Full Frame Mirrorless: Sideline or Replacement of dSLR?

[MartinF.]

My guess will be, that Canon in a near future will have two FF mirrorless bodies along current DSLRs: One thin, at with a new (EF-X?) mount. An a adapter to mount EF/EF-S lenses. (I could also be a variable flange-distance mount). That body will target all who wants to minimize size. This thinner body will target current 6D, 80D and xxxD, xxxxD customers.

And then a pro series, that will mount EF-lenses, and maybe a variable flange-distance mount, or a movable sensor, so this type of DSLR sized bodies also can take EF-X mount lenses. This series will, when more models are available, target current 1DX, 5D and 6D customers.

I think APS-C DSLR will be the first to die, and later, maybe even 10 years from now - the FF DSLR. Eventually DSLRs will go away, but that could be years from now - and my quess (and hope) is, that the EF-mount will survive.

 

[MartinF.]

Sure, but that framing is a bit odd: I see it as two SLR mounts and two mirrorless mounts. One SLR mount just happens to work on mirrorless and use SLR lenses. It's not like there will be (for instance) three exclusively mirrorless lens lines in production.

Some folks have argued EF-X might be EF-M -- that you could tuck an FF image circle in there -- but I believe many have poo-pooed that idea as it might be a shade too small. I'm not the ringer on that topic.

But the sheer number of mounts doesn't scare me off. If done right, that will be 3 mounts (EF-S, EF-M, EF-X) with just a handful of lenses each* and one comprehensive do-it-all EF mount where the big dollars and longer term investments go. It's only if EF-X truly gets big and comprehensive that the four mounts system will become too heavy to sustain, I think. What are 4-6 'keep it small' EF-X lenses versus 60 something EF lenses? Nothing Canon can't handle.

*On EF-S, to be clear: I'm talking about the more recent lenses lenses or ones they have refereshed, not the push-the-boat-out pricey EF-S USM lenses that we likely will never seen again.

- A

I am not afraid of 3 or 4 mounts. The key point for me is the future of EF-mount. And EF-S will will probably die with the last APS-C DSLR

 

[MartinF.]

A little more thoughts on mirrorless: I think we will see that in the future is no longer "one-size fits all" - as DSLR has been in the past for pro or a enthusiast where 35mm "FullFrame" was what really matters.

With 35mm "FullFrame" mirrorless ILCs and FF mirrorless fixed-lens, I think we in the future will see pros and enthusiast using a DSLR-sized mirrorless ILC for sports, weddings and so - where you attach lagers lenses, and then the much smaller - but still 35mm "FullFrame" mirrorless ILCs OR fixed-lenses cameras in the field, for reportage, streets and so. Just like a Leica often was a part of pro photographers bag alongside a SLR - especially on war reportages and so.

And if lenses in some way are interchangeable between lager and smaller cameras - that will be great, but is is probably not mandatory. On a small FF camera, you will probably mount lenses between 28 mm and 135mm - otherwise they are not small anymore....

In this case EF mount will still be here as long a the "pro-size" bodies exist. EF-M and EF-X mount will be for the smaller systems. And EF-S will be history.

 

[BillB]

If Canon does go with a new mount for a mirrorless camera, what lenses could benefit most from being designed to make use of the new mount? One obvious possibility would be the normal zoom, especially if designed with a slowish variable aperture. Another possibility might be an ultra wide zoom with the same aperture constraints. But what other zooms could there be that would benefit from the new mount?

There might be some primes that could benefit from the new mount, but how many people are there in the real world who are going to make a substantial buying decision based on the availability of primes smaller than the 24, 28, 35mm EF trinity or the 50mm 1.8?

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon does go with a new mount for a mirrorless camera, what lenses could benefit most from being designed to make use of the new mount? One obvious possibility would be the normal zoom, especially if designed with a slowish variable aperture. Another possibility might be an ultra wide zoom with the same aperture constraints. But what other zooms could there be that would benefit from the new mount?

In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.

It's also possible that Canon could the AF to work (in general, not just at a few AF points) at f/8 max aperture, which could be a very big deal for miniaturizing really long FL zooms: imagine a budget plasticky 200-600mm f/6.3 - 8.0 IS STM lens that you could still screw 77mm filters into!

- A

 

[BillB]

A big part of Canon's small mirrorless camera strategy is the EOS M line. It asks the question of how much a full frame sensor is worth if you want small. Sony and Nikon hope that enough people think that a fullframe sensor is worth paying for.

Then there is the current Canon package of dual pixel sensor technology, the Canon touchscreen interface, and a fully articulated rear screen, along with with all those EF lenses. Every Canon FF mirrorless camera will come with that package. So, Canon's smallest mirrorless camera isn't going to be just about small.

Speaking for myself, having used the 5DIV touchscreen interface, smaller wouldn't be enough for me to give up that interface, and I am not sure there is anything that would be. For Canon, almost as small could be good enough, especially with the other jaw of the vice being the EOS M line.

 

[BillB]

In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.

It's also possible that Canon could the AF to work (in general, not just at a few AF points) at f/8 max aperture, which could be a very big deal for miniaturizing really long FL zooms: imagine a budget plasticky 200-600mm f/6.3 - 8.0 IS STM lens that you could still screw 77mm filters into!

- A

So why would Canon need the new mount for the slower zooms, and why would the AF constraints apply to the sensor based AF of a mirrorless camera?

 

[ahsanford]

There might be some primes that could benefit from the new mount, but how many people are there in the real world who are going to make a substantial buying decision based on the availability of primes smaller than the 24, 28, 35mm EF trinity or the 50mm 1.8?

The keep it small camp exists and I contend has larger numbers than this (presumably bigger SLR using) forum would concede. Paging FullAvTvMStop for their thoughts on the size of the rig.

Also: Social media mavens, IG jockeys, travelers, etc.
Also: Kids stepping up from their Sony RX100 and Fuji X100 rigs, etc.
Also: Folks like us who love their 6D, 5D, etc. but wouldn't mind a smaller option -- but will not stomach a return to crop and will not pay a mint for a fixed lens FF rig.
Also: Folks who want to dabble with competitive/older lenses. (I, for one, might really enjoy shooting that Nikon 28mm f/1.4.)
Also: Astro or landscape folks who don't give a damn about ergonomics (as the camera lives on a tripod) and they just want to pack small.

My only must with FF mirrorless is a chunky grip for reasons I've already alluded to -- there's really no reason not to:

​

But I see value in a full EF mount and I see value in a thin mount.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

So why would Canon need the new mount for the slower zooms, and why would the AF constraints apply to the sensor based AF of a mirrorless camera?

Technically they don't need the new mount to do this, correct. But if they offered an EF mount lens with an f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture, it wouldn't work on all EF cameras and Canon is consistently against that. The mere existence of that lens would create a 'EF for SLR' and 'EF for mirrorless' compatibility and naming problem. That's an icky proposition to simple, consistent Canon.

Canon would sooner just rise the tide for all boats and allow f/6.3 EF SLR lenses to exist, and they still (apparently) refuse to do that in 2018.

- A

 

[BillB]

Technically they don't need the new mount to do this, correct. But if they offered an EF mount lens with an f/6.3 or f/8 max aperture, it wouldn't work on all EF cameras and Canon is consistently against that. The mere existence of that lens would create a 'EF for SLR' and 'EF for mirrorless' compatibility and naming problem. That's an icky proposition to simple, consistent Canon.

Canon would sooner just rise the tide for all boats and allow f/6.3 EF SLR lenses to exist, and they still (apparently) refuse to do that in 2018.

- A

Well, it might create an issue for someone using an OVF, but at this point I am not sure that Canon makes a camera without Liveview and we have been talking about Canon FF mirrorless models with EF mounts (and I don't think there is any way a lens with a new mount is going to be adaptable to a camera with an EF mount). So we shall see what Canon does. Or not.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, it might create an issue for someone using an OVF, but at this point I am not sure that Canon makes a camera without Liveview and we have been talking about Canon FF mirrorless models with EF mounts (and I don't think there is any way a lens with a new mount is going to be adaptable to a camera with an EF mount). So we shall see what Canon does. Or not.

I could be wrong, but I think the jury already came out on that. Canon's super consistent here.

Canon has considered a world where some kid with a 1300D (2000D?) has to hit a weird button he never uses (LiveView) to get his lens's AF to work, and they (likely correctly) don't want anything to do with that.

Because if they did -- if there was any wiggle room to allow this -- we'd have had a 150-600 f/6.3 IS STM zoom a long time ago. This single hard and fast rule is absolutely killing them on this end of the lens portfolio, and the only one holding them back is themselves. I read that as a clear tell that this rule isn't going away, at least not for EF/EF-S mount glass.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

In short, every slow zoom could get smaller because the mirror has gone poof. Heretofore f/5.6 was the slowest max aperture EF allowed (third parties broke this rule, but not Canon) so that every lens worked on every EF/EF-S body. With the mirror gone, that rule has been tempered to f/6.3, which we've seen on EF-M and the betting man might expect to see that for an FF lens or two.

- A

Presumably that has not to do with the mount but with the configuration of the PDAF unit. What apertures they require for focus on a full frame mirrorless will be related to the DPAF configuration.

 

[ahsanford]

Presumably that has not to do with the mount but with the configuration of the PDAF unit. What apertures they require for focus on a full frame mirrorless will be related to the DPAF configuration.

Absolutely. You could have f/6.3 max aperture lenses with an EF mount spacing, but not necessary using a standard SLR focusing setup. Lose the mirror, pull info from the sensor and f/6.3 max aperture lenses are fine. They are doing this right now on EF-M.

I'm simply contending that the combination of [FF mirrorless with a Full EF mount] + [new EF lenses with f/6.3 max aperture] are problematic because of all the other EF mounts that are not mirrorless that are out there.

But the times they are a changin'. What used to be a premium thing -- f/8 AF points -- are now on almost all new cameras. Canon might get to the point where enough cameras have f/8 AF points that they finally cave and start offering slower max aperture lenses for EF/EF-S, but I guess they aren't there yet. I just checked: the 800D Rebel has a boatload of f/8 AF points, but the entry level 2000D is still stuck with f/5.6.

Paging Neuro, our resident AF nerd in chief, to shed some light on this.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

No need, you've nailed it.

 

[Jim Saunders]

As an aside: Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250? I know the (focal-plane) shutter is the limit with SLRs.

Jim

 

[3kramd5]

As an aside: Does going to mirrorless in any way enable sync speeds faster than 1/250? I know the (focal-plane) shutter is the limit with SLRs.

Jim

Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Currently no, most electronic shutters read slower than the mechanical shutters move.

Ok thank you; I guess I'll have to save up for either one of those Fujis or something medium format if I can get over this attachment to both of my kidneys.

Jim

 

[3kramd5]

Paging FullAvTvMStop for their thought

Unless I’m mistaken, it’s now paging AVTVMFULLSTOPMIRAGE

 

[ahsanford]

Ok thank you; I guess I'll have to save up for either one of those Fujis or something medium format if I can get over this attachment to both of my kidneys.
Jim

Yep. All the fixed lens larger sensored rigs have crazy fast sync speed leaf shutters to my knowledge: Fuji X100 series, Leica Q, Sony RX1R series, etc.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Unless I’m mistaken, it’s now paging AVTVMFULLSTOPMIRAGE

I do believe you're correct.

Maybe he's trying to create the 'millions of people his opinions represent', one person at a time.