EF-X Mirrorless concept

[fullstop]

As to price: let's say 1 camera + 5 lenses.
A) 1x APS-C 80D + 3x f/2.8 zoom + 2 f/1.4 primes
B) 1x FF MILC + 3x f/4.0 zoom and 2 f/2.0 primes.
Do you really think setup A) will be less expensive, more capable and more compact than B)?

"5 lenses" is already not compact.

And when did 80D become a MILC?

the question was: why FF. But you can readily replace EOS 80D with EOS M5 if you want. Except there are no/2.8 zooms or fast primes for it.

I currently own 2 cameras (1 EOS M / APS-C, 1 5D3 / FF sensor) plus 5 EF-M lenses and 5 EF lenses. I want to consolidate it all to 1 compact, decent setup with only 1 FF camera plus about 5 compact lenses that i use regularly. All for FF image circle ofc, all with same mount [EF-X]. Normally I will not carry all of them along when taking images. Typically it is 1 or 2, depending on situation/objectives. I will continue to rent other lenses that I only need occasionally/rarely. I am done with G.A.S.

 

[Kit.]

"5 lenses" is already not compact.

And when did 80D become a MILC?

the question was: why FF.

No. The question was: why do you think the EF-M lenses would be less compact than the equivalent (by the angel of view and amount of light gathered) compact EF-X lenses?

If those EF-X lenses were not compact (say, /1.4 themselves). then Canon might have a problem. But you want compact ones.

But you can readily replace EOS 80D with EOS M5 if you want. Except there are no/2.8 zooms or fast primes for it.

That only tells that Canon sees no market for them. EF-S 17-55/2.8 was not that much heavier or more expensive than EF 17-40/4, if you consider the extra reach (and the extra entrance pupil at the long end).

I am done with G.A.S.

That's unlikely.

 

[neuroanatomist]

EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

no. The very Canon people who designed EF-M clearly stated in a publicized interview it is for APS-C sensors only.

I thought I remembered reading that, too...but would like to look at it again.

Can you supply a link?

sure.
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/551672.html

- Can the EF-M mount correspond to sensors larger than APS - C size, eg 35 mm full size sensor?

Kikuchi: I think that I can not do that. I can not say that if I do something strange, I will not physically enter ... .... It is a level that the amount of marginal light falls considerably or that you do not know what the image will look like.

The problem he describes is strong vignetting. Honestly, it sounds like the question he's answering could as easily be about using EF-M lenses on a FF sensor. Same answer for EF-S lenses on FF.

The fact is, the Sony E-mount and the EF-M mount are practically twins, and Sony uses the E-mount on FF MILCs. All the talk about compromises and "ideal" mounts doesn't change that fact.

I'll also point out that the quoted interview is from 2012, before Sony's first FF E-mount camera. So even if, "I think that I can not do that," did refer to putting a FF sensor behind the EF-M mount with lenses delivering FF image circle coverage, it's possible he was simply wrong.


Another couple of interesting comments regarding the mount adapter:

In addition, the operation feeling such as attaching and detaching the lens is designed to be the same as the EF mount.
...
As it is a design surface, it is finished in a design that does not feel uncomfortable even when combined with an EF lens.

That design philosophy has strong implications for a new 'EF-X' mount, if they choose that route. Analogies of the EF-X/EF-M relationship being equivalent to EF/EF-S ignore the critically important fact that EF lenses mount natively on APS-C DSLRs, whereas that would not be true for a hypothetical EF-X using a longer flange distance with EOS M. The desire to maintain the same operational feel of attaching and detaching lenses also means that the new flange distance would have to be in the 28-32mm range...shorter than that, and the adapter would need to be <1 cm long, which well physically possible would not be consistent with a good operational feel.

Canon can choose to 'build for now' with their FF MILC line, which would mean seamless/native compatibility with EF lenses – i.e., use the EF mount for FF MILC. Or, they could choose to 'build for the future', which would mean seamless/native compatibility with EF-M to facilitate the EOS M user base to upgrade to FF by buying into FF lenses that mount natively in their APS-C bodies, i.e., use the EF-M mount for FF MILC. A brand new mount, natively compatible with neither current system, does not seem to make much sense.

 

[3kramd5]

so yes, "its gotta be FF". it is the absolute sweet spot for "sensor surface divided by gear size, weight and price".

I must agree. For some reason, FF is the sweet spot.

Smaller sensors require large exotic glass to do things we'd consider fairly straightforward in FF.

Oddly enough, going the other way, 44x33 Medium Format lacks the full slate of FF f/1.4 prime equivalents, everything cost much more and that extra sensor real estate isn't *that* much better than FF.

So... yeah. FF is where it's at for me. Detail if I want it. High ISO if I need it. Large aperture if I want it. Inexpensive lenses are available.

- A

Full frame is definately a sweet spot in terms of sensor performance. I don’t see it as particularly compelling when minimizing total size is a priority, however. If the game is f/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes, i’d probably rather an APS-C system most of the time, with FF as required (prime usage, for example). But again, I may be the only one who would prefer to own different bodies for different uses.

 

[BillB]

EF-M bayonet may be sized for full frame.

no. The very Canon people who designed EF-M clearly stated in a publicized interview it is for APS-C sensors only.

I thought I remembered reading that, too...but would like to look at it again.

Can you supply a link?

sure.
https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/551672.html

- Can the EF-M mount correspond to sensors larger than APS - C size, eg 35 mm full size sensor?

Kikuchi: I think that I can not do that. I can not say that if I do something strange, I will not physically enter ... .... It is a level that the amount of marginal light falls considerably or that you do not know what the image will look like.

The problem he describes is strong vignetting. Honestly, it sounds like the question he's answering could as easily be about using EF-M lenses on a FF sensor. Same answer for EF-S lenses on FF.

The fact is, the Sony E-mount and the EF-M mount are practically twins, and Sony uses the E-mount on FF MILCs. All the talk about compromises and "ideal" mounts doesn't change that fact.

I'll also point out that the quoted interview is from 2012, before Sony's first FF E-mount camera. So even if, "I think that I can not do that," did refer to putting a FF sensor behind the EF-M mount with lenses delivering FF image circle coverage, it's possible he was simply wrong.


Another couple of interesting comments regarding the mount adapter:

In addition, the operation feeling such as attaching and detaching the lens is designed to be the same as the EF mount.
...
As it is a design surface, it is finished in a design that does not feel uncomfortable even when combined with an EF lens.

That design philosophy has strong implications for a new 'EF-X' mount, if they choose that route. Analogies of the EF-X/EF-M relationship being equivalent to EF/EF-S ignore the critically important fact that EF lenses mount natively on APS-C DSLRs, whereas that would not be true for a hypothetical EF-X using a longer flange distance with EOS M. The desire to maintain the same operational feel of attaching and detaching lenses also means that the new flange distance would have to be in the 28-32mm range...shorter than that, and the adapter would need to be <1 cm long, which well physically possible would not be consistent with a good operational feel.

Canon can choose to 'build for now' with their FF MILC line, which would mean seamless/native compatibility with EF lenses – i.e., use the EF mount for FF MILC. Or, they could choose to 'build for the future', which would mean seamless/native compatibility with EF-M to facilitate the EOS M user base to upgrade to FF by buying into FF lenses that mount natively in their APS-C bodies, i.e., use the EF-M mount for FF MILC. A brand new mount, natively compatible with neither current system, does not seem to make much sense.

I seem to remember a Canon official being quoted in the early days of EF-M as saying that there would never be a 4th EF mount. This was in response to a question about fullframe mirrorless, as I recollect. That would seem to imply that Canon either thought that it could use EF or it could use EF-M, or maybe that both would work, so there was no need to develop another mount.

 

[BillB]

Full frame is definately a sweet spot in terms of sensor performance. I don’t see it as particularly compelling when minimizing total size is a priority, however. If the game is f/4 zooms and f/2.8 primes, i’d probably rather an APS-C system most of the time, with FF as required (prime usage, for example). But again, I may be the only one who would prefer to own different bodies for different uses.

To me, the choice between fullframe and aps-c comes down to how big I want to print and how much I want to pay. Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I do shoot full frame, but the last lens I bought was the 16-35 F4 when it first came out, and I did pick a refurb 5DIV earlier this year, to go with the 5DII that I bought new a while ago. Other than that, I haven't put money into cameras and lenses. However, if I had to start new, I don't think that I could convince myself to go full frame, because A3 is as large as I print except for a couple of exceptions, one of which was taken with an aps-c camera.

 

[fullstop]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

 

[BillB]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

Well, I certainly don't understand your concept of equivalence. Could you please explain?

 

[ahsanford]

Well, I certainly don't understand your concept of equivalence. Could you please explain?

Always perilous to try to be an AvTvM translator :, but I think the notion is that to get the DOF/bokeh impact of wide apertures, APS-C users need to use lenses that are roughly one stop quicker to get the same output as FF users. In other words, Fuji folks need fast f/1.4 lenses to get similar small DOF output as a FF f/2 lens.

FF generates subject isolation / bokeh better than crop for a given aperture, so large aperture glass becomes an opportunity for FF that you can opt into, whereas it becomes more of a necessity on smaller sensors. (The necessity of large aperture glass on smaller sensors can surely be debated based on what you shoot.)

The crudely oversimplified take -- right or wrong -- is that you only go FF if you need small DOF or if you want to climb up the ISO dial. We can debate that until we are blue in the face as well.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

Well, I certainly don't understand your concept of equivalence. Could you please explain?

Essentially: what camera and lens combination will result in an equivalent capture (framing, light gathering, DOF) as a different camera and lens combination.

 

[Mikehit]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

What do you base that on?

 

[BillB]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

Well, I certainly don't understand your concept of equivalence. Could you please explain?

Essentially: what camera and lens combination will result in an equivalent capture (framing, light gathering, DOF) as a different camera and lens combination.

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

 

[ahsanford]

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

What do you base that on?

One could argue that FF could drop into a $1500 price point if folks have reasonable expectations for spec, or if Nikon/Canon want to get into a price knife-fight on the entry level of FF in an effort to sell more lenses. I don't see the former or the latter happening myself.

But, in fairness to AvFullTvStopM, the 6D1 sold well under $2k for much of its lifecycle and the D610 with a shockingly competitive 5y old sensor has been hovering at $1500 for years it seems, so yes, it's entirely possible.

And FF lenses do not remotely need to be as expensive as they are -- provided we don't mind older designs that aren't meant to crush test scores on 50 MP sensors. Canon has a number of FF primes and zooms that already hit AvTvM's dollar targets right now.

So this only gets a 4 or 5 out of 10 on the AvTvM unreasonableness scale. Lenses? Doable. Bodies? Not so much. If you want a feature-laden, comprehensively spec'd / thought-out FF mirrorless body, you go Sony... or you keep typing away in the CR forums.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

Up to A3 size uncropped prints, I think aps-c holds its own pretty well, and it is a lot cheaper, despite all the references to fast Fuji glass and explanations of how a lens is a stop slower when it is put on an aps-c camera, so you have to buy a faster lens to make things equal. Really?????

I am sorry, I thought you understood the concept of equivalence. But apparently not. Or just trying to obfuscate my statements?

Furthermore: there is no "law of nature" that full frame FF cameras MUST be priced at least 3k or 4k USD/€. Looking at evidence in market place [eg but not limited to Sony A7 1st gen, Canon EOS 6D, Nikon D610], the camera I think of should be possible also at less than 2k retail. And the FF lenses I think of could well be made and sold for less than USD/€ 500 for primes and less than USD/€ 800 for f/4 zooms.

Well, I certainly don't understand your concept of equivalence. Could you please explain?

Essentially: what camera and lens combination will result in an equivalent capture (framing, light gathering, DOF) as a different camera and lens combination.

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

something in the neighborhood of 32mm f/2.5

 

[ahsanford]

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

50mm f/4 FF would be the same...

• Framing and DOF as a 32mm* f/2.8-ish lens on crop (it's not exactly one stop, that's just a rough rule of thumb)
• Light gathering / exposure as any f/4 lens on any sensor. Sensor size doesn't change how aperture gathers light.

*Canon and Nikon have different APS-C crop, so it varies a bit.

But because light gathering and DOF do not work the same way w.r.t. equivalence, there is no perfectly equivalent situation.

(Someone straighten me out if I've misread that.)

- A

 

[fullstop]

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

In case of Canon [crop factor 1.6x]: FF 50mm @f/4.0 would be equivalent to APS-C 80mm @ f/2.8 in terms of framing and DOF. Exposure would be the same, f/4.0 is f/4.0 ... but thanks to larger light gathering surface
you can crank up ISO 1 stop higher on FF sensor compared to APS-C ... e.g. @ISO 1600 on FF for the same noise you would already get at ISO 800 on an APS-C sensor.

 

[Mikehit]

FF 50mm @f/4.0 would be equivalent to APS-C 80mm @ f/2.8 in terms of framing ...

Are you sure about that?

 

[ahsanford]

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm FF lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

i.e. what lens on APS-C would generate the same output as a 50mm f/4 lens on an FF sensor?

In case of Canon [crop factor 1.6x]: FF 50mm @f/4.0 would be equivalent to APS-C 80mm @ f/2.8 in terms of framing and DOF. Exposure would be the same, f/4.0 is f/4.0 ... but thanks to larger light gathering surface
you can crank up ISO 1 stop higher on FF sensor compared to APS-C ... e.g. @ISO 1600 on FF for the same noise you would already get at ISO 800 on an APS-C sensor.

See edit above. That semantic clarifier helped me parse Bill's question a bit more clearly.

(I think your FL math is backwards.)

- A

 

[3kramd5]

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

In case of Canon [crop factor 1.6x]: FF 50mm @f/4.0 would be equivalent to APS-C 80mm @ f/2.8 in terms of framing and DOF. M

To get the equivalent to FF on APS-C, you have use a shorter lens, not a longer one.

 

[BillB]

So, what would be the aps-c equivalent of a 50mm lens set to f4.0 in terms of framing, light gathering and DOF?

50mm f/4 FF would be the same...

• Framing and DOF as a 32mm* f/2.8-ish lens on crop (it's not exactly one stop, that's just a rough rule of thumb)
• Light gathering / exposure as any f/4 lens on any sensor. Sensor size doesn't change how aperture gathers light.

*Canon and Nikon have different APS-C crop, so it varies a bit.

But because light gathering and DOF do not work the same way w.r.t. equivalence, there is no perfectly equivalent situation.

(Someone straighten me out if I've misread that.)

- A

That's what I think too, and that is why I asked Fullstop to explain his notion of equivalence. He posts like the size of the sensor affects the exposure setting (an opinion shared by a surprising number of people), and I don't think it is so. How come a setting of 1/125 and f4.0 taken off my handheld Sekonic works for both my 5DIV and my ancient Rebel? I don't believe that you need a 70-200 F2.8 on an aps-c camera to get "equivalence" with a 70-200 F4 on a full frame camera, at least in any particularly meaningful sense.