We were wrong, all of your Canon mirrorless dreams are likely coming true soon

[nchoh]

Sony originally launched with a few small lenses. Not pancakes, but small: think EF 28 f/2.8 IS big. I think a mirrorless system built on size will 'pop' the most with such lenses, even if they aren't much smaller than the SLR equivalent:

View attachment 179954​

​

(these are two close to each other FLs @ f/2.8)​

So as much as 'yes, a thinner mount isn't overcoming physics here and making lenses smaller' is entirely true, it's also entirely true that slow wide to standard lenses + a thin mount body will fit in a smaller bag for those that want a small FF rig. So I think a short line of these lenses (24 2.8 / 35 2.8 / 40 pancake or 50 1.8) should absolutely be part of a thin mount setup.

Sony did some of this before rolling out a stampede of GM pickle jars. F/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes are offered.

Nikon is SOL on that front. Their line pipeline is all f/1.8 primes and a host of staple pro f/2.8 zooms. Small is not in the DNA of the Z6/Z7 once you leave the body.

View attachment 179955​

But I still contend EOS-M cannot be the sole answer for Canon to people who say 'I want small and best IQ'. FF has to play there, too. Canon's big enough to do it as well as offering a stout ergonomic beast of a professional setup.

- A

I do not disagree.

What I do see is that Canon has specifically targeted the EF-M system to the entry level, hobbyist group who want small portable systems, and a system capable of taking on M43.

 

[Kit.]

User: I want a FF camera that is not large.
Canon:

...6D2.
User: But...
Canon: 6D2.
User: But Sony...
Canon: 6D2.
User: But Nikon...
Canon: 6D2.
User: Ok.

 

[jolyonralph]

Okay - that's great! - but then why is AF performance impacted with extension tubes and extenders?
I thought the point about misalignment was it caused parts of the image to be out of focus

Extension tubes are designed to deliberately offset the plane of focus of the lens to achieve macro effect with associated reduction of AF performance (to be honest I only ever use extension tubes in manual focus anyway).

Similar issue with parts of the image being out of focus.


With an adaptor for EF glass to an EF-M body for example you are doing the opposite, you're adjusting the lens so that the correct focus plane of the lens is on the sensor.


So, assuming the adaptor is built properly there should be NO difference in performance in any way between the EF lens on the adaptor and if that camera had a native EF mount!

 

[dak723]

I have not read through all the comments, so someone may have already suggested this, but I do not believe this rumor, either. I believe it is a Sony plant - the specs too good and the price too low. When the actual specs come out and the real price will be much higher, people who believe this rumor will be even more upset than usual. Then the Sony trolls and plants will be able to really rip into Canon for disappointing people when they don't get the specs that they have assumed to be correct.

 

[Frederik_Bo]

I know people in here are mostly interested in specks so this might not be of very high significance to the CR community, but I really hope canon makes a camera that looks good while also taking high quality images.
I don’t understand why canon cameras has to share the esthetics of early 90s tube style TVs. As a photographer I appreciate esthetics, and I think a camera should make me want to pick it up and use it, just by the way it looks and feels.
It is not like I want canon to sacrifice ergonomics for esthetics, but the look of there DSLRs basically hasn’t changed since the late 80s early 90s. I think the introduction of mirroles is a opportune moment for canon to update their design language a bit.

 

[ecpu]

Whatever it is and whenever it is released, it better have a joystick control for the focus points!

 

[dtaylor]

I prefer that Canon would keep the EF mount.

This would be Canon's smartest move by far.

Hell...those specs, that price, and EF mount with no stupid adapter...I might pick one up as a backup body + decent 4k system.

 

[scyrene]

Extension tubes are designed to deliberately offset the plane of focus of the lens to achieve macro effect with associated reduction of AF performance (to be honest I only ever use extension tubes in manual focus anyway).

Similar issue with parts of the image being out of focus.


With an adaptor for EF glass to an EF-M body for example you are doing the opposite, you're adjusting the lens so that the correct focus plane of the lens is on the sensor.


So, assuming the adaptor is built properly there should be NO difference in performance in any way between the EF lens on the adaptor and if that camera had a native EF mount!

Thanks. I wanted to use my 500L with extension tubes as a sort-of hybrid long semi-macro lens for butterflies etc. (i.e. bringing the minimum focus distance down a bit), and handholding that whilst focusing manually is very hard, so the AF impact left a strong impression. I used the 100L on the original EOS-M with the Canon EF-EFM adaptor and it was poor, but that was most likely the EOS-M's stodgy AF performance rather than specifically an adaptor issue.

 

[SaP34US]

I think that the camera(s) will be close to the 6DMII and possibly the 5DMIV or 5DSR but improved (on chip) and full 4K. I also think that the M5II should come in Black/w black or dark grey, Brown/w silver or grey, White/w grey or khaki, and Gun metal blue/w grey or khaki.

 

[Juangrande]

I know people in here are mostly interested in specks so this might not be of very high significance to the CR community, but I really hope canon makes a camera that looks good while also taking high quality images.
I don’t understand why canon cameras has to share the esthetics of early 90s tube style TVs. As a photographer I appreciate esthetics, and I think a camera should make me want to pick it up and use it, just by the way it looks and feels.
It is not like I want canon to sacrifice ergonomics for esthetics, but the look of there DSLRs basically hasn’t changed since the late 80s early 90s. I think the introduction of mirroles is a opportune moment for canon to update their design language a bit.

I personally like the look and feel of my 5D4, the ergonomics are great. I dislike the clunky look of Nikon DSLR’s and the Sony is unattractive looking and very uncomfortable in the hands, especially larger hands. And the hard edges don’t fit your hands. So I hope Canon sticks to the great ergonomics they always have.

 

[scyrene]

As a photographer I appreciate esthetics, and I think a camera should make me want to pick it up and use it, just by the way it looks and feels.
It is not like I want canon to sacrifice ergonomics for esthetics, but the look of there DSLRs basically hasn’t changed since the late 80s early 90s. I think the introduction of mirroles is a opportune moment for canon to update their design language a bit.

What if DSLRs had already honed their ergonomics and couldn't easily be improved in that regard? It's up for debate, but surely a compelling reason the look of these cameras has barely changed in decades is because it works ergonomically, not as an aesthetic choice? In which case, you are indeed asking for that sacrifice to be made.

 

[Durf]

Whatever it is and whenever it is released, it better have a joystick control for the focus points!

They need to start including Netflix capability with these miraculous, sensational, and spectacular mirror-less cameras so people can watch movies through the viewfinder when they're not taking pictures.....

 

[zim]

They need to start including Netflix capability with these miraculous, sensational, and spectacular mirror-less cameras so people can watch movies through the viewfinder when they're not taking pictures.....

Ah now it makes sense, always connected EVF.... porn

 

[Jim Saunders]

Whatever it is and whenever it is released, it better have a joystick control for the focus points!

That or a trackball where the center-push action can be used for the shutter release. Why not?

Jim

 

[Frederik_Bo]

What if DSLRs had already honed their ergonomics and couldn't easily be improved in that regard? It's up for debate, but surely a compelling reason the look of these cameras has barely changed in decades is because it works ergonomically, not as an aesthetic choice? In which case, you are indeed asking for that sacrifice to be made.

I don’t agree. I think the ergonomics is mostly about the grip and button layout. There is a lot more to a cameras design then those 2 features.
I am not only thinking of canons DSLRs here. I can’t come up with a single modern canon that I would call good looking. At best they are anonymous looking.

I think Nikon does a slightly better job then canon. At least you can still see the heritage of Marcello Gandini in their design, however deluded it may have become.

 

[jolyonralph]

Something doesn't quite add up here. If the EF-M 32mm 1.4 lens is also being announced it would make a LOT more sense for that to be announced at the same time as the M5 Mark II - which specification wise would be pretty much identical to the specs leaked EXCEPT for the full-frame and the price.

 

[ahsanford]

I have not read through all the comments, so someone may have already suggested this, but I do not believe this rumor, either. I believe it is a Sony plant - the specs too good and the price too low. When the actual specs come out and the real price will be much higher, people who believe this rumor will be even more upset than usual. Then the Sony trolls and plants will be able to really rip into Canon for disappointing people when they don't get the specs that they have assumed to be correct.

(a) Not a terrible misinformation idea, but it would need to be a detailed spec list that everyone on the internet started circulating, buying into, etc. However, with this, we haven't had any rumors of any significant lifespan with this new platform. This thing is a ghost -- we still don't even know the mount decision.

(b) You may be giving Sony too much credit. (The Borg didn't scheme. It just moved ahead with its plan.)

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Well here's my question regarding adapters. I've often wondered if the typical movement of the lens once locked in place can affect image quality. I have no doubt that a long lens without adapter will have slightly better performance but maybe it's insignificant??

I've been accused of obsessing about small things and told to just get out and shoot since they are insignificant. I remind myself of that, but CR thrives on making "insignificant" the be all and end all, like DR. Turns out that insignificant is dependent on personal needs and is significant for someone so I won't argue that point.

Jack

The addition of any mechanical adapter will cause alignment problems. Period!

That said, is the problem significant? A well engineered mount will still degrade the alignment, but not enough to be noticed by the user.... use precise enough test equipment and you will be able to see it, but in the real world it becomes so small as to be invisible.....

A good analogy is the precision metal ruler here on my desk. As the room gets warmer or colder, the metal expands and contracts..... but 50mm still looks like 50mm to me, I can’t detect that change of a hundred thousandth by eye.....

 

[ahsanford]

Sony's marketing plan for 2019 has been leaked.

Wow. I knew it!

- A

 

[scyrene]

I don’t agree. I think the ergonomics is mostly about the grip and button layout. There is a lot more to a cameras design then those 2 features.
I am not only thinking of canons DSLRs here. I can’t come up with a single modern canon that I would call good looking. At best they are anonymous looking.

I think Nikon does a slightly better job then canon. At least you can still see the heritage of Marcello Gandini in their design, however deluded it may have become.

Well "good looking" is an entirely subjective, personal opinion, and therefore can't really be debated. "Anonymous" is maybe because the ergonomics dictate the shape and size? Maybe I'm a philistine; I can appreciate the look of a device, but for me function is paramount. Incidentally, I don't see much difference between Canon and Nikon DSLRs apart from the shape of the eyepiece and the location of certain buttons - hardly earth-shattering.