Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?

[Daniel Flather]

I'd take a FF mirrorless with a 50/1.x if the price is reasonable, let's say $1500, so basically it will never happen.

[dr croubie]

So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article. It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

[gmrza]

So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article. It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

I think you've touched on a very important issue here, and one which is often overlooked.  I suspect you can't get the flange distance much smaller than it already is on the EOS system without compromising performance.  Keep in mind that the angle of incidence of the light from the 85mm f/1.2 is already quite oblique.  Bring the sensor any closer, and you lose the ability to use these large aperture lenses without paying too much of a price in terms of sensor performance.  Alternatively, a new sensor technology is required.

[Marsu42]

You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3

No problem with that - but there is no need for it to be stuffed with mechanical parts or expensive electronics just to be compatible with today's lenses or large hands.

And if it's not heavy enough for balancing the lens or that "expensive" feeling just put some weights in an internal compartment :-> ... though I know that won't work, it's no coincidence car manufacturers spend millions of $$$ on audio-visual design to make closing the car door have the correct (expected, either expensive or cheap) sound :->

[pwp]

Yep I'd get one when it ships with decent AF, a truly fantastic EVF and fast sync speed. The EOS M is limited to 200th but the G15 will sync at 2000th. Very handy...

-PW

[verysimplejason]

You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

Well, there you have it... a Sony A99, an FF mirrorless approximately the size of 5D3 and priced around 5D3.  But I'd expect Sony won't fail to innovate.  Let's see in a couple of more years. 

[AvTvM]

I want one! Definitely. BUT .. i am not willing to sacrifice anything! So its got everything at least as well as a 5D3 or Nikon D800 currently. The only sacrifice required is the optical viewfinder. And I am not willing to pay an arm and a leg for a camera that would be at least 20% cheaper to build than a 5D 3. No mirrorbox, no mmirror, noc mechanical shutter, no prism, no optical veiwfinder. No expensive calibration of all that mechanical-optical stuff at the plant. Way less quality control required. Finally a truly digital camera without any mechanical cap inside. Welcome to the 21st century.   

For about 2.5k Euro or dollars I want an "EOS 1M" with the follwing specs [or better!]
* very compact package, basically an FF EOS-M or a Sony RX-1 with Canon EF-X lens mount up front
* Canon user-interface - both menus and external controls; thumbwheel + second front wheel
* pop up flash
* ultra high-end, no-delay EVF - let say 4k resolution
* 30+ MP sensor like Nikon D800 but with next generation hybrid Phase- and  CD-AF on sensor
* high AF-performance ... think of 1D-X but with AF points spread across the entire sensor
* electronic shutter with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s
* 6 fps would be plenty for me
* 500+ shots per battery charge
* good grip front left and thumb rear right
* mag-alloy body, tripod socket aligned with optical axis .. actually make that 2 .. one at bottom, one at left side, so I do not have to buy expensive L-brackets any longer
* no flash shoe, but Canon RT-radio-ETTL-master commander built in
* WiFi built in ... activate/deactivate via menu 
* GPS built in ... activate/deactivate via menu
* no video crap in it at all, except live view. no freaking red extra record button, no video menue options, nothin'
* no mechanical crap whatsoever inside
* fully dust- and waterproof IP67 
* EF adapter included at no extra charge ... like body cap
* small range of new native short flange-back pancake AF lenses: 20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.0 ... the size of corresponding Leica M lenses - with optical performance 20% less and price 80% less.

Why do I want such a beast? 
* compact kit - for travel, in cities, for street photography, mountaineering, etc.
* no vibration, no noise - for concerts, theater, performances, churches and candids
* X-sync to 1/8000s - for cool action shots and more flexibility in flash photography
* truly digital camera - beacuse we live in the 21. century and a rangefinder Leica M just does not cut it for me
* fully compatible via adapter with all EF lenses - so I don't have to throw my collection away

that's it, Canon. Now go build it. On the double!! 

[Hillsilly]

A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

[AvTvM]

A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying? 

Do not agree with the first sentence at all. Just remove all the mechanical crap out a digital camera and there is enough space for a kick-butt CPU, a kick-butt hybrid AF and a decent battery to power kick-butt performance. I see no technical reason whatsoever and even less laws of nature that would preclude 1D X performance in a FF camera the size of a Sony RX-1. Today!

Just because Sony and Nikon did not yet do it, Leica cannot do it and Canon did not deliver on it yet ... does not mean they should not try. Quite to the opposite.  As a matter of fact, we should clamour for high performance mirrorless cameras much louder. rather than accepting the crappy offers, camera companies are trying to stuff down our throats. At last everybody who doese not only want to take STATIC stills. :-)

Anyway, I want one! And I know 1 or 2 more people, that might also want one. 
And I will not buy a mirrorless camera that requires me to compromise on performance in every sense of the word. No way!

[moreorless]

So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article. It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

Consider aswell that Leica's flange distance is about 1cm longer than most modern mirrorless cameras.

I think its noteble that Sony's new ultrawide zoom on the NEX really isnt that compact and that ultrawide zooms generally on mirrorless are not espeically cheap.

My feeling has always been that FF mirrorless if it does take off is going to be aimed at a different market to FF DSLR's, less focus on zooms, ultrawides and long tele's and more focus on small primes in the 28-85mm range.

[EchoLocation]

A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

I think you're dreaming on the price... but for 2000 dollars i'd be in for sure.
If the RX1 had a removable lens, even if there was only one lens available for now(35mm 2.0 would be great)and was 3000 dollars($2000 body, and 1000 lens) I would have preordered. When I first saw the RX1 rumor that's what I thought it was and I was so happy. I'm just a little hesitant to spend 3k on a camera with only one single focal length. If I could buy a used RX1 for 2000 today, i'd be on it(and I might be in a year if no FF mirrorless has come out.)
I travel a lot, and currently live in China, so for me the FF mirrorless is all about high quality, and compact size. I'd love to trade in my D700 and 24-70 for an RX2 with a 24mm-50mm 2.8 zoom or something like that.

[AvTvM]

Consider aswell that Leica's flange distance is about 1cm longer than most modern mirrorless cameras.

I think its noteble that Sony's new ultrawide zoom on the NEX really isnt that compact and that ultrawide zooms generally on mirrorless are not espeically cheap.

My feeling has always been that FF mirrorless if it does take off is going to be aimed at a different market to FF DSLR's, less focus on zooms, ultrawides and long tele's and more focus on small primes in the 28-85mm range.

No problem, as far as i am concerned. All I want is a very compact  camera and a few very compact M-sized medium-fast fixed focal lenses with Ring-USM AF in the focal range 20/24mm and 85-100 mm ... e.g. 24/2.8-50/1.4-85/2.0 would already cut it for me. If Leica can do it, so can Sony, Nikon, Canon. Does not take rocket science.

Any other focal length, zooms and specialty lenses ... from fisheye to ultra-wide to Tilt-Shift to supertele to 10x zoom .... don't  have to be ultra compact "native short back flange designs". I would never buy these, because for these special occasions and applications, we will simply use our existing EF lensesIt only takes a straightforward, electrically looped through extension-tube adapter ring. No special IR/AA filter etc. needed camera-side. Nothing, nada.   

It really is simple. No need to make a high-performance, compact FF mirrorless camera system appear complex. 

[mws]

I just want shallow DOF, and a somewhat wide/fast lens in a semi pocketable form. I'd buy a Leica if it wouldn't break the bank.

[Dylan777]

A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

I wouldn't say that. Film Vs Digital - remember? We can't predict the techonoly 5-6yrs from now.

[7enderbender]

I think it'll happen eventually. Does need new sensor technology? Maybe. Let them figure it out. The size argument doesn't hold water for me. I'm looking at my little Olympus miu here on my desk. 35mm film "full frame", fast lens and tiny. Or look at the old Minox cameras or any real range finder for that matter. The electronics and batteries required shouldn't really be any bigger than the film transport mechanics used to be.

Why aren't we seeing it yet? Because I suspect there still is a MAD type agreement in place among camera manufacturers. So it comes down to future marketing options. Plus the consumers aren't ready yet for the actual differences since most people don't care about sensor size and don't understand the physics consequences. All is fine for most people as long as they can say they have so and so many megapixels and high ISO capabilities. Hey, in a way that's good because in the meantime I can still sell photographs that the MWaC's iPhones and toy SLRs simply can't produce even if they tried.