Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

[Random Orbits]

CR: "There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup"
= the statement heard round the CR Forum world. That's a massive statement. We've been speculating about this for a very long time!

So, if true, that would mean that...

• Mount / body junction: we're headed to (something resembling) the built-in 'tube' of the recent Sigma Quattro models (see pic below) ...unless they are going to simply pull the mirror from an existing FF rig, which seems very not-serious for something that is relatively long overdue.
  
  
• Positive reality of no 4th mount: No new lenses to buy = less investment burden for existing Canon owners to get in on the new platform = higher adoption rate. Also, there's no way you can leave an EF adaptor at home if it's built-into the camera.
  
  
• Painful reality of no 4th mount: no super tiny FF rig with purpose-built small mount lenses. The Tiny Form Factor Committee (a.k.a. the 'Mirrorless is about making is smaller, dummy' folks -- who are not a small group) will be pretty miffed about this. Like a great disturbance in the force, I can hear the 'Stupid Canon' call from AvTvM already.
  
  
  
• Canon is sticking to its strengths rather than making a large investment to follow the A7's lead: I don't know if this means Canon thinks FF users don't care about size / think size is-what-it-is with FF and they are onboard with it or if they are just being stingy by not offering the thinner mount with a few tiny lenses.
  

I wonder if Nikon will make the same (no new mount for FF mirrorless) decision or if they will try to keep it small when they make a foray into this market.

- A

I like it. It makes more sense knowing that the EOS-M is designed for minimum size. That (APS-C) is where Canon thinks IQ can be maximized while weight and size are minimized. FF will be reserved for flexibility, highest IQ at the cost of weight and price.

 

[ahsanford]

- Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.

that keeps on being said, and it's still wrong.

if you account for a reasonable grip, the mount registration distance makes no difference in the body depth.

PS .. the K-01 isn't mirrorless.

I stand by my words: "either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro." and the Pentax K-01 is definitely a mirrorless camera: it doesn't even have a viewfinder.

Key part of the quotes above has been updated.

I didn't even know there was a Pentax K-01. That's radioactively bad brand naming. I feel like I'm lost in all the sub-brands of the Olympus OM-D. :-\

 

[drjlo]

I vote for Canon to keep things simpler for its first attempt at FF mirrorless and hope they copy Sony RX1r as much as possible, mainly a great 35 f/2 fixed lens (with macro mode like Sony if possible) and a body as small as possible. Price will have to be sane.

If that camera is proven to be capable, then an interchangeable lens version to follow..

 

[rrcphoto]

That's the $64,000 question. Is there more money to be made in the setup on the right or on the left?

- A

Why drop the mirror to loose AF performance and OVF performance, if you're not saving size/weight? There's no business case to make it.

If/when I go back to FF, I may be picking Fuji MF mirrorless or Nikon FF mirrorless, not Canon FF mirrorless, simply put. It's a decision they gotta make, but I'll tell you it really doesn't appeal to anyone, in my opinion. Even if I still had all my L glass and 5D, I'd just keep getting the new 5D and L's, grab an M5 for my small/light personal stuff, and be done with it. A 6D mirrorless with extension tube full time is a joke.

Again: some believe mirrorless is all about size and weight. Others do not share that opinion.

The second group would say that there are some things mirrorless can do that an SLR cannot (gasp!):

• Peaking for manual focus use
• Histo in the viewfinder
• Amplify light in a dark room
• AF points all over the map (SLRs can't do this through an OVF)
• Less mechanical stuff to fail
• No need for AFMA
• No mirror slap
• The ability to adapt older lenses (Canon would appear to be not pursuing this if they go for a full EF mount)
• (Someone will insert 5 more things that I forgot)

Keep in mind all these 'pros' are coming from an SLR guy who does not use mirrorless (other than my cell phone). I'm just interested in how the market copes / avoids / embraces / suffers through first baby steps of mirrorless as it's such a big change.

And yes, there are boatloads of cons with mirrorless right now. I'm not mitigating those so much as answering your question above.

- A

this crowd that assumes that you would not save size and weight by keeping the EF mount make me shake my head.

what would an EF mount full frame camera not have:

- pentaprism
- af sensor and assembly
- mirror assembly
- metering assembly

removing a 100% pentaprism from the camera body will immediately make it lighter. there's a reason why the rebels use penta mirrors. partly for cost, partly for weight as well.

Making it EVF based allows for a much smaller and lighter because you no longer are required to handle 100% viewfinders - from the mirror assembly to the pentaprism. also there's less room required under the mirrobox, since you don't need to have in there the AF assembly.

Canon could make an EVF based EF mount full frame camera smaller than an SL1 - so why do some think that EF mount makes a huge difference here is beyond me.

 

[ahsanford]

I vote for Canon to keep things simpler for its first attempt at FF mirrorless and hope they copy Sony RX1r as much as possible, mainly a great 35 f/2 fixed lens (with macro mode like Sony if possible) and a body as small as possible. Price will have to be sane.

If that camera is proven to be capable, then an interchangeable lens version to follow..

I've long argued that an RX1R or Leica Q like product is a very low risk way for Canon to get batting practice on a highly performing mirrorless rig... but that would likely be a bigger help to Canon for a different/'smaller' rig that has naturally different ergonomics.

If Canon goes with full EF (remember: this rumor only states it won't be a new mount -- I suppose some witchcraft could fashion an EF-S or EF-M solution), one could argue that they have everything they need to go straight to an interchangeable mount FF body right now:

• Body ergonomics -- they have a jillion SLR bodies of different sizes to start from
• They have mirrorless + DPAF flight hours being logged right now on the EOS M5
• They have been making integral EVFs for some time on the fancier fixed lens rigs (and now the EOS M5)

...so one could argue that the 'batting practice' upside of a fixed lens FF rig won't be that much help if they go full EF and (say) start from a 5D or 6D body.

But I could be wrong. Canon may offer a fixed lens FF rig just to get in on the $$$ crowd buying Leica Q and RX1R II models today.

- A

 

[infared]

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)

 

[jebrady03]

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)

To the Sony party? Because as far as I know that's the only company with a full frame mirrorless camera offering.

 

[ahsanford]

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)

To the Sony party? Because as far as I know that's the only company with a full frame mirrorless camera offering.

Ahem. You forgot a small company from Germany.

- A

 

[infared]

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)

To the Sony party? Because as far as I know that's the only company with a full frame mirrorless camera offering.

For a FF mirrorless camera...correct..(aside from Leica, which I consider fringe)....but my comment was more about a serious, dynamic mirrorless camera. I do not consider the M a contender in the Mirrorless market. Although with hugely declining camera sales across the market...I am guessing there is less money for Canon to put into a great new FF mirrorless system.
I own a 5DIII and about 10 lenses... and "another manufacturer's" Mirrorless camera, and about 12 or 13 lenses.. 90% of the time I pick up the mirrorless to go shoot. Thinking of selling my FF gear this winter...I am torn about it. As many are.

 

[schmidtfilme]

I am only interested if I can use my EF mount lenses without any adaptor. If so I am indeed very interested.

 

[jebrady03]

Well...since they are the last one's to the party....They better do it right. 8)

To the Sony party? Because as far as I know that's the only company with a full frame mirrorless camera offering.

Ahem. You forgot a small company from Germany.

- A

My bad! I did Overlook them because how many average or even professional photographers give a s*** about them? They are a niche company. Most companies care about product volume . Companies like Sony and Canon. My point still stands however. With so few players in that game, saying Canon is late to the party is ridiculous.

 

[ahsanford]

Those are more trivial items though (no offense), especially compared to AF/OVF performance you sacrifice for those. You need something meaningful, not trivial to trade AF/OVF for.

Some common sense needs to prevail here.

I happen to agree with you and still shoot SLRs principally for their responsiveness and AF, but it depends on what you shoot. Product / macro / landscape / astro folks don't care about their AF nearly as much as folks hitting moving targets.

And it's not like SLRs' AF works and mirrorless rigs' AF doesn't work -- it's a not a binary proposition. Not everyone needs ballbusting AI servo AF reliability. In fact, even though I'm an SLR user today, I'd gladly trade my AI servo functionality (which I almost never use for what I shoot) for broader AF point coverage across the frame. I think a lot of SLR users who aren't in 'high responsiveness needed' AF environments would likely make that trade as well.

- A

 

[scrup]

What is the point of EF mirrorless camera if there is no size saving. Canon could just spend development on a hybrid OVF/ EVF instead.

The full frame mirrorless needs to be EFM mount. So Canon can design smaller lenses for it and get people to buy them.

 

[David]

Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.

 

[jolyonralph]

There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup.

There won't need to be a new mount. the EF-M mount will work fine for full-frame lenses. And EF-M crop and FF lenses will be interchangeable - ie EF-M crop lenses will mount fine on a future full-frame mirrorless - they just won't be able to use the full sensor (exactly the same way as E and FE lenses work on Sony ILCs.)

If anyone thinks that a Mirrorless camera can survive just on standard EF lenses then they have clearly not been looking at the current market very much.

Firstly.... the big advantage of mirrorless lenses is being able to reduce size and complexity by bringing the lens closer to the sensor. Much of the advantage of having a smaller body is lost if you can only use heavier EF lenses.

Secondly... Canon aren't stupid. They know that a large market for a future FF mirrorless camera is existing users - who will be tempted into buying it because it will be 100% compatible with their existing lenses. Yes, great! That's exactly what we want... But give them lighter EF-M mount FF lens options and many photographers, including me, will start thinking "maybe I should have both." Why miss out on an additional sales line for lenses?

I also think this may be a reason why there hasn't been a huge flood of EF-M lenses (especially primes) - I think they'll wait until they can produce FF EF-M lenses before padding the range out a bit more.

Where I can see a EF-only mirrorless option is with some kind of hybrid mirrorless/DSLR (ie the rumoured hybrid digital/optical viewfinder.) Although that won't be a true mirrorless camera (mostly because it has a mirror ) and it won't have any weight advantage over the current bodies, it would be a great thing to have (6D II perhaps? Maybe a APS-C 7D III with the 80D sensor and a hybrid EVF/OVF first?)

Ok... Other possibilities...

Mirrorless camera with built-in ND filters instead of mirror, which would need EF mount

Mirrorless camera with built-in tilt/shift adaptor (as Canon have a patent for), again would need EF mount.

 

[scrup]

Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.

So how would these new EF lenses work on existing bodies? There is no way they will design EF mount lenses that are not compatible with existing bodies.

The only way is EFM mount. EF users will have to pony up for new glass or use an adapter which Canon will give for free if and when they launch it.

 

[jolyonralph]

Oh, another prediction.

If we see EF-M full-frame lenses, we won't see a different mount name. If they were to do that it'd be highly confusing (unless they'd started with EF-MS, but too late for that.)

So how would Canon indicate that certain EF-M lenses are full-frame capable? Fortunately they already have a way to do this.

It would mean that every FF EF-M lens would be an 'L' series - something that both would be an obvious differentiator to everyone who understands Canon lenses, and also would help position this mirrorless system as a premium 'professional' range of lenses.

So, don't be surprised in the future if we see things like an EF-M 24-70 F/4L IS STM and EF-M 50mm f/1.4L IS STM


Here's hoping, at least....

 

[jolyonralph]

Canon will create a new mirrorless line of EF mount lenses that extend into the space of the removed mirrorbox. Like that and without pentaprism the lens camera combo will appear smaller and lighter. The 'old' EF lenses still will work perfectly on such a camera.

Interesting idea, but lens rear caps would be the strangest things you'll ever see, and I worry they would be too fragile.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
IMHO, 5DS/R replacement is a good candidate for Canon first FF mirrorless camera...

Have a nice day.

 

[jolyonralph]

IMHO, 5DS/R replacement is a good candidate for Canon first FF mirrorless camera...

Don't disagree with this. Although I do hope the S model dies out and we get a single variant without an AA filter entirely (rather than the bodge solution currently in the 5DSR)