are soft at the edges and corners.

 

[melgross]

What makes you think so?

Mamiya 6 had a much larger sensor format (56mm x 56mm square), but was even smaller than 5D series without a grip.


An APS-C lens coverage round sensor would easily fit a much smaller camera, like A7III without a vertical grip.

Except that we’re talking about FF here.

 

[melgross]

I’m only)) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want.
I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour.



According to ebay, people are paying big bucks for the 50/1.0L, even if it can’t be serviced, and the autofocus is slow and imprecise. I would probably pay a bit more than I should to get a new 50/1.0L. Especially if it comes with IS and faster AF than the old one.

Ok, but you’re talking f 2.8. We’re talking f 1.2 and faster.

F 1.0 is nuts, quite frankly. Those old lenses weren’t very good either. A bit more than you should? How many extra thousands qualifies as “a bit more” in your book? And since extremely fast lenses won’t ever focus accurately unless you want to take the time to look at the big screen directly, how much time are you willing to devote to focus?

 

[ahsanford]

Ahsanford, That is a good idea. Just hope that Canon can work out the mechanical stuff. That will give the optical designer a lot more freedom on lenses shorter than 50mm focal length. That should lead to better short focal length lenses. Extra deep rear lense caps have been used by Leica for decades. the rear most lens element can always be protect by the rear lens bellow. Infact, Canon is doing it on the EF-M 14-45 and 11-22 now.

Read the thread on that idea, though:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/

It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet. And if Canon weren't very careful with how to mount these things, it might feel like mounting a lens on to a teleconverter in reverse -- i.e. it may be delicate and painstaking activity.

It would be very brave of Canon to try this. Not sure they are that brave.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Any more specialist, bigger, heavier, expensive lenses: rental, only when really needed: long [white] teles, f/1.2 pickle jars, fast astro-UWA or T/S lenses. If a little adapter is needed to mount them: no problem, we'll rent one of those for an extra buck day as well.

You conspicuously left out big/heavy f/2.8 zooms, which many pros leave on their cameras all day. Those blow up the 'small and light' platform approach and they are neither niche nor specialist. They will be used on FF mirrorless bodies on day one.

The $64,000 question is how Canon will get folks who love the ergonomics and handling of (say) a 5D to give that up for something smaller. Rather than try to balance the needs of the small vs. the needs of the big into one body that can't possibly please us all, an easy solution would be to just offer a second body with the same ergonomics and mount that they love today. Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.

- A

 

[Antono Refa]

Read the thread on that idea, though:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/ef-x-mirrorless-concept.35311/

It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet. And if Canon weren't very careful with how to mount these things, it might feel like mounting a lens on to a teleconverter in reverse -- i.e. it may be delicate and painstaking activity.

It would be very brave of Canon to try this. Not sure they are that brave.

- A

That's why I sold the EF 40mm f/2.8. I'd rather use the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM mkII @ 40mm.

 

[fullstop]

Read the thread on that idea, though:
It's not all good. Some lenses will basically only have a pancake's amount of material sticking out past the EF mount, which means every barrel feature (switches, focus rings, possibly hood attachments, etc.) have to go on a major diet.

LOL. Indeed. Lenses like e.g. the new Samyang AF 24/2.8 FE with a total physical length of 33mm might not even peek out at the front end of such a "Frankenstein mount" ... bye bye
focus ring!

PS: I'd have no problem with no focus rings. I want my AF lenses and cameras to do what I paid for: get me well-focussed images. Automatically.

 

[fullstop]

Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.

Yes, easy. But "small body" is only possible with a new, slim mount. Which is why we'll get one.

 

[melgross]

Quite a lot of people here want to pay extra costs for extra capabilities, aren't they?

Besides, the idea was to reuse the otherwise "wasted" space for image processing logic, if feasible.

Ah, no. Most people will not be willing to pay for features. Yes, as to how many would in a discussion forum. But not in real life. There, very few would.

We see surveys all the time. 23% say they would buy such and such if it had, or did, such and such. But if the product comes out, only 5% actually buy it. Such are the realities of life.

That’s why discussions, such as this one are so interesting, and complaints about companies not doing the innovations, or adding the features some demand rarely happen. When you look at what some here want, and think should be done, you should start thinking about how much at would add to the price of the product. I doubt most would buy a product that costs $10,000, even with most of those features, if a similar model without most cost $3,000.

Again, some say they would, but, well, whatever.

 

[melgross]

You conspicuously left out big/heavy f/2.8 zooms, which many pros leave on their cameras all day. Those blow up the 'small and light' platform approach and they are neither niche nor specialist. They will be used on FF mirrorless bodies on day one.

The $64,000 question is how Canon will get folks who love the ergonomics and handling of (say) a 5D to give that up for something smaller. Rather than try to balance the needs of the small vs. the needs of the big into one body that can't possibly please us all, an easy solution would be to just offer a second body with the same ergonomics and mount that they love today. Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.

- A

Again, exactly!