Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3]

[Kit.]

You can see that clearly in price comparison lists here in Europe, shortly after its release A7 III jumped on rank 1.

What do you mean by "rank", and how do you measure it "in price comparison lists here in Europe"?

Canon knows they have to pull the ripcord or on Xmas they'll see the second big wave of pro photogs jumping on the Sony bandwagon.

Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?

 

[BillB]

How does video fit into the rollout of Canon's FF mirrorless? Is video really that important? Can video really make a difference to the success of Canon's FF mirrorless, or in the FF niche, is it more about internet buzz?

 

[Don Haines]

What many people here fail to realize is that full frame cameras are not what drives cannons sales. Full frame cameras are a niche. The vast bulk of interchangeable lens camera sales are crop cameras. As such, it makes sense that the M series gets a whole new line of lenses with a special mount, but to suggest that FF mirrorless is a big enough market to come up with a whole new lens mount is really pushing it....

The “make it tiny” crowd is a subset of the CR readers, a group which already does not represent the typical Canon user..... we represent the fanatics, the nutbars of the photography world.... we are not a commercially viable segment!

So.... will canon abandon their base and throw away ergonomics in order to make a tiny camera that can never compete in size with an M? At the same time that they are telling us it will be an elegant solution? I think not!

 

[BillB]

What many people here fail to realize is that full frame cameras are not what drives cannons sales. Full frame cameras are a niche. The vast bulk of interchangeable lens camera sales are crop cameras. As such, it makes sense that the M series gets a whole new line of lenses with a special mount, but to suggest that FF mirrorless is a big enough market to come up with a whole new lens mount is really pushing it....

The “make it tiny” crowd is a subset of the CR readers, a group which already does not represent the typical Canon user..... we represent the fanatics, the nutbars of the photography world.... we are not a commercially viable segment!

So.... will canon abandon their base and throw away ergonomics in order to make a tiny camera that can never compete in size with an M? At the same time that they are telling us it will be an elegant solution? I think not!

But Canon can try to have it both ways. One FF mirrorless emphasizing small size, another maximizing performance--ergonomics, battery capacity, processing, heat management etc. One question is what mount the small size "Super M" camera should have. EF? EF-M? Something new? Another question is whether a small FF mirrorless be worth doing. That is something for Canon to figure out.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I know people will call my a Sony fan boi or a troll, but I was really pulling for Canon for a long time. I just don't think they have the ability to pull off what Sony has been able to do. I don't think there is an ROI for
them to go head to head that way.

Yes, people will call you a troll — it's a moniker you might deserve. You don't think Canon has the ability to pull off what what Sony was able to do? That certainly makes you sound like your intent is to troll.

What did Sony do? Well, they started with DSLRs. But there was insufficient ROI for them to go head to head that way, so they abandoned that segment and switched to MILCs...a segment where they didn't have to compete with Canon and Nikon. Then Canon entered the MILC segment with the EOS M. In its first year, domestically the M outsold all the Sony APS-C MILC models except the two-gen prior model that was deeply discounted. What did Sony do? Well, they expanded to FF MILCs...again seeking to avoid past failures by entering a market segment where they wouldn't face competition.

Well, maybe you're not trolling...but instead are merely ignorant of the facts. But regardless of your intent, you're wrong. Canon certainly does have the ability to pull off what Sony has been able to do — run away from competition they're unable to face. But I bet Canon won't...

 

[3kramd5]

Maybe you did, but I don't believe it.

Alright then.


If you’re going after a butterfly with a tiny sensor, sure, you’re screwed. Also if something is moving in or out of plane, it will be challenging.

For subjects like landscapes, the focus mag is great. Compose, select a desired object (the point about which it will zoom), enlarge, focus with IS, zoom back out to verify comp, expose.

 

[scyrene]

I wonder how the 4K will be crippled in this one.

No 4K at all?
Poor codec?
Horrific crop?
No DPAF?

All are possible, at least one or two are likely. The wait for this camera is the only thing keeping me from jumping ship. This camera has to be competitive.

Yaaaawn. "Jump ship" or don't. More likely, you'll just keep injecting your negativity into these forums.

Yes, Just another Sony plant or a troll.

All together now: Jump! Jump! Jump! Jump! Please jump! etc.

And a lot of the negativity in this forum comes from those call others trolls when they request a certain feature. Just because you don’t need it does not mean it’s not a valid request for a Canon product.

Sure, the term troll is overused/misused but are you honestly saying that someone with such a negative attitude, using words like 'crippled', and saying *if Canon doesn't release THIS product exactly how I want it to be then I'm taking my business elsewhere!* - which is then repeated each time a new product is rumoured - is constructive or in any way adds to the forum? Because if so I think you're just defending the indefensible.

But actually you're using a straw man anyway. People aren't being called trolls for making requests (reasonable or otherwise), or posting wish lists. They're being castigated for the same old, tired rubbish they've been spouting here for years ('Canon is doomed', 'make my dream camera or ELSE', 'all Canon's products are terrible' blah blah blah).

 

[scyrene]

The sad thing is it doesn’t matter because even when requests for 4K and other video features are made intelligently on this forum, there is a certain group who are adamantly dismissive. You know who you are.

This is actually false. Funny how you give the ones using extreme exaggeration and inflammatory terms the benefit of the doubt (and whether the motivation is genuine frustration or not, the language they use invites criticism), but you make up falsehoods about the regulars here who aren't doing that. It's clear where you stand.

 

[preppyak]

Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?

An easy example would be wedding photographers. December is their off-season, and also the time they take stock of their approach. Realizing they can break even switching from Canon to Sony because of Black Friday/Xmas sales and still have a few months to adapt to the change is enticing if they are looking 5 years into the future.

More so if Canon hasnt announced their mirrorless option, or if it seems underwhelming

That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).

 

[3kramd5]

Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?

An easy example would be wedding photographers. December is their off-season, and also the time they take stock of their approach. Realizing they can break even switching from Canon to Sony because of Black Friday/Xmas sales and still have a few months to adapt to the change is enticing if they are looking 5 years into the future.

More so if Canon hasnt announced their mirrorless option, or if it seems underwhelming

That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).

I don’t think many professionals play the “I wonder is the grass is greener” game with the tools of their trade, even with the suspicious assumption that it might not cost them any net capital. That’s an amateur’s game (like me, who found a green lawn with ugly brown patches).

A professional might dip a toe in with a body and a lens to try, but wholesale offloading of their proven gear (“break even”) is a monumental risk.

 

[takesome1]

On a side note, Sony's first commercial product was a rice cooker.

Sony's first commercial product is a small transistor radio, Model TR55. Sony has never been in rice cooker business.

Before the name was changed to Sony... the company made a rice cooker. Same company, different name. https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/09/sonys-first-failure-the-1945-electric-rice-cooker/

"...a prototype now sits ensconced in glass at the Sony Archives in Shinagawa."

But it was such a failure it was never released commercially.

Arguable, since the Rice Cooker is 1945 and TTEC was established in 1946.

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/CorporateInfo/History/SonyHistory/1-01.html

 

[Kit.]

Why would be pro photographers affected by Christmas sales of Canon gear?

An easy example would be wedding photographers. December is their off-season, and also the time they take stock of their approach. Realizing they can break even switching from Canon to Sony because of Black Friday/Xmas sales and still have a few months to adapt to the change is enticing if they are looking 5 years into the future.

What will happen with their photography business if they don't buy a FF mirrorless camera before their next season?

How are they supposed to "break even" if they are selling their old and likely outdated gear on a used gear market, but need to buy ~$8000 worth of bodies and lenses from the official dealers in order to qualify for Sony's pro support program?

Has Sony imaging support proven itself worth to be sticking to for the next 5 years for a wedding photographer?

That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).

And what is their reason for switching to FF mirrorless?

 

[Mikehit]

That's also true for a lot of sports photographers (if you're shooting stock car/racing, if you're shooting outdoor sports, etc).

And what is their reason for switching to FF mirrorless?

No-one does stock car racing on Christmas day - plenty of time to order your new FF mirrorless on 23rd, have it delivered on 24th and read the manual on Christmas day while the kids wreak havoc.

 

[amorse]

Honestly, I think I am most interested in the second, lower tier model predicted earlier (maybe with a removable EVF). I am certainly interested in a smaller camera body with a full frame sensor which can act as a backup to my 5D IV without taking up a lot of space. Really a full frame M6, and bonus if it can take an LP-E6N (yes, no doubt that would make it bigger than an M6).

A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.

 

[fullstop]

I will never understand how the EF mount is somehow technologically crippled in today's environment when speaking about mirrorless. How so? What could a new mount offer that the EF mount doesn't already offer?

Some call a mirrorless mount a "thin" mount. I don't understand that. Thinner camera? Yes. Thinner mount? How so? How much thinner? How do we know Canon's mount will be thinner? I understand that in reference to Sony FF bodies, but the mount? I don't know. What does the thickness or thinness of the mount have to do with it? Doesn't flange distance mean more?

some here are using "slim mount" as shorthand for "short flange focal distance mount", making "thinner" cameras possible and shorter lenses within a certain, frequently used focal length range, provided other lens mount parameters are well chosen, esp. throat width (clear diameter).

i thought this was generally well understood around here.

 

[fullstop]

Honestly, I think I am most interested in the second, lower tier model predicted earlier (maybe with a removable EVF). I am certainly interested in a smaller camera body with a full frame sensor which can act as a backup to my 5D IV without taking up a lot of space. Really a full frame M6, and bonus if it can take an LP-E6N (yes, no doubt that would make it bigger than an M6).

A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.

+1

thank you so very much! you are living proof that i am definitely not alone in asking for a compact, capable FF sensored mirrorless "swiss army knife" system!

 

[Mikehit]

thank you so very much! you are living proof that i am definitely not alone in asking for a compact, capable FF sensored mirrorless "swiss army knife" system!

No-one ever said you were alone. What was queried was your claim that you are representative of millions of people and therefore a viable camera market.

 

[ahsanford]

A camera like that could make for an amazing back country camping landscape camera. Some slower/smaller but high quality native glass combined with full-frame low light performance in a small package would be very attractive (for me anyway). I might even go so far as to say that a non-EF mount which takes an adapter could be a good thing depending on the need. For instance, using a thin mount could allow for slow but small lenses allowing the user to really drop the minimum size of the kit, but adapting EF lenses to the body would allow the user to access big and fast glass on the same mount, but not have that extra flange distance built into each and every lens as it is in Sony lenses - instead you only have the adapter which takes up that flange distance, so your over all kit could end up being smaller, even with big/fast glass. I really doubt any of this will be a popular opinion here, but if you wanted a "small as possible" full frame kit, that could do it.

Too often, the folks that inarticulately poo-poo a full EF setup (not here, you folks are generally pretty great) miss the point. Some sling around that all-too-often-heard reflexive take -- mirrorless is all about being small -- and that's it. 'That's not thin and small and stuff. That's stupid. Why would they do that?' And all the upsides of mirrorless that are unrelated to size get blown right by.

But I really appreciate the personal value of what a thin-mount setup would do for you. Thanks for the perspective. You are far from alone on this, and I'd wager you are not in a small minority on this I would guess, but again we have no data on market preference of full vs. thin.

- A

 

[fullstop]

i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.

what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?

 

[ahsanford]

what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?

You are proposing Canon simply apply all it's consumer-level product sensibilities -- plastic, lighter, STM, modest apertures, etc. -- to the FF market for a steal of a price. You're describing a FF EOS M platform.

Yep. Totally reasonable. :

Bold prediction: Canon's not going to do that because Canon will make a lot more money not doing that. Canon is printing money right now in the APS-C space, and I doubt they'll set all of that on fire to fulfill your quest for better IQ in a smaller package.

- A