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

[Kit.]

I wouldn’t be, because it’s very likely that the 5 sells in substantially higher numbers. A lot of companies go in-house because of lowered costs.

For a multi-billion dollar fab to pay off its investment costs, you need to run tens of millions wafers through it. The costs of process upgrades then will be in hundreds of millions of dollars as well.

Maybe that's why 6D mark II still has an off-die ADC.

Tesla is doing that with their computer, dropping Nvidia for their own in-house developed unit, though they aren’t actually making them.

Nvidia is not "actually making them" either - they are fabless, they use TSMC plants.

In the self-driving computer at the moment, cost is less important than power efficiency of low-precision operations and minimization of memory transfers for particular neural network designs.

 

[Jester74]

What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?

 

[fullstop]

I would like to see some way of mounting FD lenses on a Canon FF mirrorless. I can now on the M5 but on a FF would be most excellent without a piece of glass.

No problem, if Canon FF mirrorfree system comes with a new "slim" mount with shorter Flange Focal Distance. Then FD glass can be mounted via simple adapter, similar to FD/EF-M ones. I doubt Canon themselves will launch an OEM adapter for legacy FD glass. But there will be no shortage of 3rd party offers.

 

[fullstop]

Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:

• Larger pentaprism / OVF
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated shutter
• (possibly) A larger, more complicated / expensive AF setup, though it may be that it may not be that different between a 5-series and (say) a 7-series for that; a 7-series covers more of the frame than a 5-series, so it may just be a similar setup covering more of a crop sensor's real estate than a FF sensor's real estate. I defer to the AF scholars here.

So yes, the sensor figures prominently in cost, but it brings in a lot of additional cost along for the ride to make use of that larger sensor.

- A

Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.

And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.

 

[fullstop]

What if Canon will come out with a FF MILC with native EF mount for specially designed new lenses? And what if you can mount all EF lenses with an EF- 25 II extension tube? That would be sexy enough?

No, not sexy, because only camera bodies as large as mirrorslappers would be possible. With new, slim mount, all that's needed to mount EF glass is a simple adapter, very similar to a little extension tube. EF glass will be fully functional - within any limitations re. AF performance or other possible future advances requiring better/different body-lens communication.

 

[fullstop]

Well if the Canon mirrorless camera is native EF, then it already has native f/1.2 lenses (and indeed, although discontinued, a native f/1.0 lens). If they choose a new mount, I'd be astonished if one of the first lenses to be released was an ultrawide aperture - and that goes for Nikon as well - even if the new mount theoretically supports it. While everyone is motivated by different features, I'd contend that the market for lenses wider than f/1.2 is vanishingly small.

fully agree! f/1.4 lenses are niche already, only 50mm/1.4 historically got some more sales, because they were "relatively inexpensive" in the past (that has changed with today's 50/1.4 pickle jars). f/1.2 lenses are definitely only a "micro-niche" in the overall lens market.

re. Nikon Z-mount mirrorfree FF lenses: current rumors are - very unsurprisingly!

• 24-70mm f/4 (you can see the 24mm mark on the lens)
• 35mm and 50mm prime lenses (I think the 35mm and 50mm will be f/1.4 but I am not sure).

read more: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/27/nikon-mirrorless-camera-rumors-the-big-recap.aspx/#ixzz5NTouIygQ

 

[Mikehit]

Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.

And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 6D II or 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.

You are also forgetting an important marketing factor - the profit a company defines it needs to continue a product line. It then decides how those profits are shared among the different products. So the more competitive nature of the 'consumer end' of the market (xxxxD and xxxD) will drive prices down. Any shortfall in profit needs to be made up by the higher end models and it is this that drives price as much as raw materials. And all this needs to be done with consideration of that the market will pay. The company has to balance these factors not only when selling the lines but also when designing them. And falling sales puts even more pressure on those prices because they have the same infrastructure with fewer sales to support it
Your simple assumptions on what it costs to make a sensor is almost irrelevant to the final cost of the camera.

I am not saying that Canon cannot make a FF for $1,000 simply by putting a FF sensor into a xxxD body but it would drag sales from their xxD and xD
models. And in a market where cameraphones are good enough for most people, sales are falling and producing that $1,000 FF may drive them out of business.
Cameras are now a commodity and as such prices so I would expect market forces to be particularly strong.

 

[lightthief]

Sure, the component cost of the sensor is much higher with FF than crop, but the decision to use a FF sensor means that you need:

• Larger pentaprism / OVF
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated mirrorbox assembly
• Larger, potentially more robust/complicated shutter
• (possibly) A larger, more complicated / expensive AF setup, though it may be that it may not be that different between a 5-series and (say) a 7-series for that; a 7-series covers more of the frame than a 5-series, so it may just be a similar setup covering more of a crop sensor's real estate than a FF sensor's real estate. I defer to the AF scholars here.

So yes, the sensor figures prominently in cost, but it brings in a lot of additional cost along for the ride to make use of that larger sensor.

- A

I think all those points doesn't matter, when i think of a mirrorless camera mith EVF.
The sensor and the EVF brings the cost alone.

But i think, rotating the camera to portrait oriantation will still be cheaper than a round sensor...

Lightthief

 

[lightthief]

No, not sexy, because only camera bodies as large as mirrorslappers would be possible. With new, slim mount, all that's needed to mount EF glass is a simple adapter, very similar to a little extension tube. EF glass will be fully functional - within any limitations re. AF performance or other possible future advances requiring better/different body-lens communication.

I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.

I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.

Lightthief

 

[fullstop]

I am not saying that Canon cannot make a FF for $1,000 simply by putting a FF sensor into a xxxD body

Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.

I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses.

EOS M50 [or similarly spec'ed Fuji X-T100] can be sold retail including 20% VAT for € 559 - and I refuse to believe that Canon [or Fuji] are NOT making a solid profit even at that price, then a 999 USD/€ mirrorfree FF camera specced somewhere between 6D 2 and 5D 4 should not only be "economically possible" - but in my opinion - could bring a much needed "system boost", very similar to what happened exactly 15 years ago when Canon brought "the first digital SLR for less than a grand" to market: EOS 300D followed by EOS 350D. Many existing (film) Canon customers and even more new Canon customers purchased one and entered the system, even when many never purchased even a second lens. Many other did buy more lenses.

EOS 300D / Digital Rebel and 350D because it was
* decent IQ (at the time),
* decent functionality (at the time),
* decent size/weight (at the time)
* AND "affordably priced".

Of course there were also more capable offerings available at higher price points. But "mass movement / a DSLR in (almost) every household" really started with the Digital Rebel AT LESS THAN A GRAND. And ... it got Canon market leadership in digital cameras.

If believe, Canon, Nikon and Sony would be very well advised to offer at least 1 "entry-level" APS-C mirrorfree camera for USD/€ 499 retail (body only) and 1 "entry-level" FF MILC for 999.

While Fuji and Sony may have "satisfactory margins" with their current camera and lens pricing, those high prices (and some functional impediments) also make it difficult [Sony] or quite impossible [Fuji - also thanks to decision to offer crop only and pseudo-MF] to *reach critical mass / gain market share fast enough*.

 

[BillB]

I can't call it a known problem, but I personally have had night and day difference in AF accuracy/consistency from the 50 f/1.2L and 85 f/1.4L IS on my 5D3.

I think it's more fair to say that 'autofocus for some large aperture lenses can be problematic on the wide open end'.

The 50L has been a finnicky diva for me over the span of two rentals. Even after AFMA, with ruthless technique (stationary subjects, 1/60 or faster shutter speed, no focus and recompose, single AF point etc.), the lens seemed to simply whiff with the AF 10-20% of the time unless I was stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower. It drove me nuts, if I'm honest.

The 85 f/1.4L IS, on the other hand, was so so so much better with the same careful shooting approach. The AF was simply automatic for me -- it was a joy to use and not have to worry about the gear letting me down. I shot that thing wide open without fear and without disappointment.

I rarely blame my tools as much more often than not I am the reason something didn't go as planned. But I believe in this case I was doing everything humanly possible to succeed with a wide aperture lens and the 50L let me down while the 85 f/1.4L IS was lights out.

So as much as I agree with Neuro that the lens itself is no more/less precise with AF than slower lenses, the actual consistency of nailing the focus in practice does seem to vary with certain lenses. LensTip and others who have attempted to publish AF hit rates would tend to agree with this, but they don't publish all their methods, the test cameras change over time (making lens AF comparisons challenging), etc. so it's hard to rely on them as a truly useful source of information on the subject.

- A

In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.2 would not have it.

 

[fullstop]

I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.
I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.

Yes ... until some Canon customers would mount their existing EF lenses on "new EF mount camera" without extension tube ... because it works like that too (!) ... and then complain ... "help, I can't get any sharp images with my brand spanking new, fancy mirrorfree Canon camera".

Land of confusion ... "why are there 2 different EF mounts" and "how do i tell them apart?" "When do I need to use extension tube?", "Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes between lens and camera?" etc. etc.

Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?

 

[fullstop]

In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.4 would not have it.

Yes. Most existing EF lenses will be "legacy" when used on mirrorfree, on-sensor AF (eg DP-AF) system. "legacy" in terms of AF performance and any other (future) functionality that also requires specific firmware and communications capability in lens. I suspect all pre-2012 EF lenses to not be fit for firmware upgrades to the required level.

 

[BillB]

In the summer of 2012, Roger Cicala had a series of blog posts in Lensrental on Canon AF. Much to his surprise he discovered that Canon had started using a new iterative AF capability in new lenses and cameras that provided much more consistent focussing when both the camera and the lens had the feature. The 5d3 has the feature, and presumably the 85 f1.4 does as well, while the older 50mm f1.2 would not have it.

See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/autofocus-reality-part-3b-canon-cameras/

 

[lightthief]

Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?

You are right. But in general, people should use their mind when they do more than breathing. I will try my best, too.

"Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes behind between lens and camera?" etc. etc.

Yes, yes, yes. Every inch counts.

 

[BillB]

Yes. Most existing EF lenses will be "legacy" when used on mirrorfree, on-sensor AF (eg DP-AF) system. "legacy" in terms of AF performance and any other (future) functionality that also requires specific firmware and communications capability in lens. I suspect all pre-2012 EF lenses to not be fit for firmware upgrades to the required level.

See https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/08/

Luckily, all of the above points apply only to mirrorslappers. On mirrorfree cameras with global electronic shutter they can all be spared. have no impact. Life will be so much easier once slapping mirrors, mech shutters, separate AF sensor units and other 19/20th century contraptions are finally removed from digital photon-to-electron-converters.

And while I don't have any information re. sensor cost in the quantities Canon uses ... until somebody shows me credible information on this, I go with the assumption, that difference sensor for any "same-generation, same tech, same features" APS-C and FF CMOS imaging sensor is max. 500 USD/€. e.g. DP-AF sensors in Canon EOS 80D / EOS M50 sensor vs. 5D IV. Probably this is already a "rather generous" assumption, real cost difference might be a lot smaller smaller. Probably 35 bucks vs. 350 bucks or so.

On a marginal production cost basis, you might or might not be in the ballpark, but marginal production costs may not be the critical cost issue when comparing a high volume low margin aps-c sensor in use across the EOS M line with the much lower volumes of fullframe cameras. Especially a fullframe camera that would compete in price with the M50. Might be hard to generate volume in that competitive environment.

 

[Jester74]

I think, Jester74 suggested an EF Mount but not the EF flange distance. Instead, he asked, wouldn't it be sexy, if the adapter would be the already available extension tube 25 II.

I like this idea. It would be a customer friendly solution.

Lightthief

Yep, you got that right! I forgot to mention the shorter flange distance, instead I mentioned specially designed lenses. Right now the EF flange distance is somewhere forty-something millimetres. Forty-something minus 25 is around 18 maybe, which is a decent flange distance for a FF MILC. This solution is sexy and professional. And I am a genius. According to my Mommy....

 

[Jester74]

Yes ... until some Canon customers would mount their existing EF lenses on "new EF mount camera" without extension tube ... because it works like that too (!) ... and then complain ... "help, I can't get any sharp images with my brand spanking new, fancy mirrorfree Canon camera".

Land of confusion ... "why are there 2 different EF mounts" and "how do i tell them apart?" "When do I need to use extension tube?", "Will I get better results if I stack 2 or 3 extension tubes between lens and camera?" etc. etc.

Maybe not so customer-friendly at second glance?

Nothing would happen. Maybe an error message? Something like 'Photog error. Replace photog. RTFM!!!!!!!' BTW if you put an EF-S lens on a full frame camera, well that's different story....

 

[BillB]

Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.

I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses.

EOS M50 [or similarly spec'ed Fuji X-T100] can be sold retail including 20% VAT for € 559 - and I refuse to believe that Canon [or Fuji] are NOT making a solid profit even at that price, then a 999 USD/€ mirrorfree FF camera specced somewhere between 6D 2 and 5D 4 should not only be "economically possible" - but in my opinion - could bring a much needed "system boost", very similar to what happened exactly 15 years ago when Canon brought "the first digital SLR for less than a grand" to market: EOS 300D followed by EOS 350D. Many existing (film) Canon customers and even more new Canon customers purchased one and entered the system, even when many never purchased even a second lens. Many other did buy more lenses.

EOS 300D / Digital Rebel and 350D because it was
* decent IQ (at the time),
* decent functionality (at the time),
* decent size/weight (at the time)
* AND "affordably priced".

Of course there were also more capable offerings available at higher price points. But "mass movement / a DSLR in (almost) every household" really started with the Digital Rebel AT LESS THAN A GRAND. And ... it got Canon market leadership in digital cameras.

If believe, Canon, Nikon and Sony would be very well advised to offer at least 1 "entry-level" APS-C mirrorfree camera for USD/€ 499 retail (body only) and 1 "entry-level" FF MILC for 999.

While Fuji and Sony may have "satisfactory margins" with their current camera and lens pricing, those high prices (and some functional impediments) also make it difficult [Sony] or quite impossible [Fuji - also thanks to decision to offer crop only and pseudo-MF] to *reach critical mass / gain market share fast enough*.

Well, if Canon wanted to keep costs down in a FF mirrorless Super M50 fullframe, they could use the 6DII sensor. Might have trouble generating volume though.

 

[Mikehit]

Yes, that was the only point i was trying to get across. And I am aware of and largely agree with all your other points as well.

I am not asking Canon (or other camera manufacturers) to launch ALL of their FF cameras at USD/€ 999. No problem, if they see fit to also make (and sell) cameras for 9,999 or even 99,999 USD/€. I do believe however, given the current market situation they SHOULD offer less expensive option also for FF sensored cameras and lenses.

Why 'SHOULD' they offer that?
If you accept my comments on pricing options then you only need look at how many people bought into the 6D as a way to get FF at a good price and hang the functionality - people then buy the new FF mirrorless instead of the 6D2 and put the whole costing chain in jeopardy. So the only way they could limit this is reducing the functionality to that of the xxxxD models and we have already seen whining from people (including you) as to why Canon cripple their lower end models with crap functionality when they have already done the legwork to get it and after all it is only programming and costs nothing to put in the camera.
Lo and behold the 6D2 suddenly costs 1,000 USD and slashes Canon's profits.