Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
360
52
San Jose - CA
I'm gonna take a HUGE grain of salt with this rumor. Through the few years, I've learned that Canon may can their customer's expectations... just a little bit. Hoping for the best though. ;D
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,308
502
AvTvM said:
Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses.
E-mount lenses vs Canon:

100mm f2.8
Sony 85x118mm weight 700g
Canon 77x123 625g

85mm f1.8
Sony 78x82 371g
Cano 75x72 425g

24-70 f2.8
Sony 87x136 886g
Canon 88x113 805g



You were saying....?
 

CanonCams

EOS 80D
Feb 23, 2017
119
0
Hopefully this isn't in any relation to the MK II that some people are saying will be FF mirrorless. :-X
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
Aug 25, 2015
1,246
514
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
GHPhotography said:
Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.
How many times is this nonsense going to be repeated?

Shorter flange distance only means more flexibility in lens design.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT YOUR REAR ELEMENT BANG UP AGAINST THE SENSOR. You can air-gap it to exactly the same distance it is on an EF lens if you really want to (eg some 3rd party FE mount lenses).

So. You can design compact lenses for those who want compact lenses (with potentially lower IQ as you suggest) AND you can design larger, heavier lenses with greater IQ and without any of these disadvantages you speak of. Look at the G lenses on FE for this for example.

And. Of course with an adaptor for EF lenses fitted other than the potential issues with how well the adaptor holds up to daily use there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE optically between the operation of the lens on the mirrorless and on an equivalent DSLR.

And wait! There's more!

The flexibility of a shorter flange distance means you can add all sorts of fun adaptors in the way. Want an autofocus adaptor for Nikon lenses? It's possible! Tilt/shift adaptors for EF lenses? It's possible!

Please... stop with this mirrorless = lower IQ nonsense right now.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,518
2,384
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
AvTvM said:
NorbR said:
... and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)
exactly. :)...
More like, exactly wrong.

That's not the way successful companies think. Canon has a base of users already committed to their existing lens mount. Releasing a camera that doesn't use the existing mount, but requires the purchase of new lenses to mount on the camera without an adapter just releases all those existing customers to go shopping for any brand of camera they choose.

While most will still choose Canon, there will be some loss and it's an unnecessary risk for the company. They will compare the two choices and pick the one that will net them the most sales. Given the very small advantages that a new mount might offer to a full frame option, it's clear the better choice is to keep all their existing customers happy by using the existing mount.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
Maximilian said:
Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Hi Mikehit!

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.

Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.

So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
The exact nature of the problem using the EF mount adapter and why there's a performance hit is not clear to me, either...but what is clear is that such a performance hit does exist. It seems very unlikely that Canon would find that performance hit desirable, therefore there must be some problem they were unable to solve. What makes you so sure they could solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for a FF sensor, when they could not solve it for EF lenses on a new short-flange mount for an APS-C sensor?

Following that logic, do you believe Canon would release FF MILC bodies – a higher end product, with a generally more demanding and discerning customer base – with a known performance hit for users with a collection of EF lenses who switch to a FF MILC?
 

jedy

EOS 80D
Feb 14, 2014
144
82
A welcome step in the right direction. I don't have any grand illusions a first attempt Canon FF mirrorless will be the camera to beat all cameras like some people think. Sony have made vast improvements but we're still some way off from a true SLR replacement and Sony have a big head start on Canon (just not with lenses). I also think it will be very expensive - the apsc Canon M5 is extremely expensive for what it is. Still though, this is great news and we will see som genuine FF mirrorless competition at last.
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Mikehit said:
You were saying....?
I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount

Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow.

So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.
 

GHPhotography

EOS M50
May 9, 2016
32
0
Orlando, FL
jolyonralph said:
GHPhotography said:
Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ.
How many times is this nonsense going to be repeated?

Shorter flange distance only means more flexibility in lens design.

YOU DO NOT NEED TO PUT YOUR REAR ELEMENT BANG UP AGAINST THE SENSOR. You can air-gap it to exactly the same distance it is on an EF lens if you really want to (eg some 3rd party FE mount lenses).

So. You can design compact lenses for those who want compact lenses (with potentially lower IQ as you suggest) AND you can design larger, heavier lenses with greater IQ and without any of these disadvantages you speak of. Look at the G lenses on FE for this for example.

And. Of course with an adaptor for EF lenses fitted other than the potential issues with how well the adaptor holds up to daily use there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE optically between the operation of the lens on the mirrorless and on an equivalent DSLR.

And wait! There's more!

The flexibility of a shorter flange distance means you can add all sorts of fun adaptors in the way. Want an autofocus adaptor for Nikon lenses? It's possible! Tilt/shift adaptors for EF lenses? It's possible!

Please... stop with this mirrorless = lower IQ nonsense right now.
If you are arguing that mirrorless means smaller size then you absolutely must put the elements up to the sensor. Air gapping the elements is the same thing as putting an adapter on there, which kills the entire point of a new mount. I wasn't arguing that mirrorless means lower IQ or that you had to put it there, i was arguing that if you state the purpose of a new mount is to create a smaller, lighter, more compact system, you will lose IQ in the process.

To your point about "fun" adapters, canon would never make an adapter that allows you to mount Nikon glass, that would hurt their bottom line. Tilt-Shift adapters are interesting, but they'd provide a minimal effect or add optical elements, which would change IQ.

To restate- my argument about reduced IQ was ONLY in regard to making a small and lightweight system.
 

GHPhotography

EOS M50
May 9, 2016
32
0
Orlando, FL
AvTvM said:
Mikehit said:
You were saying....?
I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount

Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow.

So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.
Please provide examples of a flange distance and existing lenses/lens designs that achieve this. If you can then you have an argument. If you can't then you have a hope and a dream.
 

hmatthes

EOS-R, RF and EF Lenses of all types.
KeithBreazeal said:
Hoping for...
No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
Detachable Hi-Res EVF
CFast + SD
Continuous raw buffering at 15 fps
High capacity battery
PLEASE! No "detachable" EVF -- Professional cameras should not rely on any detachable accessories. The EVF is part & parcel of a mirrorless. The two full frame Leica EVF cameras (SL & Q) are the best EVFs anywhere, case closed.
Let's have better weather sealing. Let's not have dongles to drop in the stream while wading across. The EVF, not the back panel, is the command center of these cameras.
 

smaruzzi@gmail.com

I'm New Here
Sep 6, 2016
17
9
KeithBreazeal said:
Hoping for...
No mechanical parts in the shutter design.(like Sony)
Detachable Hi-Res EVF
CFast + SD
Continuous raw buffering at 15 fps
High capacity battery
GPS
WiFi
30+MP resolution
If SD due to smaller footprint, UHS-II
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
GHPhotography said:
Please provide examples of a flange distance and existing lenses/lens designs that achieve this. If you can then you have an argument. If you can't then you have a hope and a dream.
Leica M. ;D

Other than that there are no examples, since currently Sony has the only mirrorless FF system on the market. So you are asking me the sort of "proof", the Spanish inquisition demanded from their delinquents.

Looking at existing lens mounts my *wild guess* for well chosen FF mirrorless native mount parameters would be around
* FFD: 22 mm to maybe 24 mm [= about half of EF mount @ 44 mm]
combined with a "generously large"
* Throat (clear width) 50mm to 54mm [= similar or same as EF @ 54mm]

but I'd be happy to take whatever Canon chooses, as long as it gives me compact AND good camera and lens options. Of course they can also produce LARGE cameras and LARGE lenses for those with large hands or who generally prefer things TEXAS-size. ;D
 
Oct 7, 2013
350
0
Specs and timetable are absolutely realistic - unfortunately. As Canon will release a crippled down camera for the start to protect their DSLR, cinema and camcorder business, this means it takes at least until the second generation in the year 2020, until we see a Canon camera that might have the dozens of nice Sony features included.

And even if by then Canon keeps up with a Sony A9R2 or A7R4, the Canon camera will have the disadvantage of less lens options, no speedboosters etc. Sony just released a 16-35/2.8 and 12-24/4. In 1.5 years it's likely they have their native lens lineup complete incl. tele lenses. What Canon advantage is left by then?
 

sanj

EOS 5D SR
Jan 22, 2012
3,524
325
CR1 today. CR2 tomorrow. CR3 soon. It is matter of time. Cant fight progress. I embrace it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,645
2,159
douglaurent said:
What Canon advantage is left by then?
Reputation. Service. In the US, mutliple company service centers vs. one contracted 3rd party service vendor. Much larger consumer user base. Far larger and more varied OEM lens selection. Popularity. A much larger professional user base. Extremely unlikey that they'll just abandon the market.
 

ecka

Size Matters!
Apr 5, 2011
965
2
Europe
www.flickr.com
AvTvM said:
Mikehit said:
You were saying....?
I was saying: more compact lenses from wide to "normal" focal lengths are POSSIBLE with shorter flange distance .. IF mount parameters are *WELL CHOSEN*, UNLIKE Sony E-mount

Sony E-mount which is *extremely poorly chosen for mirrorless FF*, causing unnecessarily long, heavy, complex, expensive lens designs. E-Mount has reasonable parameters for APS-C, which it was designed for. Only as an afterthought, Sony decided to put E-mount "on forced labor duty" on FF sensors. Specifically: FFD is a bit short and hole diameter is a bit too narrow.

So please stop once and for all using Sony FE lenses as "proof", that mirrorless FFD lenses cannot be built compact, good and affordable.
OK, then show us a good example, please.
 

Dylan777

EOS 1D MK II
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
7
As I recalled, few years back. We have numbers of well respected CR members mentioned it's impossible to design UWA for FF mirrorless. As an owner of both 2470GM + 70200GM, IQ is excellent. I hope these latest UWA will have same results as first two.

My wish list still: FE135f2 and/or FE200f2
 

Attachments