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

[BillB]

1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent".

EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.

No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)

Compact, constant aperture f/4 wide- to standard EF-M zooms might be a possibility but in the end probably too high a price category for majority of EOS M buyers. After all, it is "APS-C only". People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D

2. New native mirrorless "EF-X?" mount is not "abandoning EF mount". Going from long to shorter FFD makes transition simple, wuite the opposite of 1987 FD to EF move. There will be 100% fully functional compatibilty with any and all EF lenses ever made - to the extent DSLR-lenses can possibly be made compatible with mirrorless cameras - especially as far as AF systems go that were designed decades ago for pure Phase-AF operation]. All that's needed is a little mount adaptor ... that could also be permanently fixed as to mirrorless cam for those who prefer to have a "pig snout" up front on their cameras.

Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again. "Holy cow, sacred EF mount". Without understanding nature of move to shorter FFD. Neither EF mount nor EF-lens owners will be "abandoned". We will be nicely "soft-transitioned" to new native mirrorless mount. Everything keeps working. Everybody can take the move from DSLR + EF to mirrorless + EF-X? at their own speed. Or as soon as superior new lenses come out and G.A.S. runs rampant.

The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.

 

[Mikehit]

1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts. And broad enough. Everything coverd from 11 to 200mm. It matches interests of target group just fine: very compact and budget-friendly and optically anywhere from "decent to excellent".

EF-M lens lineup is actually the biggest upside of Canon EOS M system compared to its competitors [Fuji, Sony, mFT]. Others may have (slightly) better camera bodies, but lenses like EF-M 22/2.0 or EF-M 11-22 are either not be had at or at twice or three times the price only. And then much bulkier and with unnecessary features like ... pseudo-mechanical aperture rings.

No wonder, Canon M system sells like hotcakes. It's really simple: Decent, compact, reasonably priced cameras and very decent, very compact and very reasonably priced crop lenses. 8)

Compact, constant aperture f/4 wide- to standard EF-M zooms might be a possibility but in the end probably too high a price category for majority of EOS M buyers. After all, it is "APS-C only". People willing to spend serious money on lenses typically go for FF image circle, not for crop. At least I do, and looking at market data, many others as well. ;D

2. New native mirrorless "EF-X?" mount is not "abandoning EF mount". Going from long to shorter FFD makes transition simple, wuite the opposite of 1987 FD to EF move. There will be 100% fully functional compatibilty with any and all EF lenses ever made - to the extent DSLR-lenses can possibly be made compatible with mirrorless cameras - especially as far as AF systems go that were designed decades ago for pure Phase-AF operation]. All that's needed is a little mount adaptor ... that could also be permanently fixed as to mirrorless cam for those who prefer to have a "pig snout" up front on their cameras.

Why is this so difficult to understand for some? Over and over again. "Holy cow, sacred EF mount". Without understanding nature of move to shorter FFD. Neither EF mount nor EF-lens owners will be "abandoned". We will be nicely "soft-transitioned" to new native mirrorless mount. Everything keeps working. Everybody can take the move from DSLR + EF to mirrorless + EF-X? at their own speed. Or as soon as superior new lenses come out and G.A.S. runs rampant.

Not even your beloved Sony have solved the issue of getting people to buy FF as their first ILC: in fact, just the opposite, they seem to rely on getting committed FF users to switch from CaNikon rather than develop their own grass roots following. One reason Sony are convinced that a smaller body is the best way (including the A9 which many users say would ideally be bigger) is that smaller body = thinner mount - opportunity to get people to use lenses from another model. They had to do it to start off, let alone survive.
Canon does not have that imperative, so they can afford to listen to what users actually want.

So we come back to a question that I asked many moons ago in a slightly different context and you never answered then and I don't really expect you to answer now - where is the marketing imperative for Canon to take the higher risk option of introducing a narrower mount now?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So we come back to a question that I asked many moons ago in a slightly different context and you never answered then and I don't really expect you to answer now - where is the marketing imperative for Canon to take the higher risk option of introducing a narrower mount now?

I thought he covered that...because he wants it, precious. He wants it and he must haves it.

That, and the millions of people whose opinions he claims to represent. : :

 

[3kramd5]

A mirrorless system with EF mount makes very little sense. I does not deliver any of the benefits a short-flanged new mount optimized for mirrorless cameras bring. Nothing except backwards compatibility with EF lenses, which can easily be had with a simple, little ADAPTER.

Well plenty of good reasons have been presented on both sides. You're ignoring the pro-EF side. Be biased and blinkered if you want, but don't pretend you're not. Once again, can you clearly state what the 'benefits of a short-flanged new mount' are, besides smaller size <80mm focal length?

very simple. A new slim mount allows - amongst many other things - for a ultra-compact and ultra-capable full-frame sensored digital cameras and lenses - in the most frequently used focal length range.

Bandwidth is cheap. Can you please name them?

I’ll take the three AvTvM posts which follow this and discuss “size” and “bulk” as a “no I can not.”

I do however look forward to being shown otherwise.

 

[Talys]

I didn’t explain myself well..... what I typed and what I as trying to say are very different.... please let me try again....

With the 50 F1.4, you have a reasonably small lens. The demand for new versions of that lens is to have higher and higher quality, and in order to deliver on that demand for increased quality, the physical size of the second party options has grown considerably. You can’t deliver both high quality and small size, one has to choose.

I think that the market for FF cameras is looking for the best quality possible, and my opinion is that they are not going to settle on buying a collection of newer lenses of lower IQ.... and that means that they will stick with EF.

Ahhh, I understand, now

Yes, I completely agree that the market for full frame cameras is to maximize quality. Keeping it smaller or lighter is still desirable, but secondary. You can see it in a lot of Mark II (or next version) Canon L lenses -- they sometimes get a little heavier or lighter, but you never see them claw back image quality. And the target market gets really miffed if any part of the focal or aperture range is inferior -- like with 24-105L II being reportedly very slightly worse at the wide end.

In my opinion, APSC or MFT just makes more sense if someone wants a smaller package. It's not like those are terrible sensor sizes.

 

[Talys]

The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.

That's awfully optimistic.

It'd be more like $3,000 - $4,000 for an EF-X camera, about 3-4+ zooms at $2,000+ a piece, and some primes at $1,000+ each to have "essential tools" if you like a variety of stuff.

If I'm to replace my existing kit, I can't imagine not being able to cover from at least 16mm to 200mm in constant aperture zooms, with at least 2 out of 3 of those being f/2.8 and the third f/4 or f/2.8. I would really miss a 100-400, and then I would want a replacement for a 150-600 if I'm to go birding. I would need a macro prime 85mm-100mm range, as well as some type of portrait prime, though they could potentially be the same lens, and something wide.

And that's not even getting into stuff like a 135L2, which I don't "need", but I'd sure miss, a 50mm, and pancakes.

Plus, a portrait orientation grip, wired and wireless remote triggers. And a wireless flash system that supported HSS, plus at least 3-4 flashes, if they changed RT. Another L bracket is inevitable.

It's a big investment, man. I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine getting into new FF mount body + lenses for less than $10,000. Even if I didn't buy it all at one go, it wouldn't take long.

 

[BillB]

The question for several of us seems to be why, rather than why not. What is so difficult to understand about that? Assuming a $2500 cost for an EF-X camera and a couple of zooms at $750 apiece, that is $4000 to buy into the game. And my guess that the introductory prices would be higher than that if Canon takes the time to make sure they have done it right. Canon would have to get its up front money out of it somehow.

That's awfully optimistic.

It'd be more like $3,000 - $4,000 for an EF-X camera, about 3-4+ zooms at $2,000+ a piece, and some primes at $1,000+ each to have "essential tools" if you like a variety of stuff.

If I'm to replace my existing kit, I can't imagine not being able to cover from at least 16mm to 200mm in constant aperture zooms, with at least 2 out of 3 of those being f/2.8 and the third f/4 or f/2.8. I would really miss a 100-400, and then I would want a replacement for a 150-600 if I'm to go birding. I would need a macro prime 85mm-100mm range, as well as some type of portrait prime, though they could potentially be the same lens, and something wide.

And that's not even getting into stuff like a 135L2, which I don't "need", but I'd sure miss, a 50mm, and pancakes.

Plus, a portrait orientation grip, wired and wireless remote triggers. And a wireless flash system that supported HSS, plus at least 3-4 flashes, if they changed RT. Another L bracket is inevitable.

It's a big investment, man. I can't speak for others, but I cannot imagine getting into new FF mount body + lenses for less than $10,000. Even if I didn't buy it all at one go, it wouldn't take long.

Well, it wouldn't cost that much because most of the stuff you are talking about wouldn't be available in an EF-X mount any time soon, but that's ok. With AvTvM's RX1-R form factor, you probably want to have a bigger rig around anyway. The pop up EVF bothers me at least as much as the adapters.

 

[dak723]

1. Despite constant whimpering by some, Canon EF-M lens lineup is "perfectly right" on all counts.

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster? For the new FF camera - these slower lenses will absolutely not cut it. People will want Pro level cameras - that means fast lenses. And that means big - as big as the lenses on my previous list.

 

[BurningPlatform]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Also, as they seem to be (my guess) releasing an EF-M mount video centric mirrorless camera, they will keep releasing new lenses for EF-M.

Otherwise, they probably need to release two FF mirrorless cameras in rapid succession, one for the video centric audience and another with high resolution. And the third one will probably be the first real pro model.

Anyway, interesting times ahead.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth.

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be cheaper, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).

For the new FF camera - these slower lenses will absolutely not cut it. People will want Pro level cameras - that means fast lenses. And that means big - as big as the lenses on my previous list.

Agreed – FF and APS-C are different beasts.

 

[Don Haines]

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth.

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be cheaper, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

 

[DaviSto]

It's good that you are happy with your gear. From a market standpoint, Canon doesn't need to 'woo' Sony FF users, so everyone wins.

So Canon wins as they have pretty much lost a customer (me)? Not sure how losing customers is a win for them. I can think of about 10 people that I know who are also pretty much former Canon shooters now shooting mostly or completely Sony mirrorless, but if none of that matters to Canon then good for them. May they continue to lose customers until such a time as it drives them to make better products.

Everybody overestimates the importance to the market of their individual purchasing decision ... it's only human. You were one of those most easily lured away from Canon. Chances are that you will be one of those most easily wooed back. But, I admit, that requires Canon to step-up and offer a competitive FF mirrorless camera. My bet is that they will ... in EF mount. But let's wait and see.

It's the people who are more difficult to separate from their money that represent the bigger marketing challenge.

 

[Talys]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount.

Sorry - totally not true even for the M series cameras. Have you missed how many folks want these lenses to be faster?

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers. Consider that the EOS M system is very popular – #2 MILC globally – with only one fast(ish) prime, and the rest slow/variable zooms. Consider the EF-S lineup, with only f/2.8 primes (slow for primes), mostly slow/variable zooms, and only one fast zoom...which is getting very long in tooth.

I think what most folks want is for EF-N lenses to be cheaper, like the EF-S 10-18mm that replaced the EF-S 10-22mm (lower cost, added IS, better IQ, but slower aperture – that ticked the boxes).

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

I couldn't agree more.

I just can't imagine someone in the "small and cheap" market buying a digital camera like a A7R3, which is small, but definitely not cheap, and with pro-grade lenses that aren't small and are definitely NOT cheap. And if you go with the kit-grade lenses... that's just such a waste of the body.

I am in the "awesome quality and my-wife-will-only-kill-me-once priced" category

 

[Don Haines]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount.

Assuming that you had an adaptor that would fit, and that the lens would focus, you could use a smaller diameter image circle and crop to it.

Where this gets interesting is that if you took a mirrorless EF mount camera, you could mount EF-S lenses on it ( no mirror clearance problems because you have no mirror) and run the camera in crop-mode using the centre 60% of the sensor......

 

[Ryananthony]

I think it would be nice if the FF mirrorless camera would be compatible with EF-M lenses (with an adapter, in crop mode), so that existing M users would have an upgrade path. As it seems EF-M as such is ruled out because of problems in lens design for the narrow throat, the "EF-X" flange distance should be even less than that of EF-M. Which means pretty small. Or they should have a really exotic adapter.

Could I be misunderstanding you?

How would an EF-M lens (APSC) be mountable on a full frame mirrorless? Even if it physically worked, you'd get the black vignette thing, and who wants that? Or do you mean something else?

I can't imagine any scenario9 where a FF will have a smaller flange focal distance or throat diameter than EF-M/E-Mount.

Assuming that you had an adaptor that would fit, and that the lens would focus, you could use a smaller diameter image circle and crop to it.

Where this gets interesting is that if you took a mirrorless EF mount camera, you could mount EF-S lenses on it ( no mirror clearance problems because you have no mirror) and run the camera in crop-mode using the centre 60% of the sensor......

Thats one of the things I would like about the a7riii. I could mount on their tiny crop sensor pancake lenses, and still have a 18mp image.

 

[BillB]

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

Actually, I think there is a middle, defined by having a single intermediate body (6D/80D/7DII etc.) and a relatively small number of intermediate lenses (f4 zooms, etc.) that is not all that bad for a lot of kinds of shooting (but certainly not all).

 

[Hillsilly]

Yes, I've missed how many folks in the overall market want these lenses to be faster. Hopefully, you realize that we on this forum are in no way representative of most buyers.

I might be missing the nuance, but are you thinking that FF mirrorless buyers would tend to prefer lower cost lenses vs better, but more expensive lenses?

I look at the Eos-M and feel that it is a very good value system for what it is. And I'd generally prefer lower cost vs more expensive, too. But I also suspect that many people buying a FF mirrorless system would want lenses that excel in a few different areas, such as landscapes, travel (with good build quality and some weather sealing), low light and portraits (with wide apertures). I don't think they will want to settle for lenses that have noticeably lower specs or performance than current L lenses. I'm really curious how Canon will approach this.

 

[Don Haines]

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

Actually, I think there is a middle, defined by having a single intermediate body (6D/80D/7DII etc.) and a relatively small number of intermediate lenses (f4 zooms, etc.) that is not all that bad for a lot of kinds of shooting (but certainly not all).

Yes.... as someone with a 6D2, 7D2, and F4 zooms I agree that there is a middle ground.... but as far as image quality goes, these bodies and glass are very close to the expensive options. We miss out on that extra stop of lens speed and the highest level of AF, but save a lot of money.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.... if I were to give odds it would be 80% EF Mount and 20% New Mount, but then again, I have no sales data or customer survey data, so realistically,I haven’t a clue what will happen.

 

[BillB]

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

One market is after small and cheap.... the other is after highest quality.... there are a few in the middle, but not enough to matter. (If you are one of those in the middle, it s**ks)

Actually, I think there is a middle, defined by having a single intermediate body (6D/80D/7DII etc.) and a relatively small number of intermediate lenses (f4 zooms, etc.) that is not all that bad for a lot of kinds of shooting (but certainly not all).

Yes.... as someone with a 6D2, 7D2, and F4 zooms I agree that there is a middle ground.... but as far as image quality goes, these bodies and glass are very close to the expensive options. We miss out on that extra stop of lens speed and the highest level of AF, but save a lot of money.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.... if I were to give odds it would be 80% EF Mount and 20% New Mount, but then again, I have no sales data or customer survey data, so realistically,I haven’t a clue what will happen.

That sounds about right to me. I think one big question is how fast people will give up their DSLR's. If people want to hold on to their DSLR's, I think Canon is going have a tough time selling them a mirrorless without an EF amount.

 

[Talys]

Assuming that you had an adaptor that would fit, and that the lens would focus, you could use a smaller diameter image circle and crop to it.

Where this gets interesting is that if you took a mirrorless EF mount camera, you could mount EF-S lenses on it ( no mirror clearance problems because you have no mirror) and run the camera in crop-mode using the centre 60% of the sensor......

So, in other words, the probably $200 adaptor would turn your $3000 mirrorless full frame camera... into a $800 mirrorless APSC camera! Ok, I guess how I see a few lens like 11-22 could be interesting-ish.

Then, you could go a step further, and make cheap crop lenses for native FF mount Sounds moronic, but follow me, here. You could have a small APSC 300mm/f5.6 lens, crop it by a full 2x on a 50 megapixel camera (why stop at 1.6x?), and say "Effective 600mm!" -- which is no different than what some MFT folks like to argue about their cameras are lighter with their "equivalent" focal length lenses.

In terms of EFS, the problem is, almost all of Canon's EFS lenses are now pretty sucky. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that would be kind of cool would be EFS 18-135 nano usm.