Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?

[dr croubie]

So with all the talk of "who's going to bring out the first FF Mirrorless and when", I'm interested to know *why* people want some so badly.
The options are pretty self-explanatory, but I thought I'd give some counter-arguments to each option to start with:
- 1/2: Yes, potentially mirrorless can be thinner. But taking out the mirror and reducing the flange distance can lead to other problems, with the greater angle of incidence. Leica has overcome that problem, at least some of it, with fancy microlens arrays, but still problems exist that must be fixed in PP. Read this and this for examples of these problems. Of course, you can use your current EF lenses on any potential-future FF mirrorless body, but then the combo won't be much smaller than using it on an 1100D now.

- 3/4: Yes, taking away the mirror means less parts used in manufacturing and less potential for things to break. But you really think a bit of a mirror (which they've had 40 years of experience and R&D making) adds that much to the cost of a camera?

- 5: It will happen. ... ... eventually. For now there's no denying that phase-detect is faster than phase-in-sensor and contrast-AF. But with enough R&D it will happen.

- 6/7: That's somewhere about where I am.

Any other potential reasons to want an FF Mirrorless that i've missed?

 

[Half Way To Nothing]

You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"

 

[Patrick]

You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"

+1

 

[verysimplejason]

There's already an FF mirrorless. Sony A99. FF, mirrorless in DSLR form factor.

 

[pakosouthpark]

if the cost is much less and does most of the things of a 5d why not? lighter, smaller - for travelling is perfect.

 

[dr croubie]

You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"

+1

Yeah, i was going to, then forgot it out of the poll...

 

[PVS]

I want one, yeah, unfortunately they've already designed one with my favorite focal length - it's called RX1 and sets you $3k back.

 

[Timothy_Bruce]

There's already an FF mirrorless. Sony A99. FF, mirrorless in DSLR form factor.

It is not mirrorless! The mirror is only fixed and there is no OVF.

 

[mb66energy]

I am really interested in a moderately priced and compact FF mirrorless with a large capacity battery (750+ exposures per charge). OVF should be optional to keep footprint small.

Please use a shorter flange distance but EF mount with sth. like a 20mm extension tube as adapter for EF lenses - which can be used for other purposes.

Please give us an aperture ring around the mount base.

Please give us a status display showing f, t, ISO, charge, free data space, format, drive mode, exp. meter characteristics, color temp. and exp. compensation PERMANENTLY (e-ink display?).

Don't make it a luxory article but a simple but tough and reliable tool. Without mirrorbox etc. it should be easy to build such a camera for roughly 1200 $ / €.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The issue with a FF mirrorless camera with a shorter flange back distance is that a new family of lenses will be needed, and they will be more expensive than the existing EF lenses. Wide angle lenses will be inferior (You can't bend light that much without many lens elements).
The most practical is to make a pellix type lens, but Canon has tried that a couple of times and they have not sold well. With live view on all the newer DSLR's, there is little practicle advantage to mirrorless for the masses, and Canon is a mass producer of cameras, not a specality camera company. Thats not a judgement, just a fact.

 

[mb66energy]

[...]
Wide angle lenses will be inferior (You can't bend light that much without many lens elements).
[...]

After my information it should be much easier to produce a high IQ wideangle if you are not restricted to place the last lens element before the maximum protrusion by the mirror of an SLR.

SLR wide angles are always retrofocus constructions which shift lens planes behind the physical lenses- to keep the mirror space clear. Why have 85mm lenses and focal lengths above such extraordinary IQ from center to corner (o.k. in most cases)? They are not retrofocus so you don't have to struggle with extreme lens materials or lens geometries.

 

[dr croubie]

I've always thought that mirrorless gives better wide-angles than retrofocus.
Or at least it makes them smaller and lighter to give decent IQ.
Look at the size of the Canon, Samyang, Nikon, and the new Sigma 35/1.4. They're all huge, relatively.
Then look at the diminutive size of the Summilux 35/1.4.
Or compare any Biogon design, they almost touch the film in most cases (so you can't even use them on a CL/CLE). In that case Flange Distance is irrelevant, the lens only sticks out 40mm from the film/sensor plane. And biogons are some of the sharpest lenses ever designed with 0% distortion...

 

[Marsu42]

- 5: It will happen. ... ... eventually. For now there's no denying that phase-detect is faster than phase-in-sensor and contrast-AF. But with enough R&D it will happen.

... and once it does, we'll be on digic8 and have an electronic viewfinder you cannot tell from an optical one, though it'll drain power which is the tradeoff. That means all the information and assist you want in the vf, zebras, focus peaking, ..., and af ("points") everywhere. And 100fps if you want it because there's no mirror to flip.

 

[Dylan777]

Primary reason I want a FF mirrorless is when I travel over sea. AF speed is not important in my case, since I'm only do still shooting. I DO NOT wish to mount my current 16-35 II, 24-70 f2.8 II, or 70-200 f2.8 IS II on that mirrorless. IT LOOKS STUPID

Just give me some pancake lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 35mm,50mm,85mm, and/or 100mm at f1.4 or bigger. I don't mind building another set of lens for mirrorless body, as long I can get decent IQ under low light and travel friendly. I'm all in.

If I need speedy AF, then I will take my 5D III with me.

 

[robbymack]

Primary reason I want a FF mirrorless is when I travel over sea. AF speed is not important in my case, since I'm only do still shooting. I DO NOT wish to mount my current 16-35 II, 24-70 f2.8 II, or 70-200 f2.8 IS II on that mirrorless. IT LOOKS STUPID

Just give me some pancake lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 35mm,50mm,85mm, and/or 100mm at f1.4 or bigger. I don't mind building another set of lens for mirrorless body, as long I can get decent IQ under low light and travel friendly. I'm all in.

If I need speedy AF, then I will take my 5D III with me.

My thoughts exactly. I think it's going to be tough for a manufacturer to do this at a reasonable price, but seeing as Sony took on Leica with the rx1 they don't seem afraid to give it a chance. I'd bet they come out with something with interchangeable lenses in the next 12-24 months.

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'd take a FF mirrorless with a 50/1.x if the price is reasonable, let's say $1500, so basically it will never happen.

 

[dr croubie]

So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article. It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

 

[gmrza]

So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article. It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

I think you've touched on a very important issue here, and one which is often overlooked. I suspect you can't get the flange distance much smaller than it already is on the EOS system without compromising performance. Keep in mind that the angle of incidence of the light from the 85mm f/1.2 is already quite oblique. Bring the sensor any closer, and you lose the ability to use these large aperture lenses without paying too much of a price in terms of sensor performance. Alternatively, a new sensor technology is required.

 

[Marsu42]

You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3

No problem with that - but there is no need for it to be stuffed with mechanical parts or expensive electronics just to be compatible with today's lenses or large hands.

And if it's not heavy enough for balancing the lens or that "expensive" feeling just put some weights in an internal compartment :-> ... though I know that won't work, it's no coincidence car manufacturers spend millions of $$$ on audio-visual design to make closing the car door have the correct (expected, either expensive or cheap) sound :->

 

[pwp]

Yep I'd get one when it ships with decent AF, a truly fantastic EVF and fast sync speed. The EOS M is limited to 200th but the G15 will sync at 2000th. Very handy...

-PW