What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

[AvTvM]

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
* what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
* Canon knows everything better, no make that "best". ... as proven by sales, market-share, profits ...
* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ... thinly disguised as "sarcasm"

So lets just state the facts ... and see how they react [patterns #1-3 above sure to come!]

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.

3. objective fact: Canon EF-mount has been fantastic [arguably best in industry] for DSLRs, but is technically not the best and not even a "good" solution for mirrorless cameras

What follows? Best success to be had with a small & lite [= new, short FFD mount of course], yet decently capable mirrorless FF cam - 1 step above EOS M5, not 3 steps above. Something around "6D II class" performance. Priced maybe 1499 body ... 1999 with decent kit zoom [eg EF-X 24-85/4 IS STM]. Plus a range of compact lenses [moderately fast primes and f/4 zooms plus unavoidable f/5.6 consumer zooms] ... that don't all cost 1k/2k/3k per unit.

High-end? Yes too, but in overall picture really for bragging rights [Marketing] only.

 

[Mikehit]

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
* what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
* Canon knows everything better, no make that "best". ... as proven by sales, market-share, profits ...
* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ... thinly disguised as "sarcasm"

So lets just state the facts ... and see how they react [patterns #1-3 above sure to come!]

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.

3. objective fact: Canon EF-mount has been fantastic [arguably best in industry] for DSLRs, but is technically not the best and not even a "good" solution for mirrorless cameras

What follows? Best success to be had with a small & lite [= new, short FFD mount of course], yet decently capable mirrorless FF cam - 1 step above EOS M5, not 3 steps above. Something around "6D II class" performance. Priced maybe 1499 body ... 1999 with decent kit zoom [eg EF-X 24-85/4 IS STM]. Plus a range of compact lenses [moderately fast primes and f/4 zooms plus unavoidable f/5.6 consumer zooms] ... that don't all cost 1k/2k/3k per unit.

High-end? Yes too, but in overall picture really for bragging rights [Marketing] only.

1. Agree - has anyone said otherwise?
2. Agree - has anyone said otherwise?
3. What evidence do you have regards EF mount?

What follows? First you need to define success - long term or short term? Irrespective of the merits of EF, there is a lot of sense in Canon first mirrorless to have the EF mount. They do nto have to slay the market with their first model. They can introduce a new mount later. As I said above, you and all the other mirrorless advocates talk as if Canon have to do it NOW. They don't - and saying otherwise is nothing but pure egotistical 'me, I'm important' . I don't think we are disagreeing on the long term shifts in the market merely the rate at which it needs to happen.

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

Should that be "always the same here. A few mirrorless fanatics trying to hammer down the throat of anyone using a DSLR the supposed advantages of mirrorless and critical of anyone who takes the slightest time to understand where Canon's priorities are and how they have arrived at their successful business strategy.

And note 'the phrase successful business strategy'

What you see as apologist is in most cases a rebuttal of your assertions that Canon don't understand the market. You make the tedious mistake of confusing 'comprehension' with 'complicity'.

* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ...

Yet you call me an 'apologist'??? Pot...kettle?

 

[LDS]

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].

Yet, smartphones get larger and larger... there will be issues to sell cameras with 3" screens, when young buyers got used to 6" high-dpi ones?

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby.

Sure, they have to save to buy the new $1000+ smartphone each year....

Anyway, those spending thousand of dollars/euros/<put your currency hear> are not the majority of potential buyers. Probably are the majority here, but not the overall market. You don't really need a 1Dx II and a lineup of all L lenses to take good pictures, especially for an hobby, nor you need to get always the latest and the greatest (GAS! GAS!)

Canon does have a lineup for buyers who are not going to spend those sums. Still, the market for high-end, expensive gear looks still healthy, and probably yields higher returns. It looks the Nikon 850D sold very well....

Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

That depends on how much you work is valued. Again, you don't always need the latest and the greatest. Hope your customer value the quality of your images, not with what camera you show up (albeit, unluckily, in some market that could be an issue as well...)

Many images that wins award are made with older gear. Probably because those people spend more time shooting than chasing the next holy grail of technical specs.

It is true professional wear their gear more quickly, and need replacement earlier.

Anyway, smaller cameras exist and will co-exist alongside bulkier one, each designed for different market segments. While Canon does sell top-of-the-line cameras to non professional users, it does design them for professional needs - it's the professional user who drives the sales to non-professional ones, not vice-versa.

Canon, for a while in the '50s-'60s didn't target the pro market, while Nikon did. It was in those years that Nikon built its brand recognition. You saw a famous photographer, and if he used a 35mm SLR, it was usually a Nikon F.

At the end of the '60s Canon understood it had to target the pro users with a camera system designed for them. Canon brand recognition greatly improved thanks to F-1 and T90, and then surpassed Nikon with the EOS 1 line, also thanks to the EF lenses. Even if not affordable by many, they created the brand recognition, and still drove sales of other models as well.

A retired baby boomer is not probably in the market segment for a pro camera. After all, Apple doesn't make phones for the elderly - although they do exist. "overwhelming majority of market"? I guess Canon have more market insight than us.

 

[AvTvM]

Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.

A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.

That adapter could even be bolted 100% tight and weather-sealed ;D onto camera by Canon service for a small fee for all those who prefer to have a mirrorless camera with "native EF mount".

New "slim" mount is the only option to cater to the market segment that wants a Canon FF system with significantly less bulk than DSLRs. Nw mount can and should be introduced right at start of mirrorless FF system, as all existing EF lenses are there and will work without any problem ... all that's needed is a little adapter tube.

I also notice that many of the people with extreme "adapter angst" dont seem to understand the differences between 1 .tele-converters, 2. dinky, non OEM cross-system converters 3. any other dinky converter with glass in it ... and a simple, cheap, solid Canon EF to EF-X extension tube adapter. Of course they also have never used the existing Canon EF-M/EF adapter to experience firsthand, what a simple, precise, stable and cheap item it is. And that you can also leave it on a lens you're likely to use next ... so there is no "field handling issue" and no "OMG I will loose it fumbling ariound in 30 inches of snow with gloves on my hands". I dont. And neither would they.

"B-b-but NO, I don't want no stinkin' adapter" is the only thought and line they seem capable of ... to use some ridicule and sarcasm. ;D

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
First of all my main question is do your fingers / hands automatically get smaller because your favourite manufacturer releases a smaller mirrorless camera, if not I would not want a smaller body, I inherited my grandads size 10 shovel hands and small bodies make my fingers ache trying to grip them (we have a 100D and had an M) so yes speaking from experience, that is not to say that small won’t suit some, but where are you going to put all the important controls, rear dial, joystick just to mention two that I would think are very important to the “professional” photographer, I’m not a pro but they are important to me.

Second everyone clamouring for a shorter flange distance seems to have overlooked this most informative post from Mt Spokane detailing an issue with the short flange and dual pixel af. Dual pixel af is probably the most important thing for a FF mirrorless?

Cheers, Graham.

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

Canon already has a patent for a new FF mirrorless mount and EF adapter, it came out 2 or 3 years back. There is a issue with a shorter lens to sensor distance that Canon has been trying to solve thru different designs for their dual pixel sensors, also a couple of patents discussing the issue.

The problem is the angle of the light rays toward the edges of the sensor means you lose even more light than the EF mount. To compensate, you must boost the gain of the outer photo sensors even more. That increases noise and reduces resolution. You definitely pay for the short flange back distance in IQ.

 

[Mikehit]

Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.

er....and Canon

A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense.

To you.

I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.

By 'lenses optimised for mirroless' do you mean the advantages of making a f2.8 lens with a built-in extension tube that makes it larger than the DSLR equivalent?
Yeah, real advantage that is....

Maybe Canon will come out with a new mount but all I said was there are good reasons for having a EF mount mirrorless. You on the other hand dismiss anything that does not agree with your world view. Me, me, me....

New "slim" mount is the only option to cater to the market segment that wants a Canon FF system with significantly less bulk than DSLRs. Nw mount can and should be introduced right at start of mirrorless FF system, as all existing EF lenses are there and will work without any problem ... all that's needed is a little adapter tube.

Long run yes. But as I say you seem incapable of comprehending a mirrorless that offers use of legacy lenses with all the advantages of mirrorless technology and expanding the range of bodies in good time.
One of the deepest criticisms, and one of the greatest concerns of pros has been the lack of native high-quality Sony lenses. That has been remedied over the last couple of years or so and all credit to Sony, but Canon's prestige market is the professional sports/wildlife photographer and that is the one they need to think about. But then again that ain't your sort of photography so that doesn't count, does it? me,me, me...

I also notice that many of the people with extreme "adapter angst" dont seem to understand the differences between 1 .tele-converters, 2. dinky, non OEM cross-system converters 3. any other dinky converter with glass in it ... and a simple, cheap, solid Canon EF to EF-X extension tube adapter.

Or maybe you don't understand the similarities?

And that you can also leave it on a lens you're likely to use next ...

YAY! Here is your new mirrorless camera. By the way you will need to buy three adapters as well to make sure the next lens you pick out has one already loaded.

As I say, mirrorless will come in good time and Canon know that. But all your objections are based on what you want to see and because Canon (or other people) do not see it the way you do and have different priorities you assume they are dumb.

 

[Orangutan]

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

I'm afraid I disagree. The question from the OP was quite simple: what does Canon need to do to make this camera "successful." That word is very simple and clear, it means that it will sell well and be profitable. I answered that question from my perspective.

Some people, apparently yourself included, misinterpreted the OP to ask a different question entirely. If the question had been "what does Canon need to do to make you, personally, buy this camera," then my answer would have been very different.

There's a set of features I'd like in a FF mirrorless, and they probably have a lot of overlap with what you want. But I don't presume that what I want will make this new product "successful." There is no error or "apology" to point out that Canon has (financially) outsmarted their critics for a long time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am interested using FD lenses and companies make cameras for customers to satisfy their needs if ... IF ... it gives them the chance to make money.

If the needs in question applies to a sub-miniscule fraction of the target market, most companies don't give a damn about satisfying them.

That was the reason for the word if marked in red ... but: Taking out sub-minuscle fractions of posts doesn't help to show the whole picture about the question "Adapter or no adapter?" ...

It seems pretty clear you were implying that using FD lenses is part of Canon's decision tree regarding FF MILC mount choice, and if you honestly believe that...wow. Just...wow. ??? :'(

No + additional reasons for short flange distance I mentioned here:

"I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too."

&

"You have omitted [reason 2 and 3] and I will give you a fourth reason for a mount with smaller flange distance mentioned by a lot of others: Lenses with lens elements near the sensor to enhance IQ / get very good IQ at lower prices. Mostly in the (ultra)wide range."

EOT

Sorry for ignoring your second and third points, I did so because they were as essentially irrelevant as the first one. But for the sake of completeness…

1) FD lenses - less than a minuscule market, irrelevant as far as Canon is concerned

2) Tilt adapter - very small market, and to the extent that it's relevant, this point actually argues against you because no doubt Canon would rather sell you a whole tilt shift lens (or >1), instead of just an adapter (or more likely, letting a third-party sell you the adapter)

3) Adapting scientific optics - another less-than-minuscule market, and not specifically germane to a short flange with adapter, since it's certainly possible to adapt current long-flange dSLRs to scientific optics (for example, I have personally mounted both Canon and Nikon dSLRs to my Zeiss Stemi DV4 stereomicroscope, as well as to high end research microscopes in the lab)

4) Cheaper/better WA/UWA lenses - perhaps a valid argument, but I think the jury is still out on this one as far as full frame cameras go; there's really no evidence for better optics, what we can say is the optics can be as good with a smaller physical size, and for crop sensors they can be cheaper (but then, lenses can always be made cheaper if you trade off IQ)

To sum up, the three reasons you initially listed for a short flange with adapter are essentially irrelevant as far as decision-making at Cannon goes. I suspect, if anyone even thought of them, they'd be afraid to open their mouth for fear of being deservedly ridiculed.

 

[Orangutan]

.

Some things are objectively true and scientifically measurable, like sensor dynamic range.

True, but whether that's important for a particular photographer's needs is subjective, as is the question of whether it's worth the cost.

Then there are facts like "a shorter lens mount can allow you to adapt almost any lens" that are also objectively true.

It also changes the way the optics must be designed. I'll leave to others to explain the pros/cons of that.

While certain measurable qualities may be objective, their importance to a particular photographer is decidedly subjective.

OK, consider how you might make your subjective decision with the below criteria:
1) _all else being equal_, would you like your sensor to have more or less DR?
2) _all else being equal_, would you like your camera body to be smaller and lighter or bigger and heavier [noting you can always bolt a grip onto a small camera, but you can't make a big camera any smaller]?

......

1) _all else being equal_,

But all else is not equal; I can't pretend that my needs are representative of the market as a whole; same for this entire forum. What I, personally, want does not matter to Canon, and it shouldn't.

would you like your

Of course I want better everything at a lower price, but I gave up writing letters to Santa when I was 3. All I can do is watch the products come to market, look at my bank account, and make my purchase decisions.

Here are a few answers to some of your questions:

Smaller/lighter: don't care, compared to lenses it won't matter much

Adapter: this is a red herring. What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.

Don't hold your breath on that one. Beyond just the basic marketing/corporate self interest reason (why would Canon want to facilitate your purchase of lenses other than their own?), there is a significant technical barrier. Look at the images showing the bare chassis/frame of ILCs from different manufacturers, and you'll see that one thing they all have in common is that the mount is integrated into that chassis. There are two reasons for that, one is structural – the mount needs to be strong to hold the weight of the lens when you pick up the camera; the other is optical – the alignment of the lens mount to the plane of the sensor is critical for image quality, and manufacturing tolerances for that alignment are among the tightest in the ILC production process (regardless of whether or not there is a mirror). For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.

 

[BillB]

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

when they are out of rational arguments, inevitably they comewith the following:
* what you think is irrelevant [to Canon and to the world]
* Canon knows everything better, no make that "best". ... as proven by sales, market-share, profits ...
* ridicule and ad-hominem attacks ... thinly disguised as "sarcasm"

So lets just state the facts ... and see how they react [patterns #1-3 above sure to come!]

1. overwhelming majority of market - new buyers and aging camera users alike - wants decently capable, less bulky, lighter and affordable gear. Baby boomers are ageing. Younger/new buyers come from smaller gear [smartphones].

2. overwhelming majority of (potential) buyers does not want to, cannot and will not spend multi 1,000 USD/€ on gear for a hobby. Professionals face ever tighter budgets / earnings opportunities as well.

explains to a large degree why Canon EOS M / EF-M has been doing well. It was and is generally somewhat smaller and lighter than competitors's products [e.g. Fuji] and offers much better bang for the buck than other brands [Fuji, Sony, even smaller-sensored mFT gear] and a more intuitive user interface on top ... plus brand-name/marketing/sales channel.

3. objective fact: Canon EF-mount has been fantastic [arguably best in industry] for DSLRs, but is technically not the best and not even a "good" solution for mirrorless cameras

What follows? Best success to be had with a small & lite [= new, short FFD mount of course], yet decently capable mirrorless FF cam - 1 step above EOS M5, not 3 steps above. Something around "6D II class" performance. Priced maybe 1499 body ... 1999 with decent kit zoom [eg EF-X 24-85/4 IS STM]. Plus a range of compact lenses [moderately fast primes and f/4 zooms plus unavoidable f/5.6 consumer zooms] ... that don't all cost 1k/2k/3k per unit.

High-end? Yes too, but in overall picture really for bragging rights [Marketing] only.

So, for Canon, the FF Mirrorless sweetspot is one step up from the aps-c M series, using a new EF-X mount and a new series of lenses. By the nature of FF, the EF-X camera and lenses would be larger and more expensive than the M series, sort of an Acura to the M's Honda. (It is not clear to me how an EF-X lens could be adapted to the EF-M mount, but that would be something for the development team to work out.) Canon might be able to make some money with this strategy, but the likely success for this strategy seems more obvious to you than it does to me.

You also say that there is a place for an FF EF mirrorless, which several of us have been saying for a while, and that is where I think Canon will start. Why not let the bragging begin, without taking the time, money and design talent to put out a new line of EF-X lenses before any bragging can be done.

 

[rrcphoto]

You also say that there is a place for an FF EF mirrorless, which several of us have been saying for a while, and that is where I think Canon will start. Why not let the bragging begin, without taking the time, money and design talent to put out a new line of EF-X lenses before any bragging can be done.

canon has no patents really for this fabled line of EF-X lenses, so where and how are they going to come up with them?

 

[jeffa4444]

people act as if it would be easy for canon just to dream up a new mount and make lenses for it.. where would the designs come from? thin air? mom's basement?

Canon already has a patent for a new FF mirrorless mount and EF adapter, it came out 2 or 3 years back. There is a issue with a shorter lens to sensor distance that Canon has been trying to solve thru different designs for their dual pixel sensors, also a couple of patents discussing the issue.

The problem is the angle of the light rays toward the edges of the sensor means you lose even more light than the EF mount. To compensate, you must boost the gain of the outer photo sensors even more. That increases noise and reduces resolution. You definitely pay for the short flange back distance in IQ.

I mainly agree with you the confines of the existing EF mount i.e. throat diameter limits the use of concentric lens designs the image circle should be larger than the diagonal on the 36x24mm sensor enough to cover shading but in just about every manufacturers case this is not the case. Mainly because it would require a larger & heavier lens. Concentric lenses (we have designed some with around a 97% parallel light path) help to rectify this but are of limited use in wide angles but do help with short back focus.

 

[Orangutan]

What we need is not "adapters" but to be able to change the "native" lens mount of the camera. As soon as the mirror is gone, you can have an oversized "universal" lens opening to which you can attach a variety of lens mounts. It would come standard with EF, but you should be able to remove that and install mounts for whatever lens line suits you.

Don't hold your breath on that one. Beyond just the basic marketing/corporate self interest reason (why would Canon want to facilitate your purchase of lenses other than their own?), there is a significant technical barrier. Look at the images showing the bare chassis/frame of ILCs from different manufacturers, and you'll see that one thing they all have in common is that the mount is integrated into that chassis. There are two reasons for that, one is structural – the mount needs to be strong to hold the weight of the lens when you pick up the camera; the other is optical – the alignment of the lens mount to the plane of the sensor is critical for image quality, and manufacturing tolerances for that alignment are among the tightest in the ILC production process (regardless of whether or not there is a mirror). For those reasons, I don't think you'll ever see a camera with swappable native lens mounts, neither user performed nor service center performed.

So what you're saying is that it's just an engineering and marketing problem... ;D

 

[kurt765]

By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.

We're talking about what we want in a future product. Do you want another 6D2 or would you rather get another 5D IV type sensor in the new product?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.

The only market segment that holds growth promise is full frame mirrorless? LOL.

 

[neuroanatomist]

1) _all else being equal_,

_All else being equal_, I want a 24-bit FF sensor with 20 stops of DR and 200 MP, enclosed in a waterproof camera, along with a 12-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens that fits in my jeans pocket.

When you find all-else-is-equal-land, let me know how to get there. Oh, wait...I think I already know how to get there, but I have an aversion to using psychoactive drugs.

 

[neuroanatomist]

always the same here. A few 100% Canon apologists trying to hammer down anything that smells even remotely critical of Canon products, business practices, strategy.

Always the same here, a few people who comprehend reality and would like others to do the same, and a few people who live in their own delusional world where their wants are the determining factor in Canon's success or failure. Plus lots of people in between, and Jack, who reads CR for the humor.

 

[BillB]

By that logic, you seem to be saying that you don't understand why anybody would buy a Canon 6DII, (or possibly a 5DS or a 5DSR). It seems safe to guess that someone buying one of these cameras is looking for something different than more exposure latitude. At this point, pretty much all the Canon aps-c cameras have on sensor ADC, including the mirrorless M5 and M6. There isn't any reason that I can see to think that a Canon FF mirrorless would not have a sensor with on board ADC. If you are whining about the 6DII, I get it. A lot of people do, at least on the internet.

We're talking about what we want in a future product. Do you want another 6D2 or would you rather get another 5D IV type sensor in the new product?

You have your Sony, I have my 5DIV, and I said that I don't think that a new Canon FF mirrorless is going to have a 6DII sensor in it. So what is the point of your question?

 

[unfocused]

Canon better acts "very soon". How anyone would call a business strategy "successful" which leaves the only market segment that holds growth promise and may have some future totally and without any fight to its competitors ... Sony, soon to be joined by Nikon.

The only market segment that holds growth promise is full frame mirrorless? LOL.

Wait...what... you don't think $2,500+ camera bodies are the only growth market?