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

[Azathoth]

Just an idea:

Canon releases a new mount for a medium format camera and that can accept also EF lenses via a simple adaptor or some tweak built in the camera. This new camera line will be the new 5D and 5Ds, the top of the line high megapixels and general purposes camera for pros. Obviously they need to release new medium format lenses so that you won't get a crop. This will be the perfect tool for studio and landscape work. It will basically be a GFX and X1D killer.
Besides that they release also a ff mirrorless line, one for pro sports, the new 1D line, a A9 killer but with a big grip, which accepts native EF lenses, the big primes that already exists. And also a entry level mirrorless camera, the new 6D line, aimed for street photography and travel, a A7iii killer.

 

[fullstop]

Why SHOULD Canon (and Nikon And Sony) offer a t least ONE really well-priced base model ? To lure as many people - existing customers and even more so, younger, new customers - into their new mirrorfree systems - both APS-C and FF.

If they want to save some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "7D / D500" class.

 

[BillB]

Why SHOULD Canon (and Nikon And Sony) offer a t least ONE really well-priced base model ? To lure as many people - existing customers and even more so, younger, new customers - into their new mirrorfree systems - both APS-C and FF.

If they want to safe some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "500D / 7D" class.

Canon has very successfully used a low cost high volume strategy for marketing aps-c cameras, starting with the digital rebels. Sensors and other basics have been standardized across the aps-c lines, minimizing the cost of model differentiation.

Can this low cost high volume strategy used for a full frame camera? Full frame cameras will always be more expensive than aps-c cameras. So how do you convince enough people to pay the extra money for a full frame camera? Minimizing costs and minimizing the difference from aps-c models in features would be one way, but that strategy requires a lot of volume to work. Is the potential for volume really there? Anyway, I don't think Canon will use this strategy for its first fullframe mirrorless models.

 

[fullstop]

I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible.

And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).

 

[BillB]

I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible.

And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).

The 350 D was competing with film cameras, not with an M50 at half the price.

 

[Mikehit]

I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years. They would be well advised to get as many users into their system as possible.

And yes, I believe a lot of folks would be willing to spend 999 on an decent, compact FF MILC and reasonable amounts on a few lenses to go with it. After all, it is still DOUBLE the price of a similar APS-C camera [eg M50).

Yes, I am sure a lot of people would be willing to spend 1,000 USD on a FF MILC. Undoubtedly. And there will be even more willing to pay $500 - once you look at raw material costs it would be possible. But that was not the point under consideration: no company is in the business of giving people everything they would like as cheap as possible (not even Sony. Shock! Horror!).
Sell a FF at $1,000 and your profits drop and you then need to sell more to maintain profits and you enter a cycle of increasing costs - all at a time when camera sales are falling and once you do that and others join the pricing race you are in trouble. Is this what you are advocating - it won't work because as soon as Canon does that so will everyone else to compete and you are back to square one with lower profits. If Canon's intention was to drive out one of the other competitors then yes, it is a viable strategy - but it is very high risk and in those sorts of battles no-one wins.

 

[fullstop]

sell a middle class camera at 3k and each and every lens at > 1k ... and limit yourself to a narrow niche.

Or sell ONE decent camera at 999. Not ALL of them. And a FEW decent lenses at less than 500. Not ALL of them. What is shard to understand?

Rest of lineup can be any price, sky's the limit.

 

[Kit.]

I think FF is the ONLY chance for camera manufacturer(s) to survive after the next 5 years.

I think big glass is the only chance for camera manufacturers to survive after the next 5 years.

 

[3kramd5]

I think people who like to hold, manipulate, and use cameras - purpose built devices with well-thought out tactile controls, focus and zoom rings, viewfinders, etc. - are *why* camera companies will survive after the next five years. Maybe not all of them, mind you.

Phones may be making some plays with multiple sensors and lenses and mathematics to approximate larger lenses, but that doesn’t make them a good platform for taking photos.

And no, I don’t believe canon is making an APS-C phone.

 

[Mikehit]

sell a middle class camera at 3k and each and every lens at > 1k ... and limit yourself to a narrow niche.

Or sell ONE decent camera at 999. Not ALL of them. And a FEW decent lenses at less than 500. Not ALL of them. What is shard to understand?

Rest of lineup can be any price, sky's the limit.

I understand totally what you mean. My opinion is that it is an unsupportable strategy in the long term.

 

[denstore]

I think big glass is the only chance for camera manufacturers to survive after the next 5 years.

I believe you are right. Even today, lots of the younger people see few if any advantages of dedicated cameras compared to the smart phone cameras. In a few years, integrated cameras will have improved to levels that will rival entry bodies with kit zooms.

 

[fullstop]

Digital Rebel has fully proven that strategy. Scores and scores of people bought it, because it was "affordable". Canon could have easily also sold a lot of them at 1299 or 1499 back in 2013. But launching it at 999 really caused "the psychological big bang".

Many current Canon customers started out back then with a Digital Rebel/300D, 350D, 400D and "a very sizeable minority" subsequently bought "newer, better, more expensive" APS-C Canon DSLRs bodies plus lenses ... and a smaller but still "sizeable minority" switched to more expensive FF lineup.

Canon should and needs to do both:
1. attack at "hi end" mirrorfree ... 1DX class, all-in vs. Sony A9 and future Nikon MILC (the higher one)
2. provide an attractive entry point into their new mirrorfree FF system: camera body + a few "non-L class" lenses to combat Sony A7 III and upcoming Nikon MILC system (lower end)

Given the advantage Canon has [over Nikon F] with regards to backwards compatibility with EF lenses and their massive resources they should be able to do both and do it well. But .. let's see.

 

[Mikehit]

The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air for no other reason than they (you think) support your fanciful claims regarding the viability of a 1,000 FF camera. Its price was competitive with the Nikon D40 and there were very few alternatives and it was premium technology - nowadays there is far more competition and the technology is a commodity. I bought the 350D in 2005 because I was due to replace my camera and I could not be arsed with film anymore. And despite what you think, digital was still in competition with premium film cameras so they could not price it the same bracket as a premium SLR.

 

[3kramd5]

The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air

If only they’d priced it as $1M, they’d be bigger than amazon!

 

[fullstop]

The 350D proved nothing of the sort - your claim of sales at 1300 or 1500 is nothing short of fanciful with numbers pulled out of the air for no other reason than they (you think) support your fanciful claims regarding the viability of a 1,000 FF camera. Its price was competitive with the Nikon D40 and there were very few alternatives and it was premium technology - nowadays there is far more competition and the technology is a commodity. I bought the 350D in 2005 because I was due to replace my camera and I could not be arsed with film anymore. And despite what you think, digital was still in competition with premium film cameras so they could not price it the same bracket as a premium SLR.

I thought you guys preferred fact-based discussion? So shall we agree on the [historical ] facts?

Canon EOS 300D / Digital Rebel was launched August 20, 2003 at body only USD 900 [I thought 999 ;-) ] and € 1,100
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1556848431/canoneos300d

First competitive Nikon model was D70. It only launched AFTER Canon had dropped their "900 USD bomb". Announced Jan 28, 2004, USD 999 body only.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5079505569/nikond70

At the time of Canon Digital Rebel/300D, the least expensive other DSLR options were either
a) Canon EOS 10D [Feb 27, 2003 - USD 1999] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4530157862/canoneos10d
b) or Nikon D100 [announced Feb 23, 2002 - USD 1,999] https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7416817206/nikond100

As I wrote earlier, there was significant pricing room for Canon's Digital Rebel. Instead of only USD 900 Canon could have easily launched at USD 1,299 or USD 1,499 and would still have received a very positive response back then.

PS: Nikon D40 only appeared "ages later". November 16, 2006. After D100, D70, D200 and D80. D40 really was gen III of the Nikon consumer DSLRs and launched at USD 599 as new, rock-bottom Nikon entry model ... it had no AF motor = no backwards compatibility with legacy F-mount glass with screwdriver AF. Much to the chagrin of some Nikon old-skoolers.

 

[ahsanford]

Jeez, gang, I leave for a little while and this turned into a $999 FF camera thread.

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they want to save some unnecessary costs, Canon and Nikon could immediately stop making and marketing about 10 different APS-C mirrorslappers and consolidate to only 1 - "7D / D500" class.

Sure, Canon and Nikon should just stop selling the cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market.

Note to all: it’s best not to rely on the business degree that you pulled out of the box of Cracker Jacks.

 

[ahsanford]

Sure, Canon and Nikon should just stop selling the cameras that comprise the majority of the ILC market.

Note to all: it’s best not to rely on the business degree that you pulled out of the box of Cracker Jacks.

Well, he really wants that $999 FF camera, and without anything else around that price point in the pipeline -- it could work!

See, the whole 'a $999 FF camera would set the crops on fire' is a moot point if you've already torched your own fields. We're such dummies, Neuro.



- A

 

[fullstop]

sure, stuffing shelves and online shops with
EOS 4000D, 2000D, 1200D, 1300D, 200D, 750D, 760D, 800D, 77D, 80D
and all the logistics + marketing efforts behind it make a lot of sense.
Same for Nikon. Equally ... stupid.

 

[fullstop]

Oh yes, I do want a decent little 999 FF MILC. Slightly larger body EOS M50 with FF sensor would do fine for me.
And I bet, a few other people would buy it as well.
I am even confident, it would be a large enough number of sales to yield the usual, oligopolistic profitability for Canon.
Based on my market knowledge and some simple logic.