Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]

[melgross]

Consider size/mount. I have a SL/1 buried in my kit for backup should FF cameras fail. Yep, it is crop sensor, but all my EF glass works flawlessly on this TINY body.

Yes, but we’re talking about a small FF body with a thinner mount. The M mount isn’t for FF. That’s what I’m saying. We’ve already discussed that elsewhere.

But using an adapter results in compromises. We’ve talked about that too.

 

[stevelee]

The G7X II screen tilts, but does not flip. Still, that works fine for waist level viewing and for photographing looking up into domes and towers.

 

[melgross]

I'm sorry, when did I say 'every mirrorless camera has to be smaller'? I'm saying there are (principally) two camps of form factor devotees here -- people who care about it being smaller and those that don't.

Let's say Canon had market data that said that:

40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a thin mount.​

20% of folks who don't care about mount and are simply interested in FF mirrorless in general​

40% of folks will not touch FF mirrorless unless it has a full EF mount.​

All of this forum's lengthy, correct, practical statements (about size savings being meaningless when you think about FF lenses, why adaptors are a pain, that all the current EF users will be bummed, etc.) will be true, but Canon will still be out in the cold for 40% of the market.

Some feature-based A or B decisions are so difficult to call that the 'or' becomes an 'and'. I contend that this is absolutely one of those decisions, and that Canon is big enough and ambitious enough to make that 'and' a reality.

- A

I’m saying that not directly to what you said there. But a lot of posts here are about the need for mirrorless being smaller. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer in that. I’m agreeing with your statement that both camps need to be happy.

 

[BeenThere]

My money is on a clear statement in September on a thin EF-X mount and a statement of intent along the lines of 'don't worry EF users we have an EF version in 6 months'. This would also enable them to effectively trial-run some features based on reviews/response and tweak things for 'the big one' so the pros are happy all in one go.

Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.

6 months between releases is not sufficient time to trial run anything except a few firmware tweaks. Most, maybe all HW is already in production by the time of the first release.

 

[dak723]

....For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.

- A

I tend to think that the mount is the least important "direction" if making a camera smaller is your goal. Height and width (and more importantly, the weight) can clearly be reduced considerably while keeping the EF mount. The SL1 is much smaller than the 80D, for example, and I would much prefer that Canon uses the same approach for their smaller FF mirrorless. Keep the EF mount, keep a good size grip, and make the reductions in the other dimensions. I would look twice at this type of camera and I think many others would, too.

 

[[email protected]]

...
Canon has so far tried to control release news but I think one thing the 6D2 release told them is that social media takes it out of your hands and you have to take control of the agenda. Which may be why Nikon have gone through this very protracted drip-drip of release news.

I think the social media lesson with the 6d2 is that they need to reset the expectations of what that particular line of camera is supposed to be before they release a new version that provides a lower relative value than the previous one. In the absence of that, they look either deceptive or clueless. The 6d1 was so revered because of the image quality being so close to the then-popular 5d3, which was so much more expensive. It even had superior features, like autofocus in half as much light. When the 6d2 was anticipated there was a reasonable expectation - in the absence of any market preparation - that it would be roughly a few years ahead of its predecessor.

So, in essence, this wasn't because they didn't use a clever strategy to prepare market expectations, it was that there was no market preparation in any medium whatsoever. Which makes you wonder whether - if they know about taking control of social media - they would have the self awareness to do so to their advantage.

Also, you have the various country-based corporate entities responsible for much of this as well, which muddles things. It took years for Canon USA to even want the m-series on our shores while they were selling in Asia. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Canon USA opts out of the new full frame mirrorless?

 

[[email protected]]

Disregarding the older pricier Ring USM lenses that Canon is probably done making, EF-S presently has:

• wide zoom
• standard zoom
• longer standard zoom (18-135)
• short tele (55-250)
• compact illuminated macro
• pancake

...and EF-M has just about the same list. It would appear that EF-M and EF-S are being held in some form of lens parity: what one gets, the other gets in short order thereafter.

I know there's talk of a fast prime coming for EF-M (which is awesome), but I'm not convinced that we'll every ever see new 10-22 USM, 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 15-85 USM lenses ever again. EF-S was a proving ground the first time around (when EF-S was first getting fleshed out in the 2000s), and either between a lack of market interest in pricey crop glass or Canon wanting folks to step up to EF, I don't see that happening again.

- A

Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors. I just don't see a new mount being supported to the point of being fully fleshed out (even eventually) when the current lens release frequency is failing to update existing lenses at their previous update periodicities. And if they did quickly flesh things out with any speed, it would be partly outsourced to Tamron or the like, for manufacturing. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just think we should look at these predictions through the eyes of Canon considering itself release-constrained. In that light, we're going to be shooting high end EF glass for a while.

-tig

PS: The quickest way to a somewhat complete, high quality lens set in the new mount will be waiting for Sigma to offer the entire Art range in the new mount, like they just did with Sony.

 

[ahsanford]

I tend to think that the mount is the least important "direction" if making a camera smaller is your goal. Height and width (and more importantly, the weight) can clearly be reduced considerably while keeping the EF mount. The SL1 is much smaller than the 80D, for example, and I would much prefer that Canon uses the same approach for their smaller FF mirrorless. Keep the EF mount, keep a good size grip, and make the reductions in the other dimensions. I would look twice at this type of camera and I think many others would, too.

Agree of course, but I still think a good chunk of the market is poised to ridicule an EF offering and dismiss it outright as 'typical Canon innovation' regardless of specs or feature-set.

Canon doesn't really give two hoots about perception in that regard -- provided it sells. But a thinner mount instantly defines the product as a new offering far more straightforwardly than full EF might.

As I've said many times, both offering thin and full EF would be wise. Not having a thin option leaves considerably difficult-to-earn money (without a thin mount) on the table.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors. I just don't see a new mount being supported to the point of being fully fleshed out (even eventually) when the current lens release frequency is failing to update existing lenses at their previous update periodicities

The EOS launched with the M18-55 and the M22/2...and the EF mount adapter. Following that, new M lenses have come out on average at one per year (two in. 2016, none in 2017, we’re due for one this year). I could see that schedule working fine for a new FF MILC mount (if one happens), because of the adapter.

 

[ahsanford]

I think the social media lesson with the 6d2 is that they need to reset the expectations of what that particular line of camera is supposed to be before they release a new version that provides a lower relative value than the previous one. In the absence of that, they look either deceptive or clueless. The 6d1 was so revered because of the image quality being so close to the then-popular 5d3, which was so much more expensive. It even had superior features, like autofocus in half as much light. When the 6d2 was anticipated there was a reasonable expectation - in the absence of any market preparation - that it would be roughly a few years ahead of its predecessor.

And Canon wisely saw to it that would never happen again. A 6-series camera should never upstage a 5-series camera unless it's a nice add-over-time (e.g. Wifi, GPS, etc.). The 6D1 set a terrible precedent that 5-series folks (or even 50-50 prospective 5-series folks) should sit on their cash until the 6D2 is announced. That's a marketing fail of a high order. (In a similar light, I'm curious to see how A7R3 sales took a hit when a $2k A7 III arrived -- MP alone is not enough to protect a product's price.)

Other than the 6D2 tilty-flippy, which I believe was a wise market segmentation decision, everything on the 5D4 should be better than a 6D2 other than weight -- and that seems to have been Canon's thinking as well.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Canon's new lens release frequency has fallen behind that of the two big third party vendors.

...

PS: The quickest way to a somewhat complete, high quality lens set in the new mount will be waiting for Sigma to offer the entire Art range in the new mount, like they just did with Sony.

1) Canon isn't competing with Tamron or Sigma. Sigma could put out 20 EF lenses a year and Canon wouldn't care. I am curious to see how many lenses Nikon has put out in the last five years. That's a far fairer benchmark of a company (as Nikon didn't launch a new FF mount over that time like Sony did).

2) Your definition of high quality is not Canon's (or mine, for that matter). Sigma offers a fearsome sharpness per dollar. Canon adds first party AF reliability, a zoom ring that somehow doesn't ruin everything, mechanical reliability, weather sealing, IS (and hybrid IS for that matter), and has stellar service should something go sideways. The EF portfolio didn't become the industry's #1 embedded competitive advantage overnight, and it sure as hell didn't happen because Canon outsourced the work.

- A

 

[takesome1]

Takesome, I take your point -- there are many ways to use a camera and I'm sure I could reel in something decent with the method you are describing. I'm just saying that I don't prefer to use it that way -- especially with heavier FF glass -- and surely I'm not the only one.

That doesn't mean waist-level liveview work is without value, I just think it shouldn't be the primary means to get at all the LiveView/mirrorless good stuff.

- A

Of course, there are many ways, and it isn't the main way.
This probably why many of us on this forum really have to much gear. We need gear that will cover all of the situations that arise.

 

[Mikehit]

6 months between releases is not sufficient time to trial run anything except a few firmware tweaks. Most, maybe all HW is already in production by the time of the first release.

True, but a lot of things that mirrorless does that DSLR finds it harder to do are software driven and any issues will be software so Canon can see from the first release what needs honing

 

[ahsanford]

True, but a lot of things that mirrorless does that DSLR finds it harder to do are software driven and any issues will be software so Canon can see from the first release what needs honing

Sure, but Canon's MO is to hold it back from the market another 6-12 months and work all that stuff out in advance with its army of test photographers.

Canon does many things, but rushing to market isn't one of them. They don't do 'we'll see how it works' with customers that often.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.

 

[hmatthes]

What if Canon were to REALLY be innovative while continuing the EF line of lens AND giving us much more image?
I started this madness in the fifties shooting 120 roll film twin lens reflex (TLR) cameras. No need for landscape versus portrait, the film was square!

Now considering that our lenses project a CIRCULAR image upon the sensor, why not sell a camera with a square sensor of 36mm by 36mm?

Same lens with new sensor processing = 50% more area! The len's perspective remain unchanged (even though math gives me a crop factor of 0.85) but more image is delivered. {Someone check my math -- I feel that crop factor is the ratio of image circle radius}

No more turning the camera for portrait mode. Camera could do it for us (if we didn't want square) -- or we crop in post.

 

[Ozarker]

CR1... hard to believe. EF-M is a different segment and it doesn't compete with EF segment.

Consider they have mirrorless EF and mirrorless EF-X cameras. No doubt mirrorless EF will compete with mirrorless EF-X. If somebody releases self-competing products, it's not Canon.

Every camera Canon has, competes with another camera in the Canon lineup. Every cotton pickin' one.

 

[Ozarker]

I heard Sony has been giving away free t-shirts with their ILCs.

And a bilge pump.

 

[ken]

And Canon wisely saw to it that would never happen again. A 6-series camera should never upstage a 5-series camera unless it's a nice add-over-time (e.g. Wifi, GPS, etc.). The 6D1 set a terrible precedent that 5-series folks (or even 50-50 prospective 5-series folks) should sit on their cash until the 6D2 is announced. That's a marketing fail of a high order. (In a similar light, I'm curious to see how A7R3 sales took a hit when a $2k A7 III arrived -- MP alone is not enough to protect a product's price.)

Other than the 6D2 tilty-flippy, which I believe was a wise market segmentation decision, everything on the 5D4 should be better than a 6D2 other than weight -- and that seems to have been Canon's thinking as well.

Your reasoning as to when it is OK for a 6 series to best the 5 series seems highly suspect to me. Flip screen, Wifi, GPS... so those (at various times) were all OK. The flip screen omission was wise?!? The 5D4 should absolutely have had the flip screen. At least they gave it Wifi. I would own one if it had the flip screen, and I probably wouldn't be nearly as curious as to what is happening in mirrorless. And my Canon lens collection would most certainly have grown by now as well. The feature segmentation for the consumer is maddening when you want some features of the higher model and some features of the lower model.

Canon should take a lesson from car manufacturers. If you're going to coax a consumer up a trim level for a specific feature, the consumer shouldn't be giving up key features of the lower trim level. When I look at an Audi Prestige trim level, I know there's nothing from the lower Premium level that I'd be giving up. (Well... there are exceptions based on engineering constraints. Sometimes one feature consumes too much space to preserve another.) But if Audi asked for a bunch of arbitrary compromises, I'd need to go look at the Acura.

I hope this is the direction Canon is heading. I will gladly pay for the premium trim level if they do.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I think it makes perfect sense if Canon has the resolve to not build too many thin mount lenses. When you think of thin mount mirrorless as a 4-6 lens build and they are done -- everything else requires EF on adaptor -- thin mount mirrorless become a niche line to satisfy the small crowd and the non-Canon lens adapting crowd.

Everything else FF mirrorless would be what we know it is today with SLRs: a tool to wield bigger, heavier glass that will still exist regardless of what happens to the mirror.

But if Canon starts dipping it's toes into 'well we need a 24-70 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 option in a thin mount' and 'what's the harm in one 70-200', etc. they will (a) sow discord that EF will eventually go away and (b) not save any size at all. I contend that if two mounts happen, Canon will need to be ruthless with any thin mount lens 'portfolio creep'.

- A

With crop sensor cameras (80D), I can build my system with EF and then upgrade eventually to FF. Also I can have say 5DmkIV and a backup 80D and use the same lenses.
If 'dual approach' separates hi-end and low-end markets (and also separates EF-M mount from EF-X), it makes it virtually impossible to migrate and upgrade. And still this low-end EF-X will compete with 6D and partially with M50.