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

[jd7]

Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.

What buttons do you have to juggle to set exposure compensation on the 5DSr? I just had a look at the 5DSr manual and p214 makes it sound like the rear dial is a dedicated exposure compensation dial (as I believe it is on all Canon cameras which have a rear dial). Am I missing something about the sort of control you are looking for?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Anoher possibility is: Take a large buffer, fast storage, and have a full size image burst rate of 60 or 120 frames per second. That would have the pro sports shooters tripping over each other trying to get thier hands on one...

We have no idea what's coming or when, and the speculation is fascinating. This will be interesting!

To be honest I don't see any reason why Canon would put such sports features in the new stills camera. I believe 120 fps, even 60, is extremely hard to achieve, and actually no sports photographer would want it at such a high rate. It's an easy way to get memory card filled with basically identical shots and hugely increase processing time. 15-20 fps should be more than sufficient.

I believe Canon will be competing with Sony A7RIII and Nikon D850, so the prospective camera will be kind of a mixture of those two. Alternatively it may happen to be an entry-level FF, something like 6DII.

 

[AvTvM]

Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.

What buttons do you have to juggle to set exposure compensation on the 5DSr? I just had a look at the 5DSr manual and p214 makes it sound like the rear dial is a dedicated exposure compensation dial (as I believe it is on all Canon cameras which have a rear dial). Am I missing something about the sort of control you are looking for?

+1000 exactly

notice it all the time: whiners for "dedicated EV comp dial" typically just don't know or understand Canon's [full-scale] EOS user interface well enough. EV +/- compensation using the [lockable!] big rear thumb wheel could not be implemented any better. Unfortunately it is only implemented that way on Canon mirrorslappers from xxD series upwards.

Not on Rebels and EOS-M series [with powershot UI and firmware] ... these typically need one (!) "select"-press of the rear wheel and then a turn to dial in exposure comp ... which seems to be too challenging for the Fuji-retro crowd and their desire for a mono-functional EV +/- dial taking up valuable space on the control top deck.

 

[BillB]

Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.

What buttons do you have to juggle to set exposure compensation on the 5DSr? I just had a look at the 5DSr manual and p214 makes it sound like the rear dial is a dedicated exposure compensation dial (as I believe it is on all Canon cameras which have a rear dial). Am I missing something about the sort of control you are looking for?

+1000 exactly

notice it all the time: whiners for "dedicated EV comp dial" typically just don't know or understand Canon's [full-scale] EOS user interface well enough. EV +/- compensation using the [lockable!] big rear thumb wheel could not be implemented any better. Unfortunately it is only implemented that way on Canon mirrorslappers from xxD series upwards.

Not on Rebels and EOS-M series [with powershot UI and firmware] ... these typically need one (!) "select"-press of the rear wheel and then a turn to dial in exposure comp ... which seems to be too challenging for the Fuji-retro crowd and their desire for a mono-functional EV +/- dial taking up valuable space on the control top deck.

On the 5DIV, it's a little more tricky with the M setting with auto ISO because the top wheel is used for shutter and the back wheel is used for aperture. The instruction manual is quite clear, but you have to set up a dedicated button so you can use the top wheel for exposure comp too.

 

[SereneSpeed]

Also, a dedicated exposure compensation dial is a GREAT THING. I love it on the M5 and similarly on the A7RII. It bugs me that I have to juggle buttons to do this on the 5DSR especially if I'm looking down the viewfinder at the time. Of course, it's not as useful without mirrorless, but if you're going to a mirrorless camera then you do not want exactly the same button settings and layout as on a DSLR because the way you shoot and compose is going to be different.

What buttons do you have to juggle to set exposure compensation on the 5DSr? I just had a look at the 5DSr manual and p214 makes it sound like the rear dial is a dedicated exposure compensation dial (as I believe it is on all Canon cameras which have a rear dial). Am I missing something about the sort of control you are looking for?

+1000 exactly

notice it all the time: whiners for "dedicated EV comp dial" typically just don't know or understand Canon's [full-scale] EOS user interface well enough. EV +/- compensation using the [lockable!] big rear thumb wheel could not be implemented any better. Unfortunately it is only implemented that way on Canon mirrorslappers from xxD series upwards.

Not on Rebels and EOS-M series [with powershot UI and firmware] ... these typically need one (!) "select"-press of the rear wheel and then a turn to dial in exposure comp ... which seems to be too challenging for the Fuji-retro crowd and their desire for a mono-functional EV +/- dial taking up valuable space on the control top deck.

On the 5DIV, it's a little more tricky with the M setting with auto ISO because the top wheel is used for shutter and the back wheel is used for aperture. The instruction manual is quite clear, but you have to set up a dedicated button so you can use the top wheel for exposure comp too.

On the 5D4, using the little toggle that is between the joystick and the back wheel is amazing for EV comp. Canon got the toggle 'just right'.

 

[kanehi]

If it's a full frame camera it'll probably use EF lenses. I just hope it's not a watered down camera. Hopefully Canon will develop a full mirrorless camera for each sector of affordability.

 

[mjg79]

I really hope they keep the EF mount.

If you look at Sony's FE mount you see that for lenses longer than 24mm it offers no advantage. Indeed their 24-70/2.8 and 50/1.4 become considerably longer than equivalent lenses for EF mount.

So what about the wide angle? Sony's 16-35GM is better than Canon's new 16-35L III and smaller. The Zeiss Loxia 21/2.8 is slightly better and half the size of the ZE 21/2.8. So there really is a big advantage to wide angle lenses. However Canon can still get that with the EF mount. Remove the mirror and allow rear lens elements to protrude into the body. If you look at the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 for the Contax G system you will see how it works. Or see the often forgotten Voigtlander Super Wide Heliar 15mm f4.5 - an ultra wide pancake lens for DSLRs that could only be used on Nikon by locking the mirror up. It's an outstanding performer because the rear most elements are close to the sensor and it makes for a small combination.

What's the benefit of this approach? It means that for lenses like a 24-70/2.8 or a 300/2.8 or an 85/1.4 etc you get a much more balanced device to hold with a centre of gravity more centralised than with Sony's FE mount.

The camera can become smaller with the same mount - the best example we have seen is actually Sony's A99 II - it's a lovely camera to hold and with wide aperture or long glass far nicer to use than the A7R/A9.

I hope Canon goes down this route as it lets them have their cake and eat it. Probably if starting fresh today one would go for something like the Leica M or Contax G flange distance (the Sony is so small it causes those strange long lenses) but Canon already has so much glass in the EF mount to change it a tiny bit makes little sense.

Only other thing I'll add is that one day Canon cameras will have IBIS. This isn't even a question - it will come but they are clearly going to drag their heels for as long as possible. Anyone who has used the Sony cameras will know how good it is. And those who have tried it on Olympus will know it can be amazing. In the future it will be a good way to get people to buy a new camera. I already wonder how many people with 5DSr and 5DIV bodies will decide not to upgrade for a long time - the blunt truth is that for 95% of photographers another 10 megapixels or stop of dynamic range won't actually improve the photos. But IBIS will really dramatically lower ISO in some situations and open up different creative possibilities.

 

[AvTvM]

again ... if Canon goes to a new short flange focal distance lens mount for their mirrorless FF system ... ALL existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring.

Incredible, how hard is is for many mirrorslapping folks to understand this ... and if one just hates adapters and wants to just go on forever with their EF lenses ... well then loc-tite the adapter into the camera's mount and have a "native EF-mount mirrorless FF Canon camera".

Everybody can decide on their own speed if & when they want to eventually replace existing EF lenses with new native mirrorless lenses - offering better lens - camera communication and "AI capabilities", way more advanced and better AF performance than possible on DSLRs (eg no micro AF adjustments needed, for starters), better IQ thanks to newer optical designs and materials, and for the most frequently used focal length range a lineup of smaller/lighter and potentially less expensive lenses is possible. ofc nobody knows whether Canon is willing to do so, but they could. Keeping EF mount, they can't.

 

[mjg79]

Everybody can decide on their own speed if & when they want to eventually replace existing EF lenses with new native mirrorless lenses - offering better lens - camera communication and "AI capabilities", way more advanced and better AF performance than possible on DSLRs (eg no micro AF adjustments needed, for starters), better IQ thanks to newer optical designs and materials, and for the most frequently used focal length range a lineup of smaller/lighter and potentially less expensive lenses is possible. ofc nobody knows whether Canon is willing to do so, but they could. Keeping EF mount, they can't.

That last part isn't accurate - it would be if they kept the same lens design parameters, but that would be madness. They could just do as Contax did with the G system and allow wider lenses to have the rear elements sit further back as there would be no mirror in the way now. This would give all of the same optical benefits and would mean that we get to keep the lovely EF ergonomics for use with larger and longer lenses.

Making the flange distance shorter as Sony did doesn't magically give you smaller lenses on anything over than wide angles. For longer lenses indeed Sony has struggled and they have sometimes ended up with longer lenses than on EF mount.

If you have one camera and one lens then the Sony approach makes some sense (as long as it isn't a heavy lens - then the ergonomics are terrible). However if you have a kit of 3 or 4 lenses it's very possible that a short flange distance results in a heavier lens selection as the longer lenses will likely become bigger. Compare the 24-70L with the 24-70GM for example.

I could see a good argument for Canon making it slightly shorter though nothing like Sony but the question is would a less than 1/4 inch difference be worthwhile then in making an adapter necessary. An adapter is another point of failure, more complexity, more weather sealing? It's so nice how everything on Canon clicks together so solidly, adapters, even quality ones, eat away at that.

 

[Woody]

Incredible, how hard is it for many mirrorslapping folks to understand this ... and if one just hates adapters and wants to just go on forever with their EF lenses ... well then loc-tite the adapter into the camera's mount and have a "native EF-mount mirrorless FF Canon camera".

Precisely my sentiments.

 

[Orangutan]

existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring.

In principle I agree; the question is whether they work as well and as reliably with the adapter as native lenses. Many of the reviews I've seen say no, they don't.

 

[AvTvM]

existing EF lenses will NOT have to be discarded instantly ... they will remain fully useable and functional ... all that's needed is a simple little adapter ring.

In principle I agree; the question is whether they work as well and as reliably with the adapter as native lenses. Many of the reviews I've seen say no, they don't.

i expect EF lenses to work exactly as well and within exactly the same limitations on any Canon mirrorless camera as they would in live view on any Canon EOS DSLR. Totally irrespective of lens mount choice!

Even if Canon would make and sell mirrorless FF cameras with "native" EF mount up front, all existing EF glass will be "legacy" ... especially but not only in terms of AF performance.

Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.

MAYBE Canon will be able *and willing* to adjust newer EF lenses to mirrorless operation via firmware update ...
especially lenses that appeared after DP-AF bodies came out.

 

[ritholtz]

After releasing FF mirrorless, they will definately release SL1/SL2 kind of FF DSLR. They will keep trying with DSLR.

 

[Don Haines]

We can argue this until the cows come home, and there will be no resolution until the camera is released......

What we have is a trade off between physical size and ergonomics. Basically, as the camera gets smaller and lighter, the worse the ergonomics gets. This can best be seen as we descend from size from the 1DX cameras, down into the rebels, the M series, and to what may the ultimate camera for poor ergonomics, the Olympus Air A01. The A01 was the size of a teleconverter and snapped on to the end of a lens.... you are not going to beat it for small size but the usability was so pathetic that it soon disappeared.

Canon already has M cameras.... that is the practical limit to how small they will go with a FF mirrorless (obviously with wider mount) and for the large end of the scale they could go EF mount and 1DX sized, but that is also a bit extreme. Personally, I would bet on the 6D series as the largest “probable” size.....

In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.

Remember that we forum users do not represent the masses of camera buyers......

 

[David]

I still believe an EF mount for a mirrorless camera would allow lenses that extend into the camera body while the existing EF lenses still could be used. This would lead to primes that'd allow a fairly small combo without losing the excellent Canon handling and enough space for a large battery.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.

Remember that we forum users do not represent the masses of camera buyers......

^^This

There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway. In the FF market, those who want small have had several generations of Sony FF MILCs, including both small/slow lenses with compromised IQ and high IQ lenses that are similar to or larger than their dSLR counterparts. Yet...FF dSLRs continue to outsell FF MILCs. What does that suggest about the relative size of those two camps?

I like small sometimes. That's why I have an M6 (M5 was too big), and 6 of the 7 EF-M lenses. Why don't I just use the mount adapter and EF lenses? After all, I have the same 11-200mm range fully covered by EF glass. I don't, because the ergonomics suck.

 

[ahsanford]

Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.

1993, sir. Insult old lenses accurately, please. (1987 was the 50mm compact macro, not the 50mm f/1.4 USM.)

- A

 

[ahsanford]

There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics a more seamless experience that mimics the FF SLRs they use today. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway.

Agree, but note my edit above.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

In the end, it is going to be the ergonomics of this camera that sells it to the masses. Regardless of price and quality, the masses will never tolerate hauling around a 1DX sized camera around, and if all they want is small, no FF mirrorless will be able to compete with an M. Odds are that we are looking at an enthusiast camera that is targeted after the same people who would get an 80D or a 6D2, and Canon will make their decisions accordingly.

Remember that we forum users do not represent the masses of camera buyers......

^^This

There are two camps – those who want small and those who want better ergonomics. Those who want small should be looking to APS-C anyway. In the FF market, those who want small have had several generations of Sony FF MILCs, including both small/slow lenses with compromised IQ and high IQ lenses that are similar to or larger than their dSLR counterparts. Yet...FF dSLRs continue to outsell FF MILCs. What does that suggest about the relative size of those two camps?

I like small sometimes. That's why I have an M6 (M5 was too big), and 6 of the 7 EF-M lenses. Why don't I just use the mount adapter and EF lenses? After all, I have the same 11-200mm range fully covered by EF glass. I don't, because the ergonomics suck.

I agree.

Just my opinion here, but what I expect to see is a 6D2 sized body, controls laid out like the 6D2, articulated touchscreen, and mirrorless. I expect the mount to natively take EF glass, EF-S glass (in a crop mode), and (i give this last one 50/50 odds of happening) similar to how EF-S protrudes into a camera body, a new series of EF-X lenses that protrude further into the camera body to allow some shorter wide angle lenses.

 

[Don Haines]

Newer designs - eg the few EF lenses with STM drive will likely do better, old clunkers like the 1987 design EF 50/1.4 with it's subpar half-baked "Micro-USM" drive will presumably perform ... not so well. No surprises there and no miracles.

1993, sir. Insult old lenses accurately, please. (1987 was the 50mm compact macro, not the 50mm f/1.4 USM.)

- A

HEY!!!!!

What if they really are going ahead with the EF-X mount and the 50F1.4 EF-X lens will be the first of the series?