Two Prosumer Mirrorless Camera Bodies in Development [CR2]

[vjlex]

I wouldn't mind if this was a regular EF mount with a step-down adapter to attach EF-M lenses. I have way more EF lenses than EF-M (as do probably most Canon owners).

 

[Talys]

I've never used an active lens adapter, but I was just watching a review of the Sony A7III, and the vlogger used EF lenses for the whole thing. The thing is, he didn't even talk about that part, he just used the canon glass as if it was a completely normal way to use (and test) a Sony mirrorless. Now, that's just one person, I know. But it does seem like Sony has paved the way for both the adapter technology, and the adapter mindset.

But if you actually use it -- as opposed to a scripted scenario where it looks like it works -- it is painful compared to native lens. Half the time those things don't even autofocus; and with almost all lenses you're choosing between missing out half autofocus modes or being forced to use contrast detection autofocus.

Personally, I think it's a scam to get people to buy Sony with the promise of, "hey, all your EF lenses will work!" and then piss them off so bad that they go blow $3k - $10k in FE lenses.

I'd say YMMV, but I won't, because I tried both Metabones V and Sigma MC-11, plus at least 10 lenses from Canon and Sigma, and there wasn't a single one where I went, "wow, that works pretty much like a native lens". Every one was varying degrees of, "wtf, who would put up with that after they blew $3000 on a camera body?"

I wouldn't mind if this was a regular EF mount with a step-down adapter to attach EF-M lenses. I have way more EF lenses than EF-M (as do probably most Canon owners).

Won't work, because an EF-M needs to be closer to the sensor plane than an EF allows (shorter flange distance).

 

[vjlex]

I wouldn't mind if this was a regular EF mount with a step-down adapter to attach EF-M lenses. I have way more EF lenses than EF-M (as do probably most Canon owners).

Won't work, because an EF-M needs to be closer to the sensor plane than an EF allows (shorter flange distance).

partially concave adapter maybe?

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

I envision this solution: a mount with:

1. A normal bayonet mount on the inside diameter of the mount to mount their new line of native mirrorless lenses.

2. A breech lock mount (a la FL/FD mount) on the outside diameter of the mount to strongly, securely and precisely hold the EF adapter. This part of the mount can be deleted in lower priced models.

This solution lets you have the best of both worlds: the ease of use of a bayonet mount for all native lenses, and the strength and precision needed to securely locate an adapter so that it would work as if it were a solid part of the camera .

 

[Yasko]

Oh... a really nice solution for ef lenses. May be an adapter? :

 

[AvTvM]

Oh... a really nice solution for ef lenses. May be an adapter? :

sure. "what else" ?

there may possibly be 2 versions:
a) "extension tube with wiring" ... simple, compact, reliable, relatively inexpensive, like Canon EF/EF-M adapter
b) " smoke and mirror" version equivalent to Sony LA-EA4 with semi-translucent fixed mirror and phase-af sensor unit. sold for 499 bucks or more to all folks who don't want to miss AFMA even in the mirrorless world ...
;D

 

[tmc784]

"Solution" implies a problem. The only place this should even be a problem is on a Sony body. Not Canon's own.

If the new camera is not a native EF mount then it is a problem for owners of EF lenses. Is it that hard to understand?

Loud and clear, so I won't buy it.

 

[maxfactor9933]

my solution for EF mount is canon should provide service to convert EF lenses let say FM with let say 100 USD charge. so they kinda open the lens bayonet and mount the spacer sort of permanently.

 

[ewg963]

Time will tell all. :-X :-X :-X

 

[padam]

The EF mount is used by their flagship video cameras, so it is here to stay. So no conversion (what's the point of making it less universal anyway, Canon EF-M and adapted EF lens with STM work exactly the same way)
Based on the patents there is a possibility of an added mirror box (modular DSLR design) or with a built-in electronic ND filter for video. These may come later at a high price and a 'normal' adapter will be there surely.
The camera could gain better video features compared to the 5D Mark IV and priced between that and the 1DX II and the lower end one would be over the 6D II and built more like the M5. Of course, there will be a few new, smaller lenses for the new mount, but it will rely heavily on EF lenses.
I reckon Nikon will do pretty much the same as well.

Of course later we may also see a hybrid viewfinder in a 1DX III, keeping the same build.

 

[Deleted member 380306]

Realistically when will this MLFF arrive? As not yet confirmed from Canon could it be out in 2019 or maybe we'll see this in 2018. As many of you seem up to speed on camera development/speculation you thoughts would be helpful...

 

[padam]

If prototypes really do exist, it should arrive later this year.

(5D IV prototypes were reported in March 2016, camera was released in the end of August 2016)

 

[Ozarker]

So pretty much my prediction was correct - a new mount.

I was also predicting a camera somewhere between the 5D and 6D capabilities. Looking at the rumor, a 5D level camera would make sense as the users who use 5D are more likely to but the new camera and lenses. The 2 obvious groups are wedding/portait using the new lenses and sports/wildlife using an adapter with EF lenses.

not exactly a hard one, you had two choices, a new mount or an existing one.

Nope, but most of the posters were of the opinion that it made no sense for Canon to go with a new mount!

Ummm... how can your prediction be correct? There is no spec sheet yet and the camera hasn't been announced. We don't know what the mount will be.

Besides, if it is a hybrid mount (half EF and half "something else") you'd be only 50% right... which is an easy fail at any school. "F"

At any rate, predictions are like a holes... : Facts are another matter, and we have none.

 

[Stuart]

2 Mirrorless bodies - Both Video targeted? I hope not.
Mirrorless means less component cost - cheaper cameras?

Mirrorless should mean faster FPS, full time AF, and true silent operation. - I'm less bothered about the actual mount as long as i can use old EF lenses.

Does Mirrorless also facilitate a shallower DOF, or easier wide angle lenses?

 

[Ozarker]

Realistically when will this MLFF arrive? As not yet confirmed from Canon could it be out in 2019 or maybe we'll see this in 2018. As many of you seem up to speed on camera development/speculation you thoughts would be helpful...

I speculate that a camera will be released sometime in the next 5 years. It will be in one of the four seasons of one of those years.

Just saying this so that I can later say that I was right about something and so that I can let the forum know I was right so the members can bow to me. :

Seriously though, nobody knows so can't be helpful at all.

 

[Diltiazem]

I think Canon can and should go with EF mount to start with. At the moment everything is temporary as far as the mirrorless goes. Canon has time to sort out new mount/adapter or other technology in next 5 to 10 years. At the moment it would be foolish to do anything other than simple EF mount.

 

[Ozarker]

Mirrorless means less component cost...

And you know this because? Just because the mirror box isn't there doesn't mean the camera costs less to produce, component wise or otherwise. The price will be whatever the market will bear.

 

[Chris Jankowski]

Mirrorless camera should be cheaper to manufacture than DSLR of the same functionality.

The simple reasons for this are that you remove a number of opto-mechanical components that are expensive to manufacture and require precise i.e. costly alignment in the manufacturing process.

You remove pentaprism and other optical parts of the viewfinder including diopter adjuster, slapping mirror with another mirror section for PDAF, and PDAF sensor itself,

For example, only the costly EOS 5D and EOS 1D give you precise 100% viewfinder coverage in FF Canon DSLRs. On a mirrorless this is easy and essentially comes free.

You need to add EVF, but this is an electronic component with a simple diopter adjustmant.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mirrorless means less component cost - cheaper cameras?

Why would they pass those savings along to customers? Mirrorless means 'hot new tech' which means premium pricing. Premium price plus lower production cost means even more profit.

 

[Mikehit]

Mirrorless camera should be cheaper to manufacture than DSLR of the same functionality.

The simple reasons for this are that you remove a number of opto-mechanical components that are expensive to manufacture and require precise i.e. costly alignment in the manufacturing process.

You remove pentaprism and other optical parts of the viewfinder including diopter adjuster, slapping mirror with another mirror section for PDAF, and PDAF sensor itself,

For example, only the costly EOS 5D and EOS 1D give you precise 100% viewfinder coverage in FF Canon DSLRs. On a mirrorless this is easy and essentially comes free.

You need to add EVF, but this is an electronic component with a simple diopter adjustmant.

So why are Sony cameras not significantly lower cost than Canon cameras?