What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
435
dsut4392 said:
dak723 said:
dsut4392 said:
dak723 said:
Here are those smaller and lighter lenses that the short flange distance will bring us:
(similar pro lenses compared)

35mm f/1.4
Sony 78.5 x 112mm, 630 g
Canon 80.4 x 105.5mm, 760 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

85mm f/1.4
Sony 89.5 x 107.5mm, 820 g
Canon 88.6 x 105mm, 950 g

Sony slightly larger, canon slightly heavier.

24-105mm f/4.0


Sony 83.4 x 113.3mm, 663 g
Canon 83.5 x 118mm, 795 g

Canon slightly larger and heavier.

24-70mm

Sony 87.6 x 136mm, 886 g
Canon 88.5 x 113mm, 805 g

Canon smaller and lighter

70-200mm
Sony 88 x 200mm, 1480 g
Canon 89 x199mm, 1490 g

Almost identical.

Judge for yourself, but I see almost no difference in FF lens sizes with a short flange distance.
Hmm, I see about 480g weight difference for the lenses, then add another 200g for the body. 680g weight difference is not to be sneezed at. And that's just for the 'Pro' lenses. If you consider that a smaller aperture lens stands to benefit more from the shorter flange distance, then those people who are prepared to compromise some IQ to save weight would see an even bigger saving in weight, and a significant saving in bulk. e.g. Canon 24-70/4 =600g
Sony 24-70/4 = 426g
Sony 28-70/3.5-5.6 = 295g

My friends that have switched to Sony did it for size and weight reasons initially, but have now replaced many of their big L-series lenses with native G series and Zeiss Batis lenses for times when the weight doesn't matter (because of poor AF performance of the adapted lens, not poor optical performance).

If you don't want reduced size from a mirrorless camera, what do you want that you couldn't get from an SLR in live view with a hybrid viewfinder?
Very clever! Yes, if you add up all the comparable lenses, you will save some weight! Of course, I only have one lens on my camera at a time. So I guess I don't really see your point.

I never said I don't want reduced size from a mirrorless. What I am saying is that the size reduction that many folks here seem to want or think likely to happen isn't really possible. Nor is the size and weight dependent on the mount as the SL-1 clearly indicates. When Canon does come out with a FF mnirrorless, I would be very disappointed if it was not smaller and lighter than its DSLR counterparts. It can do so with an EF mount. If it has the same 18mm mount as Sony, I wouldn't even consider it, because I can not afford the high priced lenses that would be necessary to overcome the optical issues that the short flange distance creates. I have tried the Sony FF - and with the cheaper kit lenses that do not correct for the short flange distance, you get burned.

Like most folks, I shoot with the viewfinder, so whatever is possible in live view is irrelevant. Nor does any camera I have a "hybrid" viewfinder, which would certainly be welcome. My reason for now having 2 mirrorless cameras rather than DSLRs is very simple - I really like - and have gotten used to having - WYSIWIG exposure in the viewfinder. It is a huge advantage, in my opinion.
How are the other focal length lenses in your bag any less relevant than the one lens mounted? The weight reduction of 680g was based on a reasonable kit of real-life lenses (and in fact it actually grows if you omit the 24-70s which overlap the 24-105s), yet you say it "really isn't possible". What's your opinion on the moon landings out of interest, did they not happen either?

As has been pointed out in this thread and others is that many of Sonys lens design contraints are a factor of the diameter of the E-mount as much as the are to do with the flange focal distance. Is Canon likely to use E-mount?
Sorry that I upset you by making my list of comparable lenses. I was just personally curious as to the differences in the lens lineup between Canon and what will likely be one of their two main competitors when they all enter the mirrorless FF lineup. Then I shared what I learned, which, I realize now, was a big mistake, as folks here are not actually interested in factual information - aside from the authenticity of the moon landings, which I am quite sure actually happened as they were big news at the time. I am fairly certain the lenses I listed above are real and that the size and weight information is factual, although - now that I think about it - I have not actually seen any of the Sony lenses in real life.

I am not an optical engineer, so I shouldn't have said "isn't really possible." I should have said, "it isn't likely to happen, in my opinion." Thank you for making me see the error in my ways. Since my issues with weight are more about the camera I am actually carrying, not the weight of a full camera bag, which I rarely carry, and would more likely be in the front seat, or perhaps the trunk of my car, (and when I do carry it, never has more than 2, maybe 3 lenses in it), thank you for pointing out that a real photographer like you would have 5 maybe 6 lenses in their bag. So, yes, the cumulative weight would matter.

Sorry that my comments - and my list of lenses - so upset you that you felt you needed to personally attack my sanity (re: moon landing belief). Have a good day. :)
 

AvTvM

EOS 5D MK IV
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
the facts you state are objective. But - as has been pointed out - they are no evidence whatsoever that those Sony FE lenses represent the "smallest and lightest possible lens design" for other mirrorless FF systems. Actually, quite far from it. Sony FE lenses are only one possible implementation of a mirrorless FF mount and lens ecosystem ... one that is fundamentally flawed and hampered by using a lens mount that really is "optimized for APS-C image circle" also for an FF system. Chosen out of marketing considerations at the time.
 

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
It may be useful to look at the constraints that Canon faces and how they may influence their FF mirrorless design.

1. Canon is not only a camera gear company. It is also an office equipment company. I believe that Canon CEO indicated recently that they are going to shift more resources to the fast growing office equipment divisions. This is a sound business decision, as per standard business rules. The implication: less money for camera R&D.

2. Canon is not a large scale manufacturer of sensors, as opposed to Sony who manufacture hundreds of millions of sensors (40% of smartphone camera market). The implication: relatively little money for base image sensor R&D. Possible solution: close/sell the image sensor division; buy sensors from Sony, as Nikon does.

3. Shrinking camera market. The implication for a multi division company like Canon: put your shrinking division into milking cow status. Milk the market.

4. What really keeps Canon users loyal? EF lenses. 130 million of them. The implication: keep EF mount at all cost. No new mount, there is no R&D money for it anyway.

Personally, I believe that Canon will treat the mount issue as a seamless transition problem. By analogy, Apple migrated their computer customers from IBM RISC architecture to Intel x86 architecture essentially seamlessly. Technically this is a nightmare. Users did not notice. What was important for the users? That their applications would work on the new computers. And they did.
For Canon users the EF lenses are all important. Continuing use of EF mount will make the migration a non issue. That is it. There is also a future opportunity here for Canon to design lenses utilising the space behind the EF mount plane previously reserved for the mirror.

5. Constrain: not enough processing power and bandwidth to memory and media to implement 4K 60 Hz non-binned video and fancy processing like e.g. Eye-AF. Solution: Redevelop the processing string. Benefit: reuse in future DSLRs.

-----------------------

Canon has also an opportunity to redevelop the overall shape and ergonomics of the new FF mirrorless camera. Todays DSLRs still have the same shape as the first SLRs from 70 years ago when lenses were tiny and you had to have space in the body for the film cassette and take up roll. Objectively, this shape is ergonomically unsatisfactory for use with modern large and heavy lenses. You need to keep your left hand under the lens to balance. Perhaps a shape of the body more akin to Hasselblad 6x6 but with additional grip protruding forward from underneath the camera would be better.
 

bwud

EOS RP
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
Talys said:
bwud said:
I asked this question in another thread but it wasn’t answered. I have only an elementary understanding of optics, so am curious:

Is is *not possible* due to the physics, or did it just *not happen* with this specific manufacturer’s lens lineup?

It it impossible to realize weight reduction from a shorter mount? Obviously longer lenses optically must be longer physically, and wider apertures require a wider apparent iris, which is limited by the front element. However a statement was made that Sony’s mount is inefficient for 135-format. If true, is that playing into the magnitude of the weight difference? If so, how much?
To say that it's a physics limitation should be qualified to, "it's not possible using available materials and available technology."
Thanks for the lengthy response Talys.

Would you say then that the mount (in particular the diameter and flange distance) is immaterial/minor factor to lens length, diameter, and element count with all else being equal (most particular: focal length, maximum aperture, and format size)?

I’m not particularly concerned with size and weight. Lighter and smaller would be nice to have but it’s not mandatory. The lenses I have for my Sony setup are on par with my similar canon lenses, if not heavier. I was just curious if they had to do with the alleged flaw in Sony’s mount geometry for 135-format as opposed to physical limitations of optics.
 

angrykarl

R, M5
Jul 19, 2017
55
46
Prague
www.flickr.com
I have a question, which may have been answered in some previous thread, but I just can't find it.

Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount? By that I mean a mount fully compatible with EF lenses, but also compatible with some new type of MILC-only lenses protruding more into the camera to shorten the flange focal distance? Because that's essentially what EF-S lenses do apart from covering smaller image circle, right? Or have I misunderstood the concept of EF-S? :)
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,355
2,078
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Chris Jankowski said:
It may be useful to look at the constraints that Canon faces and how they may influence their FF mirrorless design...
While I don't generally disagree with your basic premises, I think there is more nuance than you realize.

Canon is more than a camera company, but the bulk of its recent investments seems to be in the imaging business, particularly in medical and surveillance. It is not unreasonable to believe that R&D investments in these areas will pay dividends for its camera division, particularly in the area of low-light imaging, which Canon has been pursuing aggressively on a number of fronts.

Sony is a huge manufacturer of sensors, but manufacturing volume does not automatically translate into more dollars for R&D. At some point the economies of scale hits diminishing returns and simply stamping out billions of sensors for cell phones doesn't equate to innovation.

While cameras and lenses may not be the bulk of Canon's business today, it remains its defining business. Canon is well aware of that and invests heavily in marketing their image as a camera company. Sony, on the other hand, is a consumer electronics company and a producer of media. That's their core identity. Their camera division could disappear overnight and it would have little impact on the company.

There is no evidence that Canon is "milking" the market. Instead they are investing heavily in related industries like medical and surveillance imaging and retooling their camera lines to focus on where they perceive the market to be going, focusing more resources on the highly lucrative enthusiast market.

If what you are saying is that all signs point to an EF-Mount full frame mirrorless, I would agree. I just would point out that you are misreading some of the signs along the route.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,300
538
angrykarl said:
I have a question, which may have been answered in some previous thread, but I just can't find it.

Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount? By that I mean a mount fully compatible with EF lenses, but also compatible with some new type of MILC-only lenses protruding more into the camera to shorten the flange focal distance? Because that's essentially what EF-S lenses do apart from covering smaller image circle, right? Or have I misunderstood the concept of EF-S? :)
The question has come up a few times, but I haven't seen any meaningful responses. It certainly bears on the question of whether Canon might introduce a short flange mount optimized for FF.
 

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
In response to BillB:

>>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount?

Mechanically and electrically EF-S is identical to EF i.e. there is no such thing like EF-S mount strictly speaking. There exist EF-S lenses that differ from regular EF lenses only by having rear elements protruding closer to the sensor. This is possible for APS-C cameras only, because their mirror is smaller than FF cameras mirror. This is also why you cannot use EF-S lenses in FF Canon DSLRs, as they would obstruct the flapping mirror path.

So, a mirrorless FF camera with EF mount will certainly be able to use both EF and EF-S lenses without restrictions other then the image circle i.e. an EF-S lense will not automagically become a FF lens. Moreover, it would be possible to design new FF lenses that would have the rear elements protruding even closer to the sensor. These lenses could only be used with the FF mirrorless, not with any Canon DSLRs. These lenses have the potential to be cheaper and smaller in certain cases, as they might avoid the need for retro focus type of a design.

I hope this is clear now.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
To avoid confusion on the part of consumers, Canon's line of full frame mirrorless lenses will be called EF-L because they are for cameras that Lack a mirror.

;D
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
Chris Jankowski said:
In response to BillB:

>>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount?
Mechanically and electrically EF-S is identical to EF i.e. there is no such thing like EF-S mount strictly speaking.
[/quote]

Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
3kramd5 said:
Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
Yes, but there's a simple solution…a full frame mirrorless camera could simply use the EF-S style of mount, which accepts both EF and EF-S lenses.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,300
538
Chris Jankowski said:
In response to BillB:

>>>Is it possible for the future Canon fullframe MILC to have a variation of EF-S mount?

Mechanically and electrically EF-S is identical to EF i.e. there is no such thing like EF-S mount strictly speaking. There exist EF-S lenses that differ from regular EF lenses only by having rear elements protruding closer to the sensor. This is possible for APS-C cameras only, because their mirror is smaller than FF cameras mirror. This is also why you cannot use EF-S lenses in FF Canon DSLRs, as they would obstruct the flapping mirror path.

So, a mirrorless FF camera with EF mount will certainly be able to use both EF and EF-S lenses without restrictions other then the image circle i.e. an EF-S lense will not automagically become a FF lens. Moreover, it would be possible to design new FF lenses that would have the rear elements protruding even closer to the sensor. These lenses could only be used with the FF mirrorless, not with any Canon DSLRs. These lenses have the potential to be cheaper and smaller in certain cases, as they might avoid the need for retro focus type of a design.

I hope this is clear now.
Very clear. Thank you
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
neuroanatomist said:
3kramd5 said:
Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
Yes, but there's a simple solution…a full frame mirrorless camera could simply use the EF-S style of mount, which accepts both EF and EF-S lenses.
Duh
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,639
2,153
3kramd5 said:
neuroanatomist said:
3kramd5 said:
Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
Yes, but there's a simple solution…a full frame mirrorless camera could simply use the EF-S style of mount, which accepts both EF and EF-S lenses.
Duh
It is obvious, I wasn't sure why you seemed confused.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,300
538
neuroanatomist said:
3kramd5 said:
neuroanatomist said:
3kramd5 said:
Except aren’t EF-S lenses designed such that they physically interfere when mounted to a full frame camera?
Yes, but there's a simple solution…a full frame mirrorless camera could simply use the EF-S style of mount, which accepts both EF and EF-S lenses.
Duh
It is obvious, I wasn't sure why you seemed confused.
If you want FF mirrorless lenses that protrudes deeper than the EF-S standard, maybe an EF compatible mount that prevents mounting on both EF and EF-S DSLR's would be useful.. This might be called an EF-W or EF-Y -- something like that.
 

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
In response to BillB:

>>>>>If you want FF mirrorless lenses that protrudes deeper than the EF-S standard, maybe an EF compatible mount that prevents mounting on both EF and EF-S DSLR's would be useful.

In principle, it is simple to do a small cut out in the mount on an FF mirrorless and a matching key on a deeply protruding lens. However, I believe that this was not done by Canon for EF-S lenses, so why should it be done now for the new lenses. Moreover, one may wish to use the new lens on a DSLR with mirror lifted up and using Live View. This will work, so why to prevent it?

I think that Canon has the right to expect some minimum intelligence from their customers. I know it is a dangerous assumption :)-)).
 

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
In response to BillB:

In addition, such a cut out and key solution will prevent use of the new lenses with anything that currently may go at the back of an EF lens - macro rings, adapters to the Canon M series, adapters for other mirrorless cameras such as Sony A7/A9, various microscope and telescope adapters, third party extenders, etc.

For all of these devices new versions would need to be issued or a lot of DYI work with a file or hacksaw will have to happen.

Canon has no business in making their lenses harder to use whichever way people want to use them.
 

Valvebounce

EOS 5D SR
Apr 3, 2013
4,328
243
53
Isle of Wight
Hi Chris.
First of all, every Canon camera of mine releases mirror lockup or live view as you start to remove the lens making it extremely risky to try deep lenses on FF bodies, and then there is the fact that lots of people don’t read manuals, so have no idea why the EF-S lenses don’t fit the FF bodies only that they tried and it won’t go!

Cheers, Graham.

Chris Jankowski said:
Moreover, one may wish to use the new lens on a DSLR with mirror lifted up and using Live View. This will work, so why to prevent it?

I think that Canon has the right to expect some minimum intelligence from their customers. I know it is a dangerous assumption :)-)).
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,417
1,564
Alberta, Canada
Left this thread a while back to conserve time but ran across this article which made me smile. Back to the future it is, I guess - Reflex cameras.

I found it interesting when he comments, "I don't like ..."

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/using-optical-viewfinders-on-cameras-that-already-have-viewing?utm_medium=Email%201663751&utm_campaign=Content&utm_source=WeeklyContent%20180204&utm_content=Explora&utm_term=using-optical-viewfinders-on-cameras-that-already-have-viewing

Anyone using these here?

Jack
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,262
1,918
Canada
Valvebounce said:
Hi Chris.
First of all, every Canon camera of mine releases mirror lockup or live view as you start to remove the lens making it extremely risky to try deep lenses on FF bodies, and then there is the fact that lots of people don’t read manuals, so have no idea why the EF-S lenses don’t fit the FF bodies only that they tried and it won’t go!

Cheers, Graham.

Chris Jankowski said:
Moreover, one may wish to use the new lens on a DSLR with mirror lifted up and using Live View. This will work, so why to prevent it?

I think that Canon has the right to expect some minimum intelligence from their customers. I know it is a dangerous assumption :)-)).
agreed!

Now a FF mirrorless..... that's a different story!