Industry News: The First Rumored Specifications of Nikon's Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras

[rrcphoto]

I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.

who are these people?

It's not the thickness of the camera, but the possibility of traditional non-retrofocal wide angles that makes a short flange distance so appealing.

it's the only advantage of making a registration distance smaller, versus a multitude of serious business reasons why it's a bad idea.

 

[rrcphoto]

Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.

no they are not. they are quite happy selling both EF-S and EF-M mount cameras.
Canon is expanding their product lines, not removing them.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon is already transitioning from EF-S to EF-M - for APS-.C sensors only, of course. And they will go from EF to "EF-X" for full frame sensored cameras.

no they are not. they are quite happy selling both EF-S and EF-M mount cameras.
Canon is expanding their product lines, not removing them.

Number of EF-M lenses: 7

New lenses for EF-S since EF-M launched: 7

Yep. Canon is totally transitioning away, AvFullTvStopM.

Looks more to me like Canon has standardized and right-sized it's crop offerings. They are done offering pricy Ring USM lenses for crop, and now each line has 4-5 zooms, a macro and a pancake. Nice and tidy lens portfolios, IHMO. I'd like to see pricier/quicker/nicer glass, but Canon also wants us buying the pricier EF.

- A

 

[TAF]

the mirror will go. it was only there because prior to digital imaging sensors and electronic viewfinders it was the inly way to get "through the lens" viewfinding, focussing and metering. that was the only reason to exist for moving mirrors and all related disadvantages from slap to size to alignment issues.

once the mirror is removed, there is no reason to keep making cameras any larger than necessary just to preserve a legacy lens mount, when legacy lenses can be used with a simple little adaptor.

"Necessary" being the operative word.

If you assume the target user base for your first FF-ML is the 5D type folks, the expectation is they will want to be using the glass most common to that body type. Which I believe translates into the kit lens (24-105 f4), the 70-200 f4, and the 17-40 f4. So those actual lenses dictate the user experience that first adopters will have, since it is unlikely they will release equivalent 'new mount' lenses at the same time - and even if they did, the cost would hurt sales tremendously.

So if it is a new mount, it will need to come with a really good adapter, so your first adopters can enjoy the new experience with their existing base of lens.

Now, in order to achieve the same level of ergonomics (which is likely critical to pleasing your first adopters) you have with a 5D class camera, your size will likely be no smaller than the M5, which is right at the border of too small for many folks in the western world. Hang a 70-200 on it, and it really is marginal. With an adapter stuck in the middle, even more so.

At the same time, you have to dedicate sufficient volume to heat sinks, electronics, and batteries.

All of which suggests that your first real foray into FF-ML is going to be the same size or larger than the M5, at which point it makes little sense to go for a new mount when a product using the existing one will please the majority of potential first adopters.

The SL-1 apparently doesn't outsell similarly priced T7i et al, which it should have if size mattered all that much.

At least that is my take on product development.

 

[zim]

I think it's been mostly acknowledged that the EOS-M line was a marketing tool used to judge the potential sales of a complete mirrorless system.

who are these people?

It's not the thickness of the camera, but the possibility of traditional non-retrofocal wide angles that makes a short flange distance so appealing.

it's the only advantage of making a registration distance smaller, versus a multitude of serious business reasons why it's a bad idea.

Absolutely, if my mortgage relied on photography I wouldn't give a rats arse about how 'thick' my camera was.
This tech obsessed fan boy stuff is tiresome but it's only going to get worse

 

[RickWagoner]

One main advantage of mirrorless is the weight and size, but this does not work out in the real world on full frame mirrorless as the weight and size of lens itself is determined mostly by focal length, aperture and then a little by build quality. Of course you can (and some companies do) go a smaller body but then you have a weird unbalance with a fast zoom pro quality full frame lens.

There are many ways any camera company can build a mirrorless to naively work with their full frame slr lens. They can position the sensor right on the back of the lcd to make up he flange distance needed, they can easily build in an extension ring that twists out from the body to make up the flange distance, they can use optics between the lens and the body to make up the flange distance but this is harder said than done and you are adding in another element to the mix. there are ways of tilting the sensor to make up for the flange distance also.

The reason why it has not been done yet is because the cost of the R&D alone is probably more than the entire mirrorless market in EU and USA has right now. There just is not enough people wanting mirrorless outside of Asia to justify the cost...least not right now. Look at the SLR market in USA and EU now, the entry level stuff is gaining HUGE and is beyond the cash cow for all SLR makers. Why put all the R&D into a mirrorless body that natively takes SLR lenses, sell those bodies at a tiny profit and to a tiny tiny share of people when you can sell 50,000 entry level bodies with much greater profit per unit in minutes with no extra R&D Cost? Canon and Nikon don't even test their mirrorless prototypes outside of japan yet every SLR the two companies release have seen months or years of testing in the USA & EU before being announced.

A much more realistic option is to do a EVF that flips down when an SLRs mirror flips up. Both companies have done this years ago in the labs but the quality and lag of the evf back then where not even close to what was needed. Eventually every SLR will be a hybrid EVF/OVF as electronic view finder tech improves. Every SLR will be a dedicated photograph machine but with a flick of the switch will be also a dedicated video camera, both will have the full benefits of each kind has now.. Question is will the world go to a mirrorless system before then?

Canon and Nikon want to test the mirrorless market and the growth in the USA and EU with a full frame or two before they decide what direction the companies will go.

 

[fullstop]

One main advantage of mirrorless is the weight and size, but this does not work out in the real world on full frame mirrorless as the weight and size of lens itself is determined mostly by focal length, aperture and then a little by build quality. Of course you can (and some companies do) go a smaller body but then you have a weird unbalance with a fast zoom pro quality full frame lens.

Only a minority of people use fast zooms , long teles or other big lenses most of the time or all the time.

Most frequently used foal length range 24-85mm can profit massively from shorter Flange Focal Distance on mirrorless cameras. A mirrorless FF setup of camera + 16-35/4 plus 24-70/4 plus 24/2.0 plus 35/1.8 plus 50/1.8 plus 85/2.0 can be made *sgfnificantly more compact and lighter* than a DSLR setup. Need for faster lenses is much lower today, now that any decent camera delivers excellent IQ even at ISO 6400 and on FF subject isolation at f/2.8 is more than sufficient for many subjects/styles. I want such a setup, and many others want it too. And for birders, wildlifers, sports photogs there will be chunkier mirrorless cameras to go well with bigger lenses. No problem. There will be multiple models and sizes available. Just like with DSLRs.

So no need to constantly try and obfuscate or "explain away" the very real size and weight advantages mirrorless systems allow for and will bring for the vast majority of use cases and customers.

On top of that come all other advantages of mirrorless cameras. WYSIWIG EVF, 100% silent, 100% vibration-free, 100% free of moving mech parts, 100% lubricant-free - as soon as we finally get global shutter sensors - all the way to significantly lower cost thanks to much simpler calibration and QC routines and fully automated production - which will *hopefully* also lead to lower prices for us, the paying customers. Provided, we keep asking for it and pushing Canon and competitors, rather than "showing pre-emptive, endless understanding for their oligopolist profit maximizing at our expense" - as seen so often in this forum.