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

[dak723]

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.

I tend to agree, but that may just be because I downsized from FF and now have only one APS-C camera and one M4/3rds.

 

[slclick]

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

"a release date"

or high sales volume and profit

 

[Don Haines]

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

"a release date"

+1

 

[3kramd5]

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.

Bandwidth is cheap. Can you please name them?

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Bandwidth is cheap. Can you please name them?

#1 – it allows AvTvM to get what he personally wants

#2 – irrelevant

#3 – doesn't matter

#4 – who cares

etc.

 

[takesome1]

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.

Bandwidth is cheap. Can you please name them?

You obviously are not getting your internet connection in a rural area by satelite.

 

[Don Haines]

A new mount with a smaller flange difference has tots of advantages.

You get the advantage of smaller size lenses when using wide angle.

You get the advantage of adaptors being able to adapt some of other maker's lenses. (not all)

You get the advantage of increased chromatic abberation.

You get the advantage of posting complaints on CR while you wait for all those lenses you want in a new mount to trickle out....

You get the advantage of trying different ergonomics from what is "tried and true".....

You will probably get the advantage of buying a new battery because all your LP-E6 batteries will not fit into a slimmer body.

You will probably get the advantage of fewer buttons, controls, and displays so your camera won't be as confusing to operate....

Those of us who bring a backup body to a job will have the advantage of upgrading both bodies to the new mirrorless design so we have no restrictions on using what body with which lens....

 

[dak723]

Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0

Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.

 

[AvTvM]

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.

comparison only valid for Sony FE lenses, not generally for short FFD lenses.

Sony is using a lens mount for FF image sensor, that was designed for APS-C. Mount parameters are sub-par for FF. That causes Sony FE lenses to be more complex in optical formula than need be, and larger, heavier and more expensive.

If Canon launches a new native mount designed from scratch to be optimized for mirrorless FF system, more compact lenses for the focal lengths in question will be technically possible.

Leica M is a good example how compact high-quality mirrorless FF lenses can be built. Adding an STM AF drive and (possibly) IS might make things a bit bigger, but not necessarily by very much ... if done "really right".

 

[Don Haines]

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.

comparison only valid for Sony FE lenses, not generally for short FFD lenses.

Sony is using a lens mount for FF image sensor, that was designed for APS-C. Mount parameters are sub-par for FF. That causes Sony FE lenses to be more complex in optical formula than need be, and larger, heavier and more expensive.

If Canon launches a new native mount designed from scratch to be optimized for mirrorless FF system, more compact lenses for the focal lengths in question will be technically possible.

Leica M is a good example how compact high-quality mirrorless FF lenses can be built. Adding an STM AF drive and (possibly) IS might make things a bit bigger, but not necessarily by very much ... if done "really right".

I agree.

The lens length argument is comparing apples to oranges.

If Canon decides that small size is the priority for their mirrorless FF cameras, and they design a new mount with small size in mind, then it would follow that when they design those new lenses, that they will also be designed with small size in mind.

In other words, if they decide to make it smaller then EF mount, then they will make it smaller.

 

[Talys]

I'm sorry guys, but Canon cannot defy the laws of physics, given the properties of glass and the size of the desired image on the focal plane (the sensor size).

They can find size and weight savings by building a more efficient optical formula, or by using different techniques (like diffractive lenses, which may reduce the number of elements). Of course, they can use optical formulae that yield an inferior image. Or dramatically shrink the package by shrinking the sensor, or decreasing maximum aperture, or using variable aperture in a zoom lens. Or removing features like image stabilization (or in the case of Leica M, the mount is pre-autofocus...). But none of this has anything to do with mirrorless.

There's no freebies when it comes to optics. You can take out the entire camera body and the metal casing of the lens -- just have a sensor, followed sequentially by each glass element mechanically held in place and manually adjusted, and guess what? To generate an image of X size from a subject at Y distance with Z aperture... the distance between the sensor and the first element, to the second element, to the third, and so forth.. are exactly the same.

The mount is not magic. It's just a couple of rings that hold a tube of glass elements in place, at a fixed distance from the sensor, plus some contacts for electronics. The nice thing about E-mount is double edged: because the flange focal distance is short, the lenses that don't need a longer FFD can benefit from it (the most obvious being pancakes). But a lot of lenses that you like have an optical formula that that requires more distance from the first element to the sensor, so if you primarily use lenses of this sort, every single lens ends up longer, and by exactly the length that you cut out of the body.

Now, they could make the electronics, housing and the motor more efficient and smaller. But at what cost? Canon L lenses have legendary durability, and I don't think many people are willing to sacrifice that to have slightly lighter. Of course, they could use more exotic materials, too. But I don't think many peeps want to pay for a titanium super telephoto to save weight.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm sorry guys, but Canon cannot defy the laws of physics, given the properties of glass and the size of the desired image on the focal plane (the sensor size).

They can find size and weight savings by building a more efficient optical formula, or by using different techniques (like diffractive lenses, which may reduce the number of elements). Of course, they can use optical formulae that yield an inferior image. Or dramatically shrink the package by shrinking the sensor, or decreasing maximum aperture, or using variable aperture in a zoom lens. Or removing features like image stabilization (or in the case of Leica M, the mount is pre-autofocus...). But none of this has anything to do with mirrorless.

There's no freebies when it comes to optics. You can take out the entire camera body and the metal casing of the lens -- just have a sensor, followed sequentially by each glass element mechanically held in place and manually adjusted, and guess what? To generate an image of X size from a subject at Y distance with Z aperture... the distance between the sensor and the first element, to the second element, to the third, and so forth.. are exactly the same.

The mount is not magic. It's just a couple of rings that hold a tube of glass elements in place, at a fixed distance from the sensor, plus some contacts for electronics. The nice thing about E-mount is double edged: because the flange focal distance is short, the lenses that don't need a longer FFD can benefit from it (the most obvious being pancakes). But a lot of lenses that you like have an optical formula that that requires more distance from the first element to the sensor, so if you primarily use lenses of this sort, every single lens ends up longer, and by exactly the length that you cut out of the body.

Now, they could make the electronics, housing and the motor more efficient and smaller. But at what cost? Canon L lenses have legendary durability, and I don't think many people are willing to sacrifice that to have slightly lighter. Of course, they could use more exotic materials, too. But I don't think many peeps want to pay for a titanium super telephoto to save weight.

If Canon decides to make a new and smaller mount and lenses, then they will make it smaller.

They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.

What we don’t know are the sales projections, and if there are a sufficient number of people willing to take a hit in optical quality and ergonomics in order to get a smaller body. When you consider that there is already a small solution with reduced performance (M series), and that there is already the FF EF bodies and lenses for the “quality is everything” crowd, I rather doubt that the numbers in the middle are enough to justify creating a whole new series of lenses.

 

[Talys]

They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.

What we don’t know are the sales projections, and if there are a sufficient number of people willing to take a hit in optical quality and ergonomics in order to get a smaller body. When you consider that there is already a small solution with reduced performance (M series), and that there is already the FF EF bodies and lenses for the “quality is everything” crowd, I rather doubt that the numbers in the middle are enough to justify creating a whole new series of lenses.

I'm not sure that the Canon EF 50/f1.4 advances your argument very well. It is 50.5mm long and weighs 290g, and looks and feels small and light. I don't think anyone who ones a 50/1.4 is really thinking, "gee, I wish that were smaller". I believe what most people want is better autofocus, modern coatings to cut CA, sharper corners wide open, image stabilization, that kind of thing.

The closest lens is the much newer (15 year difference!) Nikon 50/1.4 is practically identical in size/weight, at 54.2mm and 290g.

The contemporaries in EF 50/1.4 are way, way bigger and heavier (I'm thinking Sigma Art and Zeiss Milvus), about twice the length and 800-900 grams. If you look at Sony FE 50/1.4 (the Zeiss), same deal. Bigger, heavier. Yes, obviously, these compete with the Canon 50/1.2, but it's not like anyone has made a significantly smaller midrange FF 50/1.4 to compete with the 1993 Canon.

To get smaller and lighter, you need to go to something like the Canon 50/1.8 II. And even then, the length is practically the same. It's just half the weight (or some such) because the metal has been replaced with plastic. I don't think this is a good formula for success in a new Canon mount (slash weight by going all plastic)

As I understand it, the 25-year old optical formula for the 50/1.4 is an excellent one when balancing weight and size. If they refreshed it, and added IS, it would get heavier and bigger.

Now, if I've missed some new, super-tiny, 50/f1.4 full frame lens, I apologize! Just none comes to mind. I believe that the Sigma Art has it right, by the way. The people willing to pay $1,000+ for a 50mm are perfectly happy with the size and weight of it (or a Canon 1.2 or 1.0) -- and the 100mm length / 800g sized lenes are a very good fit for 80D - 5D sized bodies.

The ones I think you REALLY save on are the pancake lenses. But you can't really make a camera revolving around pancake focal lengths.

 

[BillB]

I don't think smaller primes are going to be critical to the success of any FF mirrorless, especially since there is already the 40mm pancake and the 24, 28 and the 35 trinity. A smaller 50 or 85 might be nice, but the venerable 50 f4 and 85 are Canon's best selling primes, hardly an argument that they need to be smaller. Anyway, if you want small, there is always the nifty fifty.

Canon makes a lot more money on zooms than it does on primes, so the real question would seem to be whether a new mount would let Canon build a normal zoom and an UWA that was enough smaller and lighter so that buyers cared. The existing Canon FF lightweights are the 24-70 F4 IS and the 16-35 F4 IS, very good lenses weighing over 600 grams. Only Canon knows whether they could build something smaller with a new mount. The rest of us would be guessing.

 

[AvTvM]

well chosen lens mount parameters - focal flange distance, throat width - are absolutely crucial. They define "envelope of possibilities" for entire camera system and lens line-up. Importance cannot be underestimated. 1 mm in either dimension - and combination of dimensions - can make a world of difference. It does not go without significant punishment if a lens mount designed for APS-C image circle as an afterthought is pressed into service for FF image circle as well ... see Sony FE lens lineup. Design restrictions abound, making lenses more complex, larger, heavier and more expensive than what would be possible with a "really right for mirrorless FF" lens mount.

I have full confidence that Canon will chose mount parameters very wisely ... as they have done in the past. "When in doubt, make diameter larger to let more light in and let it pass more easily" ;D

Perfectly chosen Cnaon "EF-" mount will not only allow for ultra-compact moderately fast primes but also for very compact, moderately fast zooms [f/4.0] ... in the most frequently used focal length range [ca. 20 - 85 mm]. AF and IS notwithstanding.

And perfectly chosen, new native mirrorless FF lens mount also does not preclude fabulous, big glass f/1.2 or f1.0 "Super L" lenses .... quite to the opposite ... "really right mount" is an absolute pre-requisite for these.

In this context Sony reallsý is an example for how NOT to do it. Poor choice of lens mount yields sub-optimal results, that not even Zeiss can remedy later on. ;D

 

[Hillsilly]

Moving away from the EF mount would be a high risk move. If you need to buy new lenses, it just gives people a reason to either (1) wait until there is a more complete range of lenses or (2) consider alternative brands.

And given Canon's lack of enthusiasm for releasing new EF-M lenses, I'd have doubts about how quickly they would release FF mirrorless lenses. And the Eos-M is a sales success.

 

[Don Haines]

They know better than any of us what the cost of smaller size will be, and that will be poorer optical performance, as the sharper you bend light, the harder it is to correct aberrations. Just look at Canons old 50F1.4 lens and compare it to the new ones out by everyone else.... to make it better, they had to make it longer, and that is even with the advantages of newer materials, exotic glasses, and coatings.

What we don’t know are the sales projections, and if there are a sufficient number of people willing to take a hit in optical quality and ergonomics in order to get a smaller body. When you consider that there is already a small solution with reduced performance (M series), and that there is already the FF EF bodies and lenses for the “quality is everything” crowd, I rather doubt that the numbers in the middle are enough to justify creating a whole new series of lenses.

I'm not sure that the Canon EF 50/f1.4 advances your argument very well. It is 50.5mm long and weighs 290g, and looks and feels small and light. I don't think anyone who ones a 50/1.4 is really thinking, "gee, I wish that were smaller". I believe what most people want is better autofocus, modern coatings to cut CA, sharper corners wide open, image stabilization, that kind of thing.

The closest lens is the much newer (15 year difference!) Nikon 50/1.4 is practically identical in size/weight, at 54.2mm and 290g.

The contemporaries in EF 50/1.4 are way, way bigger and heavier (I'm thinking Sigma Art and Zeiss Milvus), about twice the length and 800-900 grams. If you look at Sony FE 50/1.4 (the Zeiss), same deal. Bigger, heavier. Yes, obviously, these compete with the Canon 50/1.2, but it's not like anyone has made a significantly smaller midrange FF 50/1.4 to compete with the 1993 Canon.

To get smaller and lighter, you need to go to something like the Canon 50/1.8 II. And even then, the length is practically the same. It's just half the weight (or some such) because the metal has been replaced with plastic. I don't think this is a good formula for success in a new Canon mount (slash weight by going all plastic)

As I understand it, the 25-year old optical formula for the 50/1.4 is an excellent one when balancing weight and size. If they refreshed it, and added IS, it would get heavier and bigger.

Now, if I've missed some new, super-tiny, 50/f1.4 full frame lens, I apologize! Just none comes to mind. I believe that the Sigma Art has it right, by the way. The people willing to pay $1,000+ for a 50mm are perfectly happy with the size and weight of it (or a Canon 1.2 or 1.0) -- and the 100mm length / 800g sized lenes are a very good fit for 80D - 5D sized bodies.

The ones I think you REALLY save on are the pancake lenses. But you can't really make a camera revolving around pancake focal lengths.

I didn’t explain myself well..... what I typed and what I as trying to say are very different.... please let me try again....

With the 50 F1.4, you have a reasonably small lens. The demand for new versions of that lens is to have higher and higher quality, and in order to deliver on that demand for increased quality, the physical size of the second party options has grown considerably. You can’t deliver both high quality and small size, one has to choose.

I think that the market for FF cameras is looking for the best quality possible, and my opinion is that they are not going to settle on buying a collection of newer lenses of lower IQ.... and that means that they will stick with EF.

 

[BillB]

well chosen lens mount parameters - focal flange distance, throat width - are absolutely crucial. They define "envelope of possibilities" for entire camera system and lens line-up. Importance cannot be underestimated. 1 mm in either dimension - and combination of dimensions - can make a world of difference. It does not go without significant punishment if a lens mount designed for APS-C image circle as an afterthought is pressed into service for FF image circle as well ... see Sony FE lens lineup. Design restrictions abound, making lenses more complex, larger, heavier and more expensive than what would be possible with a "really right for mirrorless FF" lens mount.

I have full confidence that Canon will chose mount parameters very wisely ... as they have done in the past. "When in doubt, make diameter larger to let more light in and let it pass more easily" ;D

Perfectly chosen Cnaon "EF-" mount will not only allow for ultra-compact moderately fast primes but also for very compact, moderately fast zooms [f/4.0] ... in the most frequently used focal length range [ca. 20 - 85 mm]. AF and IS notwithstanding.

And perfectly chosen, new native mirrorless FF lens mount also does not preclude fabulous, big glass f/1.2 or f1.0 "Super L" lenses .... quite to the opposite ... "really right mount" is an absolute pre-requisite for these.

In this context Sony reallsý is an example for how NOT to do it. Poor choice of lens mount yields sub-optimal results, that not even Zeiss can remedy later on. ;D

If it is so important to get the new mount exactly right, it seems to me that Canon would want to be very sure they nailed it, which would mean that it might be a while before this hypothetical EF-X mount, along with the absolutely vital very compact normal and UWA zooms, see the light of day. Meanwhile, my guess is that we will see an FF EF mirrorless, maybe a 6D size camera, hopefully with the 5DIV sensor or a suitable equivalent. As long as we are hoping and wishing... .

 

[AvTvM]

1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent".

EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.

No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)

Compact, constant aperture f/4 wide- to standard EF-M zooms might be a possibility but in the end probably too high a price category for majority of EOS M buyers. After all, it is "APS-C only". People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D

2. New native mirrorless "EF-X?" mount is not "abandoning EF mount". Going from long to shorter FFD makes transition simple, wuite the opposite of 1987 FD to EF move. There will be 100% fully functional compatibilty with any and all EF lenses ever made - to the extent DSLR-lenses can possibly be made compatible with mirrorless cameras - especially as far as AF systems go that were designed decades ago for pure Phase-AF operation]. All that's needed is a little mount adaptor ... that could also be permanently fixed as to mirrorless cam for those who prefer to have a "pig snout" up front on their cameras.

Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again. "Holy cow, sacred EF mount". Without understanding nature of move to shorter FFD. Neither EF mount nor EF-lens owners will be "abandoned". We will be nicely "soft-transitioned" to new native mirrorless mount. Everything keeps working. Everybody can take the move from DSLR + EF to mirrorless + EF-X? at their own speed. Or as soon as superior new lenses come out and G.A.S. runs rampant.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)

...People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D

What makes you think that priorities for buyers of APS-C mirrorless cameras are the same as those for buyers of full frame MILCs? Even your own statement suggests they are not the same.

What proportion of APS-C buyers are purchasing their first ILC? I'd bet the proportion of FF buyers in a similar situation is much, much lower. What proportion of APS-C owners versus FF owners have multiple lenses, where swapping among them and a new lens system mixed with adapters would be more problematic? How many T#i/7xxD bodies vs. SL#/1-200D bodies are sold globally, with similar feature sets but different body sizes, giving a hint as to the importance of smaller physical size in purchase decisions?

As with many other things, you do not know the answers. That's OK, Canon does and you can be sure those answers will drive their product development decisions.

Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand, that your views are not necessarily those of the broader market.