Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is Definitely Coming, and The Wait Won't Be as Long as We Thought

[Perio]

I'm sure only few other members will agree with me, but I'd love to have a 1DX-like mirrorless camera. But I assume that this won't be financially reasonable to release such camera, at least now.

 

[jd7]

...Almost everybody wants smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well...

...I look at the lens and the camera as a package, and I don't see the advantage of spending $2,000-$3,000 on a full frame body, only to attach the vast majority of small lenses.

So for my small camera needs, I'd rather have an APSC with a small lens...

Exactly. If you truly want "smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well" there are already plenty of cameras on the market that meet that criteria, since any APS-C camera will cover that and, to be honest, so will any smart phone released in the last four to five years.

Agree!

And I really don't want an EVF. I might put up with an EVF in something like the EOS M system, where the point of the system is equipment which produces pretty good IQ which is genuinely small and light and the mirrorless technology makes a significant difference in allowing the system to be small and light. On a full frame camera though I will generally want faster aperture lenses, and lenses for a range of focal lengths, and then the overall size (ie camera and lens) difference between SLR and mirrorless becomes much less significant - and in fact you want a bit of size and even a bit of weight in the body so it balances better with the lens.

At least at this point in time, given the choice between FF SLR or mirrorless, I will take SLR without a second thought, for features like OVF, battery life and AF. I won't say I'll never buy a FF mirrorless, but I think it's highly unlikely to be any time soon. The FF mirrorless would have to offer significant (practical - not just spec sheet!) advantages over SLR, and at this point I'm not seeing that. (In saying that, for all I know mirrorless may offer something more on the video side, but I have never investigated that. My interest is in stills photography.)

 

[Don Haines]

Although 90% of the current lenses in production could be shortened.

Which ones can be shortened? Why would Canon be producing them longer when they could be shortened? Well, it would be easier if you could tell us which lenses, the 10%, can't be shortened.

I am sure that at least 90 percent of the lenses that Canon makes could be shortened, but at a loss of image quality. They could also be made cheaper, at a loss of image quality......

You want a high quality lens, you pay the price..... both in size and in dollars!

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Success or fail of this camera will ultimately depend on the quality of viewfinder - not the lens mount choice (which is obviously going to be EF anyway ...)

If the viewfinder sucks like in every other Canon mirrorless camera today then 80D, 5D, 6D and 7D owners won't switch.

They've either got come come up with retina ri-res and ultra-fast refresh speed or fail.

Hybrid OVF/EVF would be best and leapfrog the competition ... but it seems Canon's engineers are struggling to keep up these days

 

[mb66energy]

I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.

Maybe, they find a clever solution just like EF-S but extending even deeper into the then empty mirror box. Thus one could use the old EF lineup as well as a new lens lineup which could be optimized for mirrorless (and size/weight).
[/quote

An EF-S like solution is possible but you loose a lot of area for controls. I see a 2.0 35mm without distance scale and IS on/off settings via menu.

 

[mb66energy]

If they're seeking (and have been influenced by) pros and EoLs, I suspect the new FF MILC will keep the standard EF mount.

Strangely the only EoL I know told me he was hoping for a new mount.

I think we'll see a new mount, but with an included adaptor that can be FIRMLY attached (ie bolted down) to the body for those who need EF lenses more than the new lenses.

Same here: Why omit the chance of
(1) adapting smaller EF-X lenses for compactness, tilt/shift ranges and enhanced IQ
(2) creating (switcheable) tele converters of higher quality (more freedom of lens placement) <= EDIT: ADDED
(3) using other glass
(4) last but not least to sell future adapters with additional controls like a concentric ring to set e.g. the aperture with an OLED display to show the aperture value (yes, I want some FD lens features back!)

 

[jolyonralph]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.

There are many reasons to replace the mount.

A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera.

Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.

Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.

Right now we're stuck with an interface designed at the time the Commodore 64 was the most popular home computer.

 

[Don Haines]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.

There are many reasons to replace the mount.

A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera.

Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.

Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.

Right now we're stuck with an interface designed at the time the Commodore 64 was the most popular home computer.

And what do you need for such a mount’s electronics? You need power and ground, serial data in and out.

Yes, at the time the mount was designed serial links were typically 9600 baud in consumer devices, but even back then we were in the megabits per second for serial links. Now we do gigabits.

Undoubtedly, Canon has upgraded this link speed many times. Let’s say the first cameras and lenses back when the mount came out had a speed of 1.... a couple of years later, out comes a lens that can communicate at speed 2. On power up, the camera asks the lens (at whatever the default speed is... 0.1?), what the coms speed is that it can run at. The lens reply’s “1”, so the coms are set to 1. The next body comes out supporting speed 5. On power up it talks to the lens, the lens says “2”, so that’s what the link speed is set to. And so on.....

The lenses are already intelligent, and they run the IS system and already hold their own calibration data....

The only difference that I could see on a new design would be to change the serial link to differential, but that only helps if you need longer distances or higher transfer rates than you have now. They need neither

 

[scyrene]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.

So? Does everything old have to be replaced?

A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera.

Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.

These seem marginal improvements at best, and hardly enough motivation to introduce a whole new line of lenses/make the current lineup obsolete.

Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.

What does this have to do with the lens mount??

 

[jolyonralph]

You of course forget the major advantage of a new lens mount - that we all have to buy new lenses!

(yes, not an advantage for us, but Canon aren't in business just to keep us happy)

 

[Antono Refa]

You of course forget the major advantage of a new lens mount - that we all have to buy new lenses!

(yes, not an advantage for us, but Canon aren't in business just to keep us happy)

That would be as smart as killing the Apple II line in favor of the Mac.

 

[BeenThere]

Success or fail of this camera will ultimately depend on the quality of viewfinder - not the lens mount choice (which is obviously going to be EF anyway ...)

If the viewfinder sucks like in every other Canon mirrorless camera today then 80D, 5D, 6D and 7D owners won't switch.

They've either got come come up with retina ri-res and ultra-fast refresh speed or fail.

Hybrid OVF/EVF would be best and leapfrog the competition ... but it seems Canon's engineers are struggling to keep up these days

Canon is not locked into the viewfinder design. It can evolve with time.
Once chosen, they are locked in on the mount for many years. So, they will want to choose wisely. The executive interview gave me the impression that Canon is still pondering the mount question.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old.

There are many reasons to replace the mount.

A more intelligent modern mount might include the ability to have a fast data link between the lens and the body. Imagine, for example, a situation where a specific lens as a coprocessor within it to help deal with specific calculations it needs (for example, for an enhanced IS system), or with a macro light embedded in the lens that, because of the improved communication system is able to communicate via ETTL with the camera.

Autofocus tilt-shift lenses and the ability for tilt-shift lenses and for lenses with apodization filters to communicate and record those settings into the EXIF data also become possible.

Also, more efficient power usage, better weatherproofing, all of these can be put into a new design.

Right now we're stuck with an interface designed at the time the Commodore 64 was the most popular home computer.

How do you know those things aren't possible with the current interface? Current lenses have processors, current lenses have firmware that can be updated via the camera body.

Are you suggesting the reason tilt-shift lenses don't have AF is that the lens interface is too slow? That the slow interface —and not the lack of lens encoders for things like TS settings and Macro Lite status— is the reason those things aren't recorded in the EXIF? I know people like to make stuff up to bash Canon, but it should at least seem credible.

 

[unfocused]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old...

How do you know those things aren't possible with the current interface? Current lenses have processors, current lenses have firmware that can be updated via the camera body...
...I know people like to make stuff up to bash Canon, but it should at least seem credible.

I was thinking the same thing. The mount simply connects the lens to the camera and allows the two to communicate. It’s not like it has any processing power itself.

 

[Don Haines]

Also, don't forget the EF mount is 30 years old...

How do you know those things aren't possible with the current interface? Current lenses have processors, current lenses have firmware that can be updated via the camera body...
...I know people like to make stuff up to bash Canon, but it should at least seem credible.

I was thinking the same thing. The mount simply connects the lens to the camera and allows the two to communicate. It’s not like it has any processing power itself.

Not only that, but part of the mount was the communications standard. With the EF mount, canon changed from having a wire connection for each electronic function to sending serial commands, and even at the speeds of 30 years ago, they had more than enough to do the job...

 

[kiwiengr]

My take on this....

1. Is the desire for a FF mirrorless to do away with the mirror or to reduce size...
2. If it is out there in the wild currently being tested, what lens are being used
3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity

Gut feel, similar form to a 5D, same battery, EF mount, big elimination being the mirror. Enhanced shooting rates.

 

[Orangutan]

1. Is the desire for a FF mirrorless to do away with the mirror or to reduce size...

That's one option. It also allows a number of feature/performance improvements. It opens up opportunities for completely different product lines.

3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity

Some people are OK with this.

 

[neuroanatomist]

3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity

Some people are OK with this.

Some aren't. The question is, which group will buy more FF MILCs? I don't know the answer, but I suspect Canon has a fairly accurate guess.

 

[Orangutan]

3. Reducing size means reducing ergonomics, battery life, less processing capacity

Some people are OK with this.

Some aren't. The question is, which group will buy more FF MILCs? I don't know the answer, but I suspect Canon has a fairly accurate guess.

It's also important to remember that the numbers in each group may change over time.

 

[Zaberansary]

If it is in the hands of pros for testing, then it must be of a quality and feature set of interest to pros. Right?

Sure, because lower level rigs are only vetted by forum-dwelling enthusiasts? (My 90D pre-production unit is running brilliantly, btw. )

(sorry, couldn't resist.)
- A

Hey, What do mean your 90D PP is running brilliantly, Can you please share some more Intel?