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

[fullstop]

I don't see why in 2018 a camera as big, heavy, clunky and expensive as a 5D IV should not come with all the functionality I suggested in my earlier post. Even more so, as a lot of it are pure firmware items only, which cause a blip in 1-time cost to develop, but almost no variable cost in production.

Especially when video capture is added "free of charge", which causes significant cost on hardware [think alone about cooling requirements for 30 minutes of uninterrupted 4k capture] and software side. Compared to that milling 2 Arca grooves into camera bottom plate - or lens foot on 12.000 buck lenses - is a piece of cake. Or firmware for "2018-adequate" AI-AF, A-DEP mode, AF trigger trap etc.

It really is just un-innnovative, un-imaginative lazyness and stupidity on CaNikon's part.

 

[melgross]

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

If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.

 

[ahsanford]

Offer a small body and a bigger body. Easy.

Said another way, consider the following:

• Canon is risk averse with major decisions.
  
  
• The mount a major decision. This appears to be one of those 'bet the farm' propositions that has huge stakes: the market is waiting for a decisive platform entry, Canon customers' faith in EF could be shaken by the mount decision, customers could leave if the mount decision isn't the one they were hoping for, etc.
  
  
• The market is not defining itself clearly enough for the risks to be minimized. All FF mirrorless today (excluding SLRs in LiveView) have thinner than SLR mounts. There is no major product offering to test the market's appetite for a full FF SLR mount mirrorless. So Canon has a very blurry read on how big the 'keep it small' vs. the 'keep it seamless' camps are: the entire market (right now) is 'keep it small'.
  
  
• Canon has zero trouble proliferating body lines to bracket out the market into creating additional small price premiums (see chart attached below).
  
  
• Canon is legion. They uniquely have the size and scale to try multiplicity of product platforms that even Nikon and Sony wouldn't dare.

A not-too-brave distillation of all of the above might be that line from Contact: "Why build one when you can build two for twice the price?"

I contend that if a 77D can exist, there's a place for a thin mount FF mirrorless and a Full EF mount mirrorless to coexist. For the cost of just one more added row on that pipeline chart, it completely eliminates the risk of getting the mount decision wrong. That's a bargain for Canon.

- A

 

[melgross]

I don't see why in 2018 a camera as big, heavy, clunky and expensive as a 5D IV should not come with all the functionality I suggested in my earlier post. Even more so, as a lot of it are pure firmware items only, which cause a blip in 1-time cost to develop, but almost no variable cost in production.

Especially when video capture is added "free of charge", which causes significant cost on hardware [think alone about cooling requirements for 30 minutes of uninterrupted 4k capture] and software side. Compared to that adding 2 Arca grooves to camera bottom plates is a piece of cake. Or firmware for "2018-adequate" AI-AF, A-DEP mode, AF trigger trap etc.

It really is just un-innnovative, un-imaginative lazyness and stupidity on CaNikon's part.

Well, Sony hasn’t been very successful in selling cameras since they bought Konica-Minolta all those years ago. They’ve been more successful with. Mirrorless because they were the only ones for a while, until Fuji entered. Since Canon entered, Sony’s marketshare in mirrorless has plunged, and Canon doesn’t even have a lot of native lenses for that line, or FF.

While some people complain about lack of innovation, most customers don’t seem to care. Companies do what they think they need to do. Canon has over 51% of the camera market, and their market share keeps going up at the expense of everyone else. They must be doing something right.

 

[fullstop]

If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.

For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.

 

[ahsanford]

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

If you look at the smaller DSLRs that Canon has, they’re no bigger than a number of mirrorless models. The depth on a Canon DSLR isn’t bad. I just don’t understand how much of a difference a centimeter, or so, matters. Even two centimeters doesn’t make much difference. If my average lens is maybe, because I’m not going to measure all of them, 14 cm long, I don’t care if the body is what it is now, or a bit thinner.

It's an inch, 20-25 mm or so, etc. It doesn't matter to most of us, but some of us might want to build a smaller rig that we can take more places. In that instance / with that goal in mind, shaving 20mm off of the size is really attractive.

And lest we forget, it's the only style of camera this FF mirrorless market has ever known. We can't discount that fact. Canon may feel they simply must offer a thin mount offering as it defines the market segment as much as the sensor size. I'm convinced at this point that a thin mount simply must happen to meet that market's expectations.

But Canon might be ambitious enough to also placate it's heavy hitters, longer term customers, etc. with a Full EF solution with a bigger body, chunky grip, and familiar controls. That would be the easiest sale for Canon to its own customers, it would bring a lot of bodies into FF mirrorless sooner rather than later, etc.

They should do both.

- A

 

[melgross]

For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.

I keep saying that it will be great for some people. I won't discount that. But there are a lot of products out there for carrying cameras and lenses. I’m just saying that, for me, a difference of an inch makes no difference. And I’m sure, if you looked, you’d find a pouch for a slightly bigger camera and lens that’s not much bigger that what you have.

If you like to carry a lot of lenses around, then weight does make a difference - if you’re going to buy into an entirely new lens line, if available. If not, then a few ounces doesn’t matter.

 

[fullstop]

. Canon has over 51% of the camera market, and their market share keeps going up at the expense of everyone else. They must be doing something right.

this is primarily caused by competitors' grave mistakes: Nikon: nothing of interest except 2 or 3 mirrorslappers. Sony: way too big and expensive lenses. Fuji: retro-styled hipster crop stuff at FF prices. Not hard for Canon to gain market share. Probably they gained most of that market share with their compact, decent IQ, decent performance and affordable EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. Exactly what majority of market wants: decent functionality in small packages at palatable prices. crop sensor gear well below 1k. FF mirrorfree stuff above 1k. Really simple to understand the market.

 

[ahsanford]

For my uses and many other uses overall bulk makes a huge difference. My EOS M 1st gen plus EF-M 22 fits int a LowePro Dashpoint 20 pouch whch I can mount on the left backpack strap on all my mountain/skiing adventures or during city trips or when sailing or para-gliding or whatever. I'd like to get the equivalent with FF sensor [+120% sensor surface and light gathering] with only about about 25% more bulk [e.g. sized like Sony A7 1st gen]. Plus matching compact lenses. Plus ability to use larger lenses from f/2.8 zooms to white teles and TS lenses - when and only when I really need them for a specific photographic task.

^^^ This is the 'keep it small' magna carta here. ^^^

For those who do not understand what the fuss over 1" of mount spacing is all about, read the above again.

I don't believe this viewpoint is one you out-logic or debate into pointlessness. It exists, it is a nontrivial slice of the market, and that market will be p---ed if a full EF mount mirrorless is the only thing that is offered.

- A

 

[melgross]

It's an inch, 20-25 mm or so, etc. It doesn't matter to most of us, but some of us might want to build a smaller rig that we can take more places. In that instance / with that goal in mind, shaving 20mm off of the size is really attractive.

And lest we forget, it's the only style of camera this FF mirrorless market has ever known. We can't discount that fact. Canon may feel they simply must offer a thin mount offering as it defines the market segment as much as the sensor size. I'm convinced at this point that a thin mount simply must happen to meet that market's expectations.

But Canon might be ambitious enough to also placate it's heavy hitters, longer term customers, etc. with a Full EF solution with a bigger body, chunky grip, and familiar controls. That would be the easiest sale for Canon to its own customers, it would bring a lot of bodies into FF mirrorless sooner rather than later, etc.

They should do both.

- A

They have to do both. I don't see them as having a choice. Maybe they come out with a smaller one now, and the big one later. But whatever they do, they have to come in to compete with Nikon, not Sony. And Nikon has to compete with Canon, not Sony.

 

[fullstop]

And I’m sure, if you looked, you’d find a pouch for a slightly bigger camera and lens that’s not much bigger that what you have.
matter.

Exactly. I'd like a Canon mirrorfree camera with FF sensor + lens that fits into the slightly larger LowePro Dashpoint 30 pouch.


btw: camera bag makers also very un-innovative. About 10 years after their launch, LowePro Dashpoint pouches are still the only ones in entire market that have both horizontal [belt] and vertical [backpack strap] mounting capability. Plus it is simple, intuitive and inexpensive - or rather dirt cheap - as well!
I'd love to have more choice. But most of the bag makers are stupid or at least "clueless".

 

[MartinF.]

I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.

LOL

 

[fullstop]

They have to do both. I don't see them as having a choice. Maybe they come out with a smaller one now, and the big one later. But whatever they do, they have to come in to compete with Nikon, not Sony. And Nikon has to compete with Canon, not Sony.

I agree. Canon will do both small and chunky mirrorfree bodies. But all of them will come with new "slim" mount and new lenses.
EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.

 

[melgross]

this is primarily caused by competitors' grave mistakes: Nikon: nothing of interest except 2 or 3 mirrorslappers. Sony: way too big and expensive lenses. Fuji: retro-styled hipster crop stuff at FF prices. Not hard for Canon to gain market share. Probably they gained most of that market share with their compact, decent IQ, decent performance and affordable EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. Exactly what majority of market wants: decent functionality in small packages at palatable prices. crop sensor gear well below 1k. FF mirrorfree stuff above 1k. Really simple to understand the market.

I doubt it’s because of “grave mistakes” by others. Everyone talks about how great Sony is, but they’re stuck in sales hell.

Canon is making what people want. It’s really that simple. People here can complain all they want about innovation, but sales tells the story.

 

[3kramd5]

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.

That would be artificial market differentiation. Neeeeeeerf!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I doubt it’s because of “grave mistakes” by others. Everyone talks about how great Sony is, but they’re stuck in sales hell.

Canon is making what people want. It’s really that simple. People here can complain all they want about innovation, but sales tells the story.

All manufacturers have made the 'grave mistake' of not making the specific camera and lenses that AvTvM/fullstop wants.

 

[3kramd5]

^^^ This is the 'keep it small' magna carta here. ^^^

For those who do not understand what the fuss over 1" of mount spacing is all about, read the above again.

I don't believe this viewpoint is one you out-logic or debate into pointlessness. It exists, it is a nontrivial slice of the market, and that market will be p---ed if a full EF mount mirrorless is the only thing that is offered.

- A

Where I get hung up in logic land is that, if a non-trivial slice of the market wants a full frame sensor in a body the size of a first gen Sony A7, why don’t they go buy first gen Sony A7 cameras? You can mount small, light APSC lenses to them and I believe it will automatically crop, and when specific photographic tasks require full frame lenses you can mount them too. They’re still available for under $1000, but all the “buzz” is on their bigger, more expensive third gen offering.

 

[fullstop]

Where I get hung up in logic land is that, if a non-trivial slice of the market wants a full frame sensor in a body the size of a first gen Sony A7, why don’t they go buy first gen Sony A7 cameras? You can mount small, light APSC lenses to them and I believe it will automatically crop, and when specific photographic tasks require full frame lenses you can mount them too. They’re still available for under $1000, but all the “buzz” is on their bigger, more expensive third gen offering.

Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size. And 3rd gen Sony's have less flaws, but are bigger than necessary. Not to mention the fundamental Sony "E mount forced into FF service"-problem that leads to unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive. It is the main reason why Sony is not able to grow their market share as fast as they should be.

 

[ahsanford]

I agree. Canon will do both small and chunky mirrorfree bodies. But all of them will come with new "slim" mount and new lenses.
EF glass will anyways be "legacy" the second Canon launches their mirrorfree cameras - totally irrespective of mount - due to AF performance and functionality. AT best, EF glass will have AF performance as in mirrorless mode on a DSLR. Which is not as good as with detached Phase-AF (in mirror mode), which is what they were excleuively designed for [with a few recent exceptions]. Even when most of the "keep EF mount at all cost" folks are not aware of this or try to ignore it.

You keep saying this yet no one seems to complain about DPAF focusing with good old fashioned EF ring USM lenses on this forum. I'm sure it's not quite the same as a proper SLR AF setup, but it's not so terrible as folks wanting to ditch the EF mount for a small AF improvement.

Perhaps someone could prove what you're saying with a demonstration? Is there a system of lenses that was designed for DPAF use -- EF-M glass comes to mind -- that might show better AF speed/accuracy than L lenses on DPAF? Does such a video / comparison exist to prove your point? I'd honestly love to see that.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Because Sony A7 1st (and II gen) have serious flaws that make them very unattractive, despite attractive body size. And 3rd gen Sony's have less flaws, but are bigger than necessary. Not to mention the fundamental Sony "E mount forced into FF service"-problem that leads to unattractive Sony FE lenses - too big, way too expensive. It is the main reason why Sony is not able to grow their market share as fast as they should be.

A7 I - II - III - A7R3 in order:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#487,579,777,724,ha,t

The third gen is too big?! These are almost identical cameras form-factor wise.

That's an extreme position, even for a 'keep it small' person!

- A