Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[ahsanford]

No point to bring some mirrorfree FF cameras with EF mount, when EF-X can do anything EF can plus a lot more, like more compact lenses in mostly used focal length range.

You seem treat this decision as if Canon was a startup with a clean slate. It is not.

You forgot that EF has one epic advantage over EF-X. EF lenses already exist and folks already own them. So there absolutely is value in a full EF mount mirrorless: it would be seamless to their SLR experience, not require an adaptor, and not require additional spending on lenses.

I'm not saying full EF is better than thin mount. Either will work. But to state that there's no point to come out with a full EF mirrorless body is nonsense, IMHO.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

An unanswered question is how small an FF camera Canon could build based on the EF mount. Canon may not feel the need to bring out a new mount to go as small as it wants to with FF. The SL2 is aps-c, but it uses the EF mount, and how much bigger would a FF mirrorless with an EF mount have to be?

It would not have to be much bigger than an SL2... if they didn't need room to:

• cool things for 4K
• provide more processing horsepower to meet professional throughput and AF expectations
• offer a grip large enough to comfortably wield faster EF glass
• offer a pro ergonomic feature set and a large tilty-flippy

I don't say that to be flippant or anything. Canon could go super duper small here, but it would not come without cost. The feature set / ergonomics side of things would likely suffer and undercut the appeal of the product.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

You seem treat this decision as if Canon was a startup with a clean slate. It is not.

You forgot that EF has one epic advantage over EF-X. EF lenses already exist and folks already own them. So there absolutely is value in a full EF mount mirrorless: it would be seamless to their SLR experience, not require an adaptor, and not require additional spending on lenses.

I could be wrong here, but I think some folks see the notion of a full EF mirrorless being sold alongside a thin mount mirrorless as Canon only partially committing to its future. A full EF mount mirrorless represents a clear message that EF is here to stay, and no, Canon isn't going to rebuild EF in a thin mount.

Some folks would call that too conservative. I call it really sound thinking:

• Thin mount and some small lenses? Yeah, we've got that.
• A seamless-to-use mirrorless rig to be used on the other shoulder of your 5D4 that uses all the same lenses? Yeah, we've got that, too.
• How did we avoid the pains of starting over, eliminating EF and rebuilding it in the new mount? Easy. We didn't do it at all. Viva EF.

- A

 

[mirage]

As we know [Sony A7], FF mirrorfree cameras can be made very compact: 100% more sensor area with only about 20% more bulk/volume/weight than APS-C is possible.

Good ergonomics for large hands and or balance with large lenses can not only be achieved with large camera body, but also by offering well-designed (OEM) grips. Both front of camera and vertical/battery grips. And they typically generate very high-margin revenue for OEM maker. Canon's excellent touchscreen implementation reduces need for many physical control points and delivers good ergonomics also on smaller camera bodies. Just think of EOS M50. Very decent given size of camera.

Most amateurs, many pro's (e.g. wedding) and even many folks who often use large lenses will appreciate "small, inconspicuous and light" gear in many situations times, without having to buy and maintain 2 cameras or even 2 systems.

FF sensor in small body really is best of both worlds: compact for use with compact lenses when those suffice, and simple to make things bigger when more support/grip/balance is needed for use with larger lenses. But only when really needed.

And use of simple Canon OEM extender tube adapter to use existing EF lenses with full functionality during transitional period is no real-life issue either.

 

[ahsanford]

FF sensor in small body really is best of both worlds

...to you. One person is not the market.

Some folks like a bigger body to wield heavier glass, or to have enough room between the mount and their fingers. Some also prefer a bigger body because they prefer dedicated buttons and wheels a larger body affords over touchscreens. Some folks might leave an adaptor at home during the 10-15 years when one mount is building up enough glass to obsolete the other.

We've climbed this mountain hundreds of times here. There is no winning argument we haven't heard. There are (at least) two camps of shooters here and I think they need separate bodies to tick all their boxes.

- A

 

[mirage]

Small, new mount bodies plus well-designed grip/s can and simple EF adapter can tick all boxes for both existing and new Canon customers.
Big advantage for Canon system over Nikon where F-mount lens owners are facing a much more difficult transition to Z-mount, especially for older F-mount lenses.

 

[YuengLinger]

Ahsanford, what do you mean by "thin mount"? Some here seem fixated on smaller FF bodies. Aren't Nikon hinting at performance and other benefits as justifying their new mount?

"Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...

 

[mirage]

"thin mount" as shorthand for mount with flange focal distance significantly shorter than typical DSLR mounts like Canon EF, which need to leave sufficient space for mirrorbox/moving mirror. Necessary to leverage omission of mirrorbox into thinner/smaller mirrorfree camera bodies. If mirrorfree cameras would retain long flange focal distance mount like Sony A-mount, Canon EF or Nikon F, it would not be possible to utilize all advantages of mirrorfree system cameras, such as slimmer/smaller bodies as well as more freedoms for lens design throughout mostly used focal length range.

For me "thinner" has positive connotation - as in "slim and trim" or "lean and mean".


PS: Long tele lenses / "Big Whites" will however not be slimmer, shorter, lighter, better or cheaper by moving to a "thin mount".

 

[BillB]

It would not have to be much bigger than an SL2... if they didn't need room to:

• cool things for 4K
• provide more processing horsepower to meet professional throughput and AF expectations
• offer a grip large enough to comfortably wield faster EF glass
• offer a pro ergonomic feature set and a large tilty-flippy

I don't say that to be flippant or anything. Canon could go super duper small here, but it would not come without cost. The feature set / ergonomics side of things would likely suffer and undercut the appeal of the product.

- A

Your points about the limitations of a small camera are true, but some people want small cameras, or so they say. Assuming that Canon decides to address their needs, my question is how small a camera Canon can make using the EF mount. I am not suggesting that Canon make nothing but small cameras, but I am wondering whether Canon really needs to come up with a new "thin" mount at all.

I am pretty sure that there will be larger Canon mirrorless cameras, most likely before an as small as possible Canon FF mirrorless hits the street, whether with an EF mount, an EF-M mount or some new "thin" mount.

 

[ahsanford]

Ahsanford, what do you mean by "thin mount"? Some here seem fixated on smaller FF bodies. Aren't Nikon hinting at performance and other benefits as justifying their new mount?

"Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...

Every time I say that, I mean a small flange distance. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

That generally is part and parcel to a smaller overall body size, but as we all know, it doesn't have to be. All sorts of options are on the table. You could have a huge 5D grip with a skinny main body, you could have everything very thin front to back (like the original EOS M) but still a wide body (L-R from a rear view) so your hands and larger lenses can coexist, etc.

To answer your question, above and beyond what a move to a thin flange mount can do in general (well covered here at CR) Nikon can structurally improve over the F mount. In particular, their throat diameter is too small for superfast lenses and this (apparently) has always bugged either Nikon or their customers. So in the see-saw decision of thin mount vs. FF SLR mount, there is an additional finger pushing down on the thin mount side at Nikon: a thin mount is a new mount, and a new mount could logically have a larger throat diameter to support f/0.9, f/1 exotic optics. So the betting man (even before the pictures dropped) expected Nikon to 'go thin'.

Canon does not have that throat diameter monkey on its back with EF (few are clamoring for f/1 lenses it would appear), so it's more of a neutral 50-50 decision, IMHO.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

"Thin" doesn't sound friendly to the current direction of lens design or Big Whites...

And I would decouple thin from 'fragile' if that's where your head was going. Balance with larger lenses may very well take a hit from a lighter body like this, but the mount may be just as rock solid as EF and the grip might be knocked straight off the 5D for all we know. Too many unknowns right now.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I am pretty sure that there will be larger Canon mirrorless cameras, most likely before an as small as possible Canon FF mirrorless hits the street, whether with an EF mount, an EF-M mount or some new "thin" mount.

Totally fair. My guess is that they will lead with something vaguely A7 III form-factored (thin mount, surely smaller than a 6D2) with a better grip and far better handling/ergonomics, and then they'll do the same thing in a beefer 5d-gripped / 5D-spec'd body down the road (possibly with full EF).

And they totally might make an SL1/2 style super tiny mirrorless rig down the road. You just don't open with that with a product that so many of the Canon faithful are waiting on.

- A

 

[unfocused]

...But if the FF mirrorless is successful as first released, I can't see marketing or production strategies that would make splintering the line along different mounts worthwhile...

Why not? If Canon does release a FF mirrorless with a new mount, it will have four different body styles with four different native mounts: EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-Whatever.

If they proceed as expected, then they've done the math and concluded it can be profitable. If they someday yank the mirrors out of their DSLRs, but retain the EF mount, they haven't splintered anything. And...which is cheaper -- manufacturing 3-4 high end bodies or redesigning and replacing dozens of lenses, while simultaneously alienating your most lucrative customers?

 

[ahsanford]

I am wondering whether Canon really needs to come up with a new "thin" mount at all.

And we have litigated this to no end here. There is a camp that wants to breathe mirrorless into their EF world, and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness must be shed. You can't touch the latter group with a full mount no matter how strong/practical/convincing your argument is. And failing to make a thinner mount offering, Canon's folks in the latter group (surely not a small percentage) would be easy pickings to attack from Sony and Nikon.

Again: offering both thin and full EF divides the market into a bloody knife fight in the small sector (watering down the ceiling of units Sony and Nikon could get) and total dominance in the larger form factor. I think it makes a ton of sense to offer both mounts.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Why not? If Canon does release a FF mirrorless with a new mount, it will have four different body styles with four different native mounts: EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-Whatever.

If they proceed as expected, then they've done the math and concluded it can be profitable. If they someday yank the mirrors out of their DSLRs, but retain the EF mount, they haven't splintered anything. And...which is cheaper -- manufacturing 3-4 high end bodies or redesigning and replacing dozens of lenses, while simultaneously alienating your most lucrative customers?

This. All day.

- A

 

[mirage]

Assuming that Canon decides to address their needs, my question is how small a camera Canon can make using the EF mount.

Smallest "FF" 35mm film SLR Canon has made was EOS Rebel Ti / EOS 300V (Note: like all "Rebels" only pentamirror viewfinder, not pentaprisma).
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film236.html
Dimensions & weight130 (W) x 88 (H) x 64 (D) mm, 365 g / without batteries - 5.12 x 3.46 x 2.52 in., 12.9 oz.

An FF sensored DSLR with EF mount might be possible down to about this size. Some serious challenges re. heat sink, CPU/electronics, power supply/battery, back LCD etc. though.

By comparison: Sony A7 1st gen (ILCE-7) is (WxHxD) 127 x 94 x 48 mm, 416g

 

[3kramd5]

and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness must be shed.

When you get down to where the rubber meets the road, being small(er) is all mirrorless systems can technologically provide which reflex systems can not. Every function which can be performed on a camera by reading the sensor is possible to perform on an SLR with its mirror up (including driving an EVF, if so designed).

So there is some merit to “if it can be smaller it must be smaller.” What is the point otherwise (selling new lenses notwithstanding)? I’d just hope that small as a virtue doesn’t overpower comfortable.

 

[BillB]

And we have litigated this to no end here. There is a camp that wants to breathe mirrorless into their EF world, and there is a camp that at least partially believes that 'mirrorless is all about being small' and the mirror box thickness must be shed. You can't touch the latter group with a full mount no matter how strong/practical/convincing your argument is. And failing to make a thinner mount offering, Canon's folks in the latter group (surely not a small percentage) would be easy pickings to attack from Sony and Nikon.

Again: offering both thin and full EF divides the market into a bloody knife fight in the small sector (watering down the ceiling of units Sony and Nikon could get) and total dominance in the larger form factor. I think it makes a ton of sense to offer both mounts.

- A

On the other hand, if Canon can put out a camera with an EF mount than is "small enough" to compete with Sony and Nikon in the knife fight for small, they will have the only camera that uses EF lenses natively, which might make things interesting. Especially since a fair number of potential buyers of small FF mirrorless cameras already own EF lenses.

 

[ahsanford]

So there is some merit to “if it can be smaller it must be smaller.” What is the point otherwise (selling new lenses notwithstanding)?

Because being short-term ruthless profiteers may not always be the most profitable thing for Canon in the long haul. Consider: Canon [only coming out with thin mount] + [telling the world that in a short time that thin mount lenses are the only lenses they'll make] will have loyal customers leave the fold.

The alternative -- having a full EF mirrorless sold alongside a thin mount body -- allows Canon to keep it's #1 competitive advantage (EF), dramatically increase FF mirrorless adoption (a far easier sale to their current EF SLR owners), and it unloads R&D from having to rebuild all of EF (instead offering just a handful of smaller lenses).

Seems like a win to me. All for the audacity of simply offering a second body with a full EF mount.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

Canon have long put a lot of faith in what the professionals tell them that they (the pros) need in a camera - IMO they have at times done that to the seeming detriment of the general user but overall it has been successful. I see no reason for them to shift dramatically from that approach when it has served them so well - unless the twitterati complaints about the 6D2 has psychologically scarred them. And Canon have already publicly acknowledged that they cannot ignore the 135million EF lenses out there - and the pros do not want to see their EF lenses looking like they will be write-offs in 3-4 years. A simple adapter looks like a band aid solution and will send the message that the new mount is the future and all those EF lenses are on the way out.

I agree with ahsanford's reference to a "one-time bolus of sales" - it is easy to forget that a company like Canon needs to consider what happens once that pent up demand has gone, the dust has settled and people return to that mundane 'let's get out and take photographs' mentality. They then subconciously absorb what it all means - rather like those who went to Sony with all the excitement of the new technology then realised months later that what they actually miss is the simple interface and the fact their old Canon gear 'just works'.

So when a company like Canon has built their strategy on what pros would like to see, the proposal of some that it will be a new mount with EF as a design afterthought will be a massive leap in the dark. If it fails, is it because it is not EF or because they did not get the mirrorless component right? And unravelling that will be a nightmare amongst the self-important shitstorm that social media tends to generate.