Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

[9VIII]

If they're taking the mirror out of an EF body then I really think they should stick a 40mm sensor in there.

The current "Digital Medium Format" craze is all surrounding 44mm sensors (horizontal width), and Canon can get pretty close to that while using the same mount. There shouldn't be any serious drawbacks to using a significantly larger sensor on the same mount, Canon just needs to announce three or four good lenses for use with the larger sensor and then they'll effectively be serving three markets with the same lens system.
And then EF users can become the "crop" system and still use "Extra Luxury" lenses on 35mm if they want.

Measuring the Fuji GFX mount by comparing it to the sensor size in a picture of the prototype, it looks like they've actually got a 90mm outer diameter and 70mm inner throat diameter on the mount, that would actually fit the proper "6x4.5" sized Hassleblad or Phase One sensor size.
That sounds like planning for future expansion.

I think Canon is still going to make another mount eventually, but for now I really hope they just come out with something larger than 35mm, and make a Full Frame EF body that's much smaller than current offerings.

(Side note, I would also love to see an "Expanded APS-C" sensor with a 1:1 aspect ratio, make it 24mm x 24mm so it perfectly fits the vertical size of a 35mm sensor, making the idea of "portrait" and "landscape" orientations redundant.)

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

you don't read prior comments that well do you?
:

 

[ahsanford]

Brain fart, all of your points, are already / (or can be with software) addressed via live view on the existing 5D IV and said functionality is available on the LCD.

If they aren't going to make another mount, since they already have DPAF in the 5D IV, really they just need to finish that (already) patented OVF/EVF hybrid so you can switch to EVF for live view as desired.

You don't need another "mirrorless" camera for that, just an update to the "DSLR" existing one...

Mirrorless FF is dead. Make an OVF/EVF hybrid DSLR if no new mount. All problems solved, seriously.

Edit:

Or if they can't/couldn't make the hybrid OVF/EVF work, add a pop up EVF ala RX100 III. There's plenty of space in the DSLR body for one.

I've heard this argument before. 'Mirrorless is just shooting with LiveView and you can do that on an SLR today.'

Except not while handholding the camera to your face. Functionality existing and the user experience benefiting from that functionality on their terms are two very different things.

So I agree that an EVF/OVF hybrid would be a great game changer if well implemented.

- A

 

[photonius]

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.
  
  
  - A

• 
  
  actually, with no mirror you can make pancakes that go deep into the mount, even more so than EF-S

 

[ahsanford]

• actually, with no mirror you can make pancakes that go deep into the mount, even more so than EF-S

Keep in mind that my entire original post you quoted took the CR rumor and interpreted it to mean that 'Canon would offer a full-blown EF mount camera for mirrorless'.

That's only one of three possibilities based on the rumor. Others on this very thread believe EF-M might well serve a FF sensor. So my theory of a full EF mount / no new lenses needed / no adaptors needed / etc. may very well turn out to be incorrect (even if it is quite practical ).

- A

 

[danski0224]

I'd like to see something like the Sigma sd Quattro with some improvement in battery capacity and a better EVF.

 

[Etienne]

More than a year's wait ... I almost wish this was CR0 so I wouldn't take it seriously. :-\

 

[countofmc95]

A fixed lens FF camera doesn't interest me too much tbh.

A mirrorless camera with the EF mount excites me quite a bit. I think the Sony experience shows high quality fast mirrorless FF lenses don't get much smaller/lighter than DSLR lenses anyways.

EF lenses like the 35mm f2 IS, 40mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8 stm, etc already give you the potential to keep the kit really small, and of course you have the option of using more expensive, faster, bigger lenses as well. So a lot of flexibility and potential with the existing EF lens mount over creating new lenses.

 

[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.

you don't read prior comments that well do you?
:

I saw your SL1 image. I don't see the point of making it mirrorless if it is still going to be that chunky. If its going to be chunky just leave the mirror in it and spend development on the hybrid OVF/EVF.

 

[pwp]

It better have a best in the industry EVF.

-pw

 

[ahsanford]

It better have a best in the industry EVF.

-pw

Canon has so much best in industry upsides elsewhere (lenses, AF, ergonomics, flashes, customer service, etc.) that being 2nd best in sensors and 'acceptable' at the EVF will sell just fine, IMHO.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus. EF/EF-S is 44mm and EF-M is 18mm so I cannot see a mirrorless Canon camera using the EF/EF-S flange distance. To accommodate a 18mm back-focus and cover FF Canon would need to increase the diameter and thus create a new lens system.
This is more likely a fixed lens camera to compete against Sony.

 

[Bob Howland]

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.

The situation is the same as with EF-S lenses. The new lenses work on the new mirrorless bodies but not on the old DSLR bodies, since, by definition, the lenses protrude into the mirror box far enough to interfere with the mirror. In the case of EF-S cameras, the mirror is smaller and EF-S lenses only can be mounted on EF-S cameras. With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.

 

[jolyonralph]

> With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.

This would indicate that they would be doing a 4th mount type (ie, it's not EF, and not EF-S) which is apparently what isn't going to happen.


OK. look at the EF-M mount. It was designed to be able to use a full-frame sensor. If they were going to stick to APS-C forever on EF-M they could have used a smaller mount (if you're not sure about this, check out the size of Sony FE and E lenses. Almost identical mount size.)

Now, having said that I really don't think that Canon should do this, I hate to say that I predicted exactly this (a FF mirrorless camera that takes EF lenses only) almost exactly a year ago

Apologies for the shameless link, but I think it's appropriate in this case.

http://www.everyothershot.com/full-frame-mirrorless-eos-5dm-in-the-works/

 

[TeT]

Biggest draw to mirrorless for me is the size reduction... I would not be opposed to a ff mirrorless with some sort of new mount with L equivilent lenses.. Not sure how they could get L glass quality in a smaller package though

 

[rrcphoto]

> With a mirrorless lens, the new lens can't be mounted on FF and EF-S DSLRs.

This would indicate that they would be doing a 4th mount type (ie, it's not EF, and not EF-S) which is apparently what isn't going to happen.


OK. look at the EF-M mount. It was designed to be able to use a full-frame sensor.

no it wasn't really. if it was the electronic pins would have been more centered at the bottom of the mount.

with those pins offset from center, it makes life very difficult to wedge a full frame sensor in there.

 

[rrcphoto]

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus

nope, it's to reduce mechanical dependancies on the mirror mechanism - you know.. that's why they call it .. MIRROR-LESS .. and not "short registration distance" cameras?

 

[rrcphoto]

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.

you don't read prior comments that well do you?
:

I saw your SL1 image. I don't see the point of making it mirrorless if it is still going to be that chunky. If its going to be chunky just leave the mirror in it and spend development on the hybrid OVF/EVF.

so "chunky" is a problem.

certainly "size" isn't.

considering that would be a full frame camera WITH a 100% viewfinder and could be smaller than that picture.. canon to make it a DSLR, would have to make it considerably larger. and a hybrid viewfinder would be considerably more expensive and most likely force the camera size to be even larger than a 5D ..

but hey .. semantics .. right?

 

[douglaurent]

The specs of Canon's first full frame mirrorless camera unfortunately will be dictated by their internal decision how it will least cannibalize their other products - not their ability to build in great components, or the needs of consumers who discuss this topics here.

Canon will probably never make the "mistake" again by unintentionally overfulfilling expectations like they did with video in the 5D2, when most likely the Canon camcorder department went on the barricades afterwards. Internal politics and egos of anybody at Canon who is responsible for a stable success of traditional DSLRs will try to limit this new mirrorless FF product. That is life.

 

[Sator]

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
  
• The ability to adapt older lenses
  

• 
  
  I never cease to be amazed when people state that focus peaking is an extraordinary technical feature unique to mirrorless camera designs. In fact, Sony had focus peaking in a DSLR A mount body years before they ever made a mirrorless camera. The Pentax K-1 DSLR also has focus peaking. You can even install focus peaking in a Canon DSLR via Magic Lantern.
  
  As for ability to adapt older lenses, you can adapt plenty of vintage lenses to an EOS mount e.g. Leica R mount or M42 mount lenses. You can even adapt Nikon lenses to a Canon using an adapter. It makes far more sense to do this on a DSLR than on a mirrorless mount. The reason is that arguably the ONE AND ONLY meaningful advantage that mirrorless has is the short flange distance resulting from the elimination of the mirror box from the optical pathway, with reduction of the back focus, and which also permits the elimination of a retrofocal element on short focal length designs.
  
  If you mount a DSLR lens on a mirrorless you lose this advantage. The DSLR lens is going to have a now completely useless space for the mirror box, and there may be a pointless retrofocal element too. Mirrorless lenses have to be resigned to adapt for the mirrorless mount in other ways, in particular needing to be made as telecentric as possible to reduce the corner angle of light incidence. There is also a rear element specifically designed so as to increase the distance of rear exit pupil from the sensor. DSLR lenses are missing such features and the mismatch between the lens design and the mount design means you will get degradation in performance. Those who naively use adapters are of the "nobody will notice" school...either that or the "image degradation adds character" school.
  
  If Canon do make a mirrorless EOS mount mirrorless camera that too would be something of a gross oxymoron. A mirrorless camera that takes DSLR lenses means that Canon will eliminate the single most important feature of mirrorless cameras: the ability to improve lens performance through elimination of the mirror box from the optical formula.
  
  As for Canon not considering creating a new mount, they have patented curved sensor designs, which means a new mount. That is the whole point of a curved mount: the lenses can be made more compact. For that is the great weakness of mirrorless designs for a non-curved/linear sensor design—the need to make lenses telecentric means that the lens ends up becoming ENORMOUS, cancelling out any advance made from making the body smaller. The only way this can be mitigated is with a curved sensor design, and thus a new mount. If Canon can overcome the manufacturing obstacles to producing such sensors, that would be the ideal solution.