July 29, 2014, 02:46:06 AM

Author Topic: FF EOS-M?  (Read 4071 times)

adhocphotographer

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
    • View Profile
    • An ad hoc photographer
FF EOS-M?
« on: June 07, 2013, 05:12:28 AM »
Does anyone know if the EF-M lenses have a big enough image circle to work on a FF Sensor in a M body? If not, the emergence of a FF M is very very unlikely!

5D MkIII + an every expanding array of lenses and accessories!
-------www.adhocphotographer.com--------

canon rumors FORUM

FF EOS-M?
« on: June 07, 2013, 05:12:28 AM »

drolo61

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2013, 05:20:35 AM »
Clever thinking, would be also keen to know...
5D & 5D3  -  50 1,4  -  24-70 2,8L II  -   135 2,0L  -  70-200 4,0L IS  -  100 2,0  -  24-105 4,0L IS

haloGRAPH

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2013, 06:00:13 AM »
dpreview says:

The EF-M mount is 58mm in diameter, with a flange distance of 18mm from the bayonet to the sensor. As the image above clearly shows it's matched specifically to the APS-C sensor size. So don't expect a future full frame EF-M mount camera - it's not going to happen.

Here is the full Preview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m

infared

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 803
  • Kodak Brownie!
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2013, 06:45:34 AM »
How about any M with a viewfinder that can perform competitively in 2013....that would be a step forward.
5D Mark III, Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 17mm f/4L TS-E, Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss, Sigma 35mm f/1.4, 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 50mm f/1.4 Sigma, 85mm f/1.2L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro,70-200mm f/2.8L IS II...1.4x converter III, and some other stuff.....

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2013, 07:16:01 AM »
I think the best you could hope for would be a full frame M that works with EF lenses and the adaptors in FF mode, and APS-C mode with EF-m lenses fitted (similar to using Nikon DX lenses on an FX body)

I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

The quality from APS-C is great, and has been proven to be exceptional (with the Sony 16MP and 24MP chips) if you really really really must have full frame, then I'm afraid you are going to need a bigger camera.  In fact why not just do it properly and get a medium format DSLR?

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2013, 07:17:58 AM »
Does anyone know if the EF-M lenses have a big enough image circle to work on a FF Sensor in a M body? If not, the emergence of a FF M is very very unlikely!
How does the current EF-M image circle not being "big enough" have anything to do with the emergence of a FF M? if and when Canon does decide to make a full frame EOS-M I'm pretty sure they would rather produce new lenses for their customers to buy than to let customers use the old lenses and lose out on making profit.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 07:19:48 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

mb66energy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • too many boring photos with high tech quality ...
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2013, 07:34:24 AM »
...

I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

...

I am one of these folks ;-) ... because
  * it enables (r)evolutionary lens designs without retrofocus constructions
  * it reduces size, mass, complexity for the mirrorbox and the penta prism
  * it would help to reuse my FD lens collection with their great manual focus rings - for video e.g. - via an adaptor (if a FF mirrorless of canon hasn't a native EF mount).

But your arguments about image quality are very important: I am learning
to get out the most of the 40D sensor technically which has just 10 Mpix and is 6 or
7 years old (in terms of technology). So: APS-C is at least comparable to the
best 35mm film cameras/films if not a lot better.

Tool-wise I am well equipped - the largest "construction site" for me ist to
get out the most of a camera system in terms of technical quality and
creativity - I still have to improve the latter one!

« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 07:36:57 AM by mb66energy »
TOOLS: EF-S 10-22 | 60 || EF 2.8/24 | 2.8/40 | 2.8+2.0/100 | 4.0/70-200 | 5.6/400 || 2 x 40D || 2x TC ||| 600D for video ||| EOS M + bunch of FD chrome rings

canon rumors FORUM

Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2013, 07:34:24 AM »

m

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2013, 08:21:27 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

Isn't the opposite one of the reason why people like the leica system?

noisejammer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 157
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2013, 09:09:42 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

Isn't the opposite one of the reason why people like the leica system?
The OM-Zuiko lenses were similarly sized. None of the Leica M-flange lenses offer autofocus which reduces diameter enormously. Secondly, the lens register is 27.80 mm compared with 18 for EOS-M.
Third, the aperture in an EOS-M flange is too small to permit a 24x35 frame to be fully illuminated by a lens with a larger register.

My third point is critical - it forces the lens' exit pupil to lie fairly close to the flange. If you were to use a 24x36 sensor, together with an EOS-M flange, light from the centre of the lens would reach the corners with an angle of incidence of (something like 45-50 degrees. This corresponds to a light cone of about f/0.5 - f/0.4. It's already well established that the sensors have difficulty detecting light from a f/1.4 light cone, so corner pixels wouldn't actually detect any light.

Among my cameras, I own a Fuji X-E1. In all seriousness, it gives my 5D2 a run for it's money. This has lead me to rethink the real value of large sensors.

AvTvM

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 891
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2013, 09:24:22 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

One day soon Canon will finally be forced to come up with a super-compact (think Sony RX-1 size) hi-performance FF mirrorless body plus a couple of tiny but fully FF-capable pancake lenses with AF (think EF 40/2.8 size) and an adaptor for EF lenses. And if they manage to do so before somebody else does, I will buy it from Canon ... :-) 
 

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1285
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2013, 11:49:47 AM »
I always chuckle when I see folk wanting full frame mirrorless.  They just haven't got the concept.  Big sensor means big lenses. big. big. Not small.

One day soon Canon will finally be forced to come up with a super-compact (think Sony RX-1 size) hi-performance FF mirrorless body plus a couple of tiny but fully FF-capable pancake lenses with AF (think EF 40/2.8 size) and an adaptor for EF lenses. And if they manage to do so before somebody else does, I will buy it from Canon ... :-)

I'm not so sure it has to go that way.  A mirrorless might make the wider lenses smaller/lighter but f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses are never going to be pocketable.  For longer lenses (i.e. 70-200), I don't think it'd make much difference in weight/length at all.  Where I hope Canon goes is to first produce a mirrorless camera that has the same sensor distance that uses electronic shutters to boost flash sync speeds and to get rid of the mirror to push the FPS higher.  To make that happen, EVF need to get better/cheaper, AF needs to get better, and the overall cost to the consumer needs to be similar.

There is a reason why the RX-1 can not change lenses.  If people think the EOS-M options are too slow (to maintain compact size) or too large, then the prospects of a FF version being sucessful drop a lot.  Now, if they can shrink the electronics/parts of the 5DIII similarly to the T5i/SL1, then that'll be something. 

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2013, 01:11:04 PM »
My opinion: (1) FF is a marketing gimmick to sell over-priced cameras; and (2) the 100D should have been a mirrorless camera, similar to the Panasonic G6 or GH3.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

Haydn1971

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2013, 05:59:03 AM »
My opinion: (1) FF is a marketing gimmick to sell over-priced cameras; and (2) the 100D should have been a mirrorless camera, similar to the Panasonic G6 or GH3.

Absolutely !   FF mirrorless at this time misses the major sales advantage - the reduction in size of the camera, the 100D would have been an ideal starter, but perhaps Canon don't feel that EVF/AF tech is good enough at the price for the 100D.

I don't doubt that FF mirrorless will come to the EOS entry/mid/pro ranges at some point in the future, probably with mirrored DSLR's becoming obsolete in the range in the next 5-15 year timeframe depending on how quickly EVF and the associated AF technologies develop.
Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

canon rumors FORUM

Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #12 on: June 09, 2013, 05:59:03 AM »

optikus

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #13 on: June 09, 2013, 06:30:16 AM »
Hello together,

my opinion is very good representated by a comparison of EOS 100D and EOS M.  Both systems are physically optimized for APS-C-sensor, so you can interpolate e.g. to an hypothetical FF-M and the 6D as a rel. small FF-DSLR.

What's the difference?

EOS-M is only slightly smaller then the EOS 100D, if you apply a fast lens or a longer zoom. EOS-M because you must choice a EOS-Lens + Adapter, but even if Canon introduces longer M-Lenses with faster design, I'm noit shure if we will see this, the advantage "weight" ans "outer dimensions" are gone. No optical viewer is the next point, solvable with electronic means, but this moment there is none. The autofocus issue is to solve, next firmware will improve it shurely.

FF-Lenses will due to the physical facte be larger, even with a shorter mount-dimension, so the advantage of smaller dimensions will not be as significant as perhaps estimated. The advantages of the missing mirror and perhaps the missing mechanical shutter - permanent availiability of sensor-data for metering and autofokus - are not consequently used today.

Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

Jörg
EOS 1Ds, D60, 10D, 30D*, 400D, var. manual lenses, Zeiss and other german manufacturers and some EF/EFs ... *: 30D with extended IR-range for astrophotography

Sella174

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 671
  • So there!
    • View Profile
Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2013, 06:43:55 AM »
Therefor for serious use I postulate some things which have to be happened until a Replacement of the mirror makes seriously sense:

- adequate electronic wysiwig-viewfinder
- permanent autofokus in the quality of the actual systems, incl. sensitivity under low ligh
- compatibility-bridge to the existing system
- new body-desing to bring serious advantage to the user.

On all four points above ... micro-4/3 is check, check, check & check. Mirrorless technology is here, now and fully usable. Conclusion? Canon is falling behind, as is Nikon, with only their lenses keeping the (obsolete) cameras afloat.
Happily ignoring the laws of physics and the rules of photography to create better pictures.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: FF EOS-M?
« Reply #14 on: June 09, 2013, 06:43:55 AM »