Is a native EF mount coming to a Canon full frame mirrorless camera? [CR1]

[ahsanford]

You are absolutely the king of visual aids (I'm jealous)... but that sure looks weird. The new lens style would have to be narrower to fit past the EF flange and then as wide as the EF flange to seal. I'm not convinced there will be such a hyper-hybrid mount. Then it still really is not beneficial on the tele lengths so it seems like a lot of trouble when a pancake lens will do. Would it be any benefit weight wise? Enough to make a difference?

I secretly love that EF-X idea because if Canon offered it, they wouldn't be stupid enough to make a jillion nested lenses like this. They'd just make the 3-5 of them that really make the size savings pop and then get on with making better EF lenses.

It is looking more and more like a skinny mirrorless and fatty mirrorless are coming.

One can hope. Presuming thin mount is inevitable, two mounts coming is best for EF's long-term survivorship. EF's not going anywhere for a very long time regardless of the mirrorless mount decision, but a thin-mount only mirrorless system might mean 'a very long time' is only 10-15 years. 'A-Mount is going away' worry will inevitably set in.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I completely agree with this. I’ve been saying the same thing. There is no reason why Canon can’t make a lens that protrudes behind the mount itself. Yes, it does seem odd, and unprotected, but I doesn’t have to be.

Really, there’s nothing sacred about the mount being the last thing on the lens. After all, rangefinder lenses have been doing this for many decades. It really solves some problems. Without needing strong retrofocus designs, new high speed wideangles can be made smaller again. Cannons mount is already pretty big. I just looked at mine. There’s a lot of room in there.

Maybe. See the discussion thread and have a look at the pros and cons and the subsequent discussion.

I think it's a really clever idea to save full EF for the long term, but it has some non-trivial drawbacks / question marks.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an...

Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?

Lest we forget, Canon used to sell one: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm

From Wikipedia:

"Despite its price and large maximum aperture, the 1.0L was not a particularly sharp lens at any aperture, and the two cheaper 50mm options offered far better sharpness when stopped down beyond about f/2.8. This, combined with the high production cost and low sales volume, led to it being discontinued in 2000 and eventually superseded by the f/1.2 edition."​

So please forgive my skepticism that Nikon (or anyone else for that matter) looking to f/1 bokeh to win the diminishing ILC market. It's radioactively expensive, the AF is finnicky, and the lens weighs something on the order of an F-150.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?

That's easy to answer, just check prices for a EF 50mm f/1.0L.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=canon+50mm+f/1.0

I also remember the f/0.95 lenses for the Canon Rangefinders. They were Leica Mount, L39 threaded.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1311.R4.TR4.TRC2.A0.H1.Xcanon+50mm+f/0.9.TRS0&_nkw=canon+50mm+f0.95+lens&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_odkw=canon+50mm+f/1.0

As to why the f/1.0 was discontinued, it likely did not sell enough copies, and a f/1.2 could be made better for less $$. The f/0.95 was pretty bad, basically a PJ lens for low light with the relatively slow film available then. I remember ASA 5 and 10 being sold.

 

[ahsanford]

Farce? Because you say it?
I didn't say sports photographers change, you did. Stop. Twice you try make me say something wrong. You bad at conversation. Very bad.

Why 1DM good? This possible:
* Frames per second - 20
* Shutter blackout - no
* Shutter noise - no

Forgive me, language leaves words out that take me a moment to understand. If I am reading you correctly, I have equated 1DX2 users exclusively with sports/wildlife users -- and you never said that. Those are not the only people that use these cameras. My apologies, you're absolutely correct there.

So you are saying Sony has an opportunity to steal 1DX2 business from general photographers with a high fps mirrorless supercamera, or said another way, there's a huge opportunity for a 1DM if Canon made one. Did I get that right?

If so, I have only one question to ask: why isn't the Sony A9 the #1 choice of the highest-end photographers in the world today? I mean: it does everything, right?

My answer:

• 20 fps / no shutter blackout / silent shooting are all really good things, but photographers value *other* things more -- like strong AF, handling, ergonomics, build quality, etc.
  
  
• 20 fps -- at least for Sony -- requires the use of a electronic shutter that has been problematic. Consider: the two A7 cameras Sony released after the A9 very prominently advertised that full burst speed was possible through their mechanical shutter. If the A9 e-shutter was such a huge success, why didn't we see a similar high fps e-shutter / low fps mechanical shutter setup with the A7 III and A7R III?
  
  
• 20 fps with tracking AF through liveview -- with no assistance of a standard SLR focusing setup -- will be very hard to pull off at the level of the 1DX2 today

Don't get me wrong, the specs of the A9 may very well win the market someday. But presently that camera is a Ferrari engine sitting on 4 bicycle wheels. It's a weightlifter who only does 'arms day' and he's built like the Hulk upstairs and Steve Urkel downstairs. It needs more supporting infrastructure, better ergonomics/handling, better software interface, less fine print on the highest speed settings, a working electronic shutter, etc. before it can truly fulfill the potential of the things it does well.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Farce? Because you say it?
Why 1DM good? This possible:
* Frames per second - 20
* Shutter blackout - no
* Shutter noise - no

Canon make 1DM then many used 1DX2 cheap on ebay. You like cheap 1Dx2, yes?

Now, getting back to your idea: a 1DM. An interesting one, no doubt, but we have to weigh that against what is possible in 2018.

I contend that such a camera will happen, but not anytime soon. For that camera to happen, Canon needs to develop some tech Sony has but Canon itself (to my knowledge) has never delivered:

• A blackout free EVF
• Either an electronic or FF-sized mechanical shutter capable of 20 fps
• Tracking AF (through DPAF only) that can muster 20 fps
• 20 fps X 24 MP (rough guess for a next 1-series camera) is higher MP x fps throughput than Canon has ever offered before

Of those 4 things, only the last one is right within Canon's grasp. 400 MP/s stills throughput is (seemingly) becoming standard and Canon will have to follow suit with their next higher end cameras. But the other three are not small things.

So, yes, I see the value in that camera -- but Canon hasn't demonstrated the ability to do this just yet. I still contend putting out something with lower performance requirements and much much much more forgiving users than the 1-series crowd makes 100% more sense than pursuing a 1DM in the near term. Put out a great '6DM' and '5DM' first, develop the tech further, and when Canon is ready a 1DM could arrive.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

1.2 is quite OK with me , even if I always like more light and shallower depth of field.
But my point is that i don’t see any reason to build a FF camera, and then cripple it with slow lenses, only in the pursuit of making it small. Nikon seem to be aiming for a low light monster with their new FF mirrorless and large aperture (NOCT?) lenses, which would be my choice of path for Canon as well. EF mount would be my preferred choice, but if they do intend to switch mounts, please make it larger, not smaller.

If the rumors are true, Nikon pursuing enormous pickle jar lenses may have nothing to do with mirrorless. One might contend they are only doing this because the door to a new mount has been kicked open for the first time in forever, and they don't want to repeat their small throat diameter errors of the past.

I agree completely that f/0.9 lenses will not endear NIkon to the 'keep it small' crowd.

It will, however, cleverly draw in some 'keep it seamless' bigger camera devotees. Put another way, if you are only going to go with one mount and you choose the thin one, dangling access to f/0.9 glass is a way to keep the other camp happy and possibly buy in to the system.

Skeptic of a thin new mount: "Why should I have to sell my glass and move to this new system? I don't care about it being smaller."

Nikon's answer: "Because this system has f/0.9 lenses."

- A

 

[TAF]

There is one very important date to keep in mind - December 15th.

If the new toys aren't in the stores by then (and that's really late), they won't be in the hands of the people who want them for Christmas, and that will never do.

What this means in practice is that the product needs to be on the container ship by October 15th at the latest.

Which means the factory needs to have all the production issues ironed out already, and will be spinning up to full rate production in the next few weeks.

Canon should teach a course in industrial security. They are really good at it.

 

[snoke]

Now, getting back to your idea: a 1DM. An interesting one, no doubt, but we have to weigh that against what is possible in 2018.

I never said 1DM in 2018, you make more up!

You said 1DX3, I said no 1DX3, 1DM instead.

 

[Rocky]

With a grip and space for f0.9 lens, it will not be small.

 

[snoke]

why isn't the Sony A9 the #1 choice of the highest-end photographers in the world today?

Like I already say: divorce bad. You married Canon, yes?

If the A9 e-shutter was such a huge success, why didn't we see a similar high fps e-shutter / low fps mechanical shutter setup with the A7 III and A7R III?

Why Canon only put some feature in one camera and not another? Maybe same reason.

 

[chik0240]

I am actually thinking as canon said in previous interview they have an interesting solution for EF Mount, why can’t they just go the G7x mk ii built in ND filter style, get an EF Mount with short flange distance, then if an EF lens is detected, an extra lens group will drop in to focus it onto the sensor, if a native lens for mirrorless camera then the extra lens is retracted

 

[bokehmon22]

In the instance of a new mount, a smaller more compact package.

In the instance of a mirrorless EF mount, what would it offer that you will not be able to get with a dSLR?
I can go to live view and shoot without a mirror now.

No lens calibration, IBIS, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, faster FPS (not a concern since I shoot wedding),no mirror box to reduce shutter life (time lapse), and lighter camera body.

Size isn't a concern for me, but any weight saving is welcome. Shooting with 24-70 II, 70-200, 135, new mount won't won't make a difference (see Sony FF mirrorless).

 

[bokehmon22]

The new mount must be a "significant upgrade", must be better, etc. are the wrong takes here, IMHO. Canon isn't trying to migrate current users to only use a new mount. That would be madness.

The new mount unlocks possibility to make a smaller overall apparatus and adapt competitive/old/third-party lenses, that's all. You may have no interest in that or only shoot big/fast FF glass that won't really benefit from a smaller body. That's fine -- just wait for the FF mirrorless body with a full EF mount.

But for a large chunk of the prospective mirrorless market (percentage is anyone's guess), mirrorless is all about the perception of being smaller, and a full EF mount cannot deliver that without some zany design shenanigans. For the 'mirrorless is all about being small' camp, it simply has to have a thinner mount or they won't look twice at it.

- A

I read your proposed hybrid mount camera. That's pretty awesome if true. It would satisfied most users.

Anyone know if it's possible for new FF mirrorless to have adapter for EF lens at least in theory.

 

[Kit.]

Not possible with a round sensor,

What makes you think so?

Mamiya 6 had a much larger sensor format (56mm x 56mm square), but was even smaller than 5D series without a grip.

unless it’s small, to fit an aps-c lens coverage.

An APS-C lens coverage round sensor would easily fit a much smaller camera, like A7III without a vertical grip.

 

[denstore]

Quite frankly, at this point in time, I think that super fast lenses, meaning anything faster than 1.4, are an unnecessary waste of R&D funding. I don’t know how old some of you guys are, but I’m 68, and remember quite well when a high quality film barely made 64 ASA. Even HSE was just ASA 120 indoors. We NEEDED high speed lenses then, even if they weren’t all that’s great.

I’m only )) 49, but I still shoot film at times (for the fun, nothing else); and I like things that gives me some extra leverage. That includes large apertures and preferably lots of IS, things that I didn’t have or could afford 30 years ago. But the main difference is that today I can’t blame the equipment, and I like it. But when I shoot digital, my mind doesn’t suddenly change, and say, great, I now have 6 steps of extra ISO, so I can shoot everything at f/5,6 or f/8. Maybe I want to keep that shallow depth of field, and crank down the shutter speed instead? Even the best of f/4 lenses can’t get the background blur I want.
I’ve so far never felt any great need of buying lighter lenses. Almost all the f/2.8 zooms I’ve owned were heavier than most of my large aperture primes. The f/4 zooms are lighter, but still not much lighter than even the heavier primes I favour.

These days, the lowest ISO speed is either 64, 100 or even 200. Normal shooting speeds are more often 200, or higher, with many cameras giving very high quality images at 400. We know that in the future, these ranges of highest quality will be pushed even Leica barely gets away with a rangefinder (simple mount) 50 f 1.2 for $11,000. How much would someone here be willing to pay for an L 50 f 1?

According to ebay, people are paying big bucks for the 50/1.0L, even if it can’t be serviced, and the autofocus is slow and imprecise. I would probably pay a bit more than I should to get a new 50/1.0L. Especially if it comes with IS and faster AF than the old one.

 

[PerKr]

No lens calibration, IBIS, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, faster FPS (not a concern since I shoot wedding),no mirror box to reduce shutter life (time lapse), and lighter camera body.

Size isn't a concern for me, but any weight saving is welcome. Shooting with 24-70 II, 70-200, 135, new mount won't won't make a difference (see Sony FF mirrorless).

Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.

Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.

Totally silent shooting is the biggest deal next to size savings (which Sony seem unable to really find any besides some wideangles) of replacing the flippy mirror solution with an EVF based one. I would say this is a must for any high-end mirrorless now. Being able to shoot wedding ceremonies without annoying anyone (other than those priests who would rather people stopped breathing so as to not disturb their work)

 

[applecider]

You may be right.

Or wrong.....

 

[applecider]

Now, I'm not an expert in CMOS fabrication by any means, but would it be possible to use the wasted corners of the circle to add some more circuitry for the sensor to use, eg RAM?

Anyway, I did a thing on the whole circular sensor thing a while back on my blog. http://www.everyothershot.com/whats-better-full-frame-sensor-circular-sensor-course where I go on and on about how wonderful an idea it is.

Of course it'll never happen.

A wafer made with circles is going to have way more wasted silicon than share or rectangular etching. Since final cost depends on yield and chips per wafer, circles are going to increase cost, does anyone want that?

 

[bokehmon22]

Would people just stop saying IBIS is mirrorless tech? Minolta. Maxxum/Dynax/Alpha 7D. And a few bridge cameras before that.

Also, non of this requires a mirrorless solution. Sony could have done all this in their SLT series (and almost did).
Unless we are saying that mirrorless just means not having a flapping mirror specifically.

Totally silent shooting is the biggest deal next to size savings (which Sony seem unable to really find any besides some wideangles) of replacing the flippy mirror solution with an EVF based one. I would say this is a must for any high-end mirrorless now. Being able to shoot wedding ceremonies without annoying anyone (other than those priests who would rather people stopped breathing so as to not disturb their work)

I don't know the history of camera, but I only see it in Sony & rumored Nikon FF mirrorless. Still, there are other features I would like
No lens calibration, eyeAF, WYISWYG EVF, and silent shutter just giving the previous poster why some people want mirror less tech.

I shoot weddings. I don't see silent as a huge deal compared to other features. Canon 5D IV is good enough for me.