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

[scyrene]

I don't think there is a "best" form factor, because the use case dictates what form factor to use.

+100

Quite simple.....

It needs to be a reasonable camera at a reasonable price.

Mirrorless has some advantages and it has some drawbacks. The people who see advantages will go for it.

Also +100

 

[dak723]

....As for EF - well, what is it about mirrorless that means EF is best replaced? I've read all these interminable arguments on this thread and many others, but nobody seems to have unequivocal evidence that mirrorless bodies mandate lens mounts that offer anything special other than maybe slightly smaller and lighter lenses in a restrictive range of focal lengths - and even then, some argue that it is mostly down to most mirrorless bodies until now having had smaller than FF sensors.

You are ignoring the original issue: what does *full frame* mirrorless have to offer for it to be a success? FF DSLRs could be smaller - they are not, not because of the mirror, but because of the ergonomics of full frame lenses. You are so caught up in your own desires, you ignore that many lenses (and the preference of users who specialise in the areas that those lenses are for) will never be much smaller, so for those people, a small body is not only not a priority, but a bad move.

Well said, but ultimately people who are arguing for the new smaller mount will ignore any type of rational argument. Yes, the currenct DSLR FF cameras could obviously be made smaller - just as the SL1 showed that the APS-C DSLR could be made considerably smaller - but the mirrorless crowd can not accept that the mirror does not have that much to do with the size. They can't accept that fast lenses will be large. They can't accept that a 200mm lens is going to be 200mm in mirrorless, too. They can't accept that it would take years, maybe a decade or more, to get an acceptable lens lineup for pros if they go with a new mount. Look at all the complaints regarding the lens lineup for the M cameras. Imagine that scenario for a new FF!

It may not apply to all of those who are arguing for a new mount, but my guess is that many do so for one simple reason. They want the camera to be like Sony FF. Sony is innovative, so Canon should follow their lead. Sony is cutting edge and "cool" - so Canon better follow their lead. Who wants a dumpy old Canon when they can have a sleek new "Sony-like" Canon.

 

[stevelee]

The reason we will see a mirrorless FF body is that they are cheaper to make, and sell for a higher price.

The cost to manufacture a product like this is basically one of part count, the electronics and sensor are the same, but the mirror, sub mirror, pentaprism, sub mirror lens, AF sensor, focus screen, eyepiece all go away, only the EVF is added.

So, if there is a market, money is out there waiting to be scooped up. We will see one because customers want it, its just a matter of what will sell best. Canon is very good at figuring that out.

I've been reading this thread off an on with some detached interest, in that I am very unlikely to buy an new camera body in the next few years, but I find keeping up with technology entertaining up to a point. Part of my curiosity concerns why someone would want a mirrorless camera. I take my G7X II when I travel, so most of my shots are made with it. And I gained appreciation for live view when I had to use it on my T3i in August rather than risking blindness during the eclipse. I can see how an EVF would have helped in that situation, since somehow shooting pictures of the sun involves being out in bright sunlight. Who would have thunk? Maybe I'll get a mirrorless camera in 2024. But otherwise I can't see the point for me.

This post seems to make the most sense to me of about everything I have read in this thread. Thanks for this perspective.

 

[BillB]

Well said, but ultimately people who are arguing for the new smaller mount will ignore any type of rational argument. Yes, the currenct DSLR FF cameras could obviously be made smaller - just as the SL1 showed that the APS-C DSLR could be made considerably smaller - but the mirrorless crowd can not accept that the mirror does not have that much to do with the size. They can't accept that fast lenses will be large. They can't accept that a 200mm lens is going to be 200mm in mirrorless, too. They can't accept that it would take years, maybe a decade or more, to get an acceptable lens lineup for pros if they go with a new mount. Look at all the complaints regarding the lens lineup for the M cameras. Imagine that scenario for a new FF!

It may not apply to all of those who are arguing for a new mount, but my guess is that many do so for one simple reason. They want the camera to be like Sony FF. Sony is innovative, so Canon should follow their lead. Sony is cutting edge and "cool" - so Canon better follow their lead. Who wants a dumpy old Canon when they can have a sleek new "Sony-like" Canon.

I think there is something else going on too, which is somewhat related to Sony envy, and that is Full Frame fixation. Cameras with crop sensors are smaller, lighter and cheaper, but they are not Full Frame.

There are a couple of questions floating around in this discussion about a new FF amount. One question is whether a crop camera can deliver the necessary IQ, and that is a question that each photographer has to answer for her or himself. The other question is how small a mirrorless camera Canon can build using an EF mount, and only Canon knows the answer to that question. Whether the smallest FF camera that Canon actually builds with an EF mount would be small enough is of course up to each photographer deciding individually.

For a new Canon FF mirrorless mount to make sense, for enough photographers, the answer to the first question has to be that a crop camera can't provide high enough IQ and the answer to the second question has to be that Canon can't build a FF mirrorless with an EF mount that is small enough. So the marketing question for Canon is how many photographers are in that gap and how much each will be willing to pay for a camera with the new mount, along with the new lenses that are needed to make use of the new camera.

 

[Mikehit]

For a new Canon FF mirrorless mount to make sense, for enough photographers, the answer to the first question has to be that a crop camera can't provide high enough IQ and the answer to the second question has to be that Canon can't build a FF mirrorless with an EF mount that is small enough. So the marketing question for Canon is how many photographers are in that gap and how much each will be willing to pay for a camera with the new mount, along with the new lenses that are needed to make use of the new camera.

I think the size is issue is being vastly overplayed. You cannot put a Sony A7R3 with lens in your pocket so you need a bag which immediately places it in the same bracket as a DSLR. Add a spare lens and battery and all realistic advantages vapourise. This is precisely why overall micro 4/3 appeal to me more.
Saving 200g when long distance hiking is a very small % of the market, as is the 'need' for eye AF - both nice if you have them but I don't think anyone would look on them as deal breakers.

IMO, the weight issue is overplayed because there are actually few essential differences that mirrorless offers so the slap it up there to grab the attention - put it like this: if Sony had not had a superior sensor for nigh on 10 years, mirrorless would not have taken off in the way that it has. I believe the level of its success is because it is Sony with their sensor, not the fact it is mirrorless technology.

 

[AvTvM]

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.

Well plenty of good reasons have been presented on both sides. You're ignoring the pro-EF side. Be biased and blinkered if you want, but don't pretend you're not. Once again, can you clearly state what the 'benefits of a short-flanged new mount' are, besides smaller size <80mm focal length?

very simple. A new slim mount allows - amongst many other things - for a ultra-compact and ultra-capable full-frame sensored digital cameras and lenses - in the most frequently used focal length range. Both, moderately fast primes [f1.8-f/2.8, depending on FL] as well as moderately fast zooms [eg. 24-85/4.0].

Think of a "modern day, digital Minolta CLE". Or a Sony RX1-RII ... with interchangeable lenses. That is what i would like to get from Canon and i bet , i am not the only one on this planet interested in such gear. And no, such gear would not necessarily have to be absurdly expensive ... unlike the Sony RX-1R's. ;-)

A slim mount would also not preclude camera bodies as large and chunky as anybody would want to have them, nor the use of all existing EF-lenses. By means of a simple adapter - or if preferred by user - a permanently bolted-on "EF-lens mount nozzle" in front of the camera.

I am not at all against big, fat cameras - if others want or need them for their purposes, perfectly fine. What i am against is if there were ONLY larger cameras available than what I and many others would want for our needs and purposes. Professionals are a tiny minority of the imaging gear market. As well as people using big white teles or f/1.2 lenses. They are just over-represented in this forum.

That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.

 

[Mikehit]

That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.

So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.

 

[AvTvM]

So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.

What I am saying is, that Canon will be "most successful" if they use *the optimal* lens mount for their future FF-sensored system ... which will sooner rather than later be the only FF system they will be able to sell. Whatever that may mean in numbers ... revenues, market share, profits ...

"Optimal" in both the technical sense [short flange back, perfectly chosen mount dimensions] as well as allowing for big AND small gear, with no real problem to backwards compatibility of EF lenses .. for a multi-year transitional period until new mount lens lineup is fully launched.

At the core of it, non-rational "adapter-angst" and fear of lower resale value by a tiny minority of the market [people with large hands, large cameras and large lenses] are really the only 2 arguments AGAINST a new, slim, optimally designed for FF-mirrorless mount. Non-rational, because those folks will undoubtedly be offered LARGE Canon gear in the future, no matter how "slim" the new mount might be.

 

[BillB]

So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.

What I am saying is, that Canon will be "most successful" if they use *the optimal* lens mount for their future FF-sensored system ... which will sooner rather than later be the only FF system they will be able to sell. Whatever that may mean in numbers ... revenues, market share, profits ...

"Optimal" in both the technical sense [short flange back, perfectly chosen mount dimensions] as well as allowing for big AND small gear, with no real problem to backwards compatibility of EF lenses .. for a multi-year transitional period until new mount lens lineup is fully launched.

At the core of it, non-rational "adapter-angst" and fear of lower resale value by a tiny minority of the market [people with large hands, large cameras and large lenses] are really the only 2 arguments AGAINST a new, slim, optimally designed for FF-mirrorless mount. Non-rational, because those folks will undoubtedly be offered LARGE Canon gear in the future, no matter how "slim" the new mount might be.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.

If you take out 'full frame', I agree. So does Canon, thus the EOS M cameras and EF-M lenses. But the FF market is different that the sub-$1K 'consumer' market.

 

[Mikehit]

So what you are saying is that if Canon's first FF mirrorless is EF mount it will not be successful? If that is what you mean than how are you defining 'success'? What level of sales? What level of market position? Based on reviews ratings? The ACDS (AvTvM Canon is a Dinosaur Scale (TM))?
Without knowing that then no matter how many they sell you can say 'Ah, but they would be even better if....'.

What I am saying is, that Canon will be "most successful" if they use *the optimal* lens mount for their future FF-sensored system ... which will sooner rather than later be the only FF system they will be able to sell. Whatever that may mean in numbers ... revenues, market share, profits ...

"Optimal" in both the technical sense [short flange back, perfectly chosen mount dimensions] as well as allowing for big AND small gear, with no real problem to backwards compatibility of EF lenses .. for a multi-year transitional period until new mount lens lineup is fully launched.

At the core of it, non-rational "adapter-angst" and fear of lower resale value by a tiny minority of the market [people with large hands, large cameras and large lenses] are really the only 2 arguments AGAINST a new, slim, optimally designed for FF-mirrorless mount. Non-rational, because those folks will undoubtedly be offered LARGE Canon gear in the future, no matter how "slim" the new mount might be.

Again, the question is do they need to do that right now?
But you have still not provided any evidence that the EF mount is non-optimal. It is all theory based on one premise - that the Canon has to be as small as the Sony to be successful. Do you have any evidence other than personal preference?
If Canon have done the market research and go the message people want a smaller body then they may well be risking things if they ignore it. If however, people say that size is below the opportunity for in-VF information (peaking, zebras etc) Canon will take the appropriate wider decision.

Odd, really. You criticise people for not being open to the idea of a converter, but not once have you acknowledged the stated marketing advantages of keeping the EF mount in the short term. IME the most closed minded are often those calling for an open mind on change.

 

[scyrene]

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.

Well plenty of good reasons have been presented on both sides. You're ignoring the pro-EF side. Be biased and blinkered if you want, but don't pretend you're not. Once again, can you clearly state what the 'benefits of a short-flanged new mount' are, besides smaller size <80mm focal length?

very simple. A new slim mount allows - amongst many other things - for a ultra-compact and ultra-capable full-frame sensored digital cameras and lenses - in the most frequently used focal length range. Both, moderately fast primes [f1.8-f/2.8, depending on FL] as well as moderately fast zooms [eg. 24-85/4.0].

Think of a "modern day, digital Minolta CLE". Or a Sony RX1-RII ... with interchangeable lenses. That is what i would like to get from Canon and i bet , i am not the only one on this planet interested in such gear. And no, such gear would not necessarily have to be absurdly expensive ... unlike the Sony RX-1R's. ;-)

A slim mount would also not preclude camera bodies as large and chunky as anybody would want to have them, nor the use of all existing EF-lenses. By means of a simple adapter - or if preferred by user - a permanently bolted-on "EF-lens mount nozzle" in front of the camera.

I am not at all against big, fat cameras - if others want or need them for their purposes, perfectly fine. What i am against is if there were ONLY larger cameras available than what I and many others would want for our needs and purposes. Professionals are a tiny minority of the imaging gear market. As well as people using big white teles or f/1.2 lenses. They are just over-represented in this forum.

That's why my answer to what a full frame Canon mirrorless (system) needs to have to be successful" is:
definitely a new, "slim" mount. To allow for compact gear as well as for chunky gear ... and full backwards compatibility for all existing EF glass.

Thanks for your answer. I'm not against small bodies for those who want them, and if that implies a new mount, so be it. But I would like (and I am inclined to believe that Canon would be interested in providing for the not inconsiderable market that is *not* driven by small size, especially pros) a native EF camera for the foreseeable future - mirrorless or otherwise (and I'm sure they will continue to produce DSLRs for a long time yet). Really what we're discussing here is which comes first, but hopefully we won't have to wait long to find out.

 

[AvTvM]

my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture.

I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.

Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...

 

[Mikehit]

Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...

So the next how many years necessitating an adapter?

 

[Talys]

my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture.

Of course, you could be right.

However, I don't think so. First, anyone who has to stare through a viewfinder for relatively long times to wait for shots will prefer an OVF until such time that EVFs don't drain the crap out of batteries. I'm not sure when that will be. It's not a retro thing, it's a practical thing. If you patiently wait for 1 hour for a couple of good opportunities of wildlife shots, your battery usage is zero with an OVF, versus... a lot... for an EVF. When I'm in wait, I may have a (wired) remote trigger, and just look between through the lens and with the naked eye, waiting for my subject(s) to do something interesting, or for something else to occur within the environment.

Secondly, people who work with strobes -- especially ones who know what they are doing -- have very little benefit from an EVF. For myself, I find that EVFs are a pain in the ass and more distracting than anything when working with strobes. In the context of portraiture I think they are more distracting to the real job than anything (posing and lighting).

And since those wildlife and flash photography constitute, like, 85%+ of everything I shoot, and since it's rare that I use a small lens, buying a mirrorless would just be a luxury gadget than a genuinely useful tool for me. I'm not saying that I won't get one, but some of those factors will have to sort themselves out before it becomes a primary tool.

The third issue is the ergonomics, and while I totally get that big DSLRs aren't your thing, and perhaps those who prefer it are in the minority, I think it's still at least a decent chunk of the FF market.

 

[BillB]

my idea of timing is different. i do believe DSLRs will be a thing of the past *very soon* after both Nikon and Canon finally bring competent FF mirrorless systems to market. I foresee a situation similar to transition to digital .. 1D film cameras were made for many years after switch to digital .. but of no real relevance any longer. Only for some "hardcore retro" folks. Same will happen with DSLRs. Some (high-end) model will remain in product line-up for a good number of years, but sales will be "below detection threshold" ... in overall picture.

I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.

Coming from this take I really think Canon should (and will likely) not launch their future camera generation with DSLR-lens mount .. but use the switch to FF mirrorless for "big bang" system changeover. Most importantly because having [majority of] their existing client base switching to new mount glass over next few years ... starting NOW rather than some years down the road ... will get them much more sales revenues, market share and profits ... most notably in new lenses ... compared to carrying on with incremental improvements on Mk. III, IV, V iterations of EF glass for many more years ... and THEN only launch new slim mount lens lineup ...

Earlier in this thread, you said the EF-X should be positioned one step above the M series. Now you say the M series may soon be under water, but the quality of FF sensor's will keep the EF-X's feet dry. Be that as it may, a Big Bang strategy implies the ability to move a lot of new product fast, or to at least have some new product available for sale. How can you have a Big Bang without any product? Unless Canon buys your idea to ditch the EF mount as soon as it can, opening the bidding with an EF mount mirrorless makes a lot of sense to me, even if it announces the new mount up front. Smoothing the transition on a change this big does have value.

 

[deleteme]

However, I don't think so. First, anyone who has to stare through a viewfinder for relatively long times to wait for shots will prefer an OVF until such time that EVFs don't drain the crap out of batteries. I'm not sure when that will be. It's not a retro thing, it's a practical thing. If you patiently wait for 1 hour for a couple of good opportunities of wildlife shots, your battery usage is zero with an OVF, versus... a lot... for an EVF. When I'm in wait, I may have a (wired) remote trigger, and just look between through the lens and with the naked eye, waiting for my subject(s) to do something interesting, or for something else to occur within the environment.

Secondly, people who work with strobes -- especially ones who know what they are doing -- have very little benefit from an EVF. For myself, I find that EVFs are a pain in the ass and more distracting than anything when working with strobes. In the context of portraiture I think they are more distracting to the real job than anything (posing and lighting).

And since those wildlife and flash photography constitute, like, 85%+ of everything I shoot, and since it's rare that I use a small lens, buying a mirrorless would just be a luxury gadget than a genuinely useful tool for me. I'm not saying that I won't get one, but some of those factors will have to sort themselves out before it becomes a primary tool.

The third issue is the ergonomics, and while I totally get that big DSLRs aren't your thing, and perhaps those who prefer it are in the minority, I think it's still at least a decent chunk of the FF market.

I agree.
For me mirrorless cameras make sense for certain applications such as available light shooting and the need for silence.
Those times when I need to keep the camera ready I could never use an EVF.

The other bugaboo for me at the moment WRT EVFs is the difficulty using them in bright sun.
With current models if you use a WYSIWYG mode then all is decent until you pop on a flash for fill. Then the camera uses auto adjust for the EVF and makes it very difficult to use with bright scenes such as snow where it naturally underexposes by 2 stops or so.

 

[jolyonralph]

I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.

I am almost thinking the opposite - that the increased quality of APS-C sensors in recent years means there is a serious justification in saying that fewer people may be tempted to upgrade to FF systems - especially when we consider the price and weight benefits of crop lenses.

 

[Talys]

I also believe that APS-C sensor size is not safe from phone-camera / computational onslaught. It may be quite soon that only very good FF sensors & systems will yield immediately visible, major IQ advantage.

I am almost thinking the opposite - that the increased quality of APS-C sensors in recent years means there is a serious justification in saying that fewer people may be tempted to upgrade to FF systems - especially when we consider the price and weight benefits of crop lenses.

The back and forth is pretty funny, actually. On one hand, when I'd like to see APSC get closer to what FF is able to do, some people have asserted, "APSC is near the limit of what's possible". On the other, "smartphone sensors could catch up to APSC!"

Both aren't possible. Either sensors still have room to get better, given today's technologies, or sensors are near their limits.

Anyways, there's a MASSIVE difference between MILCs/DSLRs and smartphones that cannot be overcome by sensor improvements. Forget the sensor. ILCs have stuff going for them that you can't put into a cell phone form factor, like...

1. tripod mount
2. hotshoe
3. interchangeable lenses
4. the ability to use filters
5. ergonomics

Personally, I think iPhone/Samsung/Pixel cameras are very good for what they're good at. The problem is, they are incapable of using light modifying tools, and are terrible for long exposures, long focal lengths, or macro photography. They're impractical to use if your desired task is to take many photos over a long period, and they have laughably short battery life if you actually want them to use them to take pictures of stuff for any period of time.

Full frame or APSC, the sunset you photograph at a beach with an ILC, tripod and filters compared to what's possible with a smartphone and mucking about in post is not to compare.

 

[takesome1]

15 pages of answers. Maybe this response was already been said but the answer is simple.

"a release date"