Will Canon make a full size mirrorless crop camera?

[fullstop]

are you aware that you don't see a clear image in the OVF of a 7D / II or any other current Canon mirrorslapper] *when the camera is switched off*? There is an LCD overlay that needs camera turned on / powered.

I can't say I have noticed a difference.

ah yes, you are right! I was confused.

Camera does not need to be switched on, as long as battery with some charge is in camera.

 

[3kramd5]

are you aware that you don't see a clear image in the OVF of a 7D / II or any other current Canon mirrorslapper] *when the camera is switched off*? There is an LCD overlay that needs camera turned on / powered.

I can't say I have noticed a difference.

If you pull the battery out you will. The transmissive LCD canon uses in its “intelligent viewfinders” draws a little power to achieve peak clarity. It not only gets darker, but it gets somewhat blurry if there I no battery installed. Merely turning off the camera or allowing it to sleep doesn’t do anything.

 

[Tugela]

Let’s assume that Canon releases the mirrorless FF camera within the next year, and it will be something like a mirrorless 5D or 6D-series. Will they do a crop sensor version as well? Something like a mirrorless 7D? The M5 and M50 are nice, but they really are too small for my liking, especially with larger lenses. Will it matter if they stick with the EF/EF-S mount for the FF or not? If they do, there will be three crop camera lens alternatives. What do you think?

What would be the advantage of a mirrorless 7D sized camera ? Given that's it's unlikely that there would then be a significant saving in weight ! If you gave me the choice between similar sized 7D camera's with optical or electronic viewfinder, i'd take optical every time.

And other folks would choose the EVF every time. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the advantages and disadvantages of mirrorless vs DSLR go way beyond size (and to some the size is not even an issue at all). DSLRs offer better AF, better battery usage (and for birders and wildlife photogs, OVF is almost a necessity as they may look through the viewfinder for hours at a time), and real time viewfinder. Mirrorless advantages include WYSIWIG in viewfinder, higher FPS, and wider focus point spread.

The big advantage MILCs have over DSLRs is critical focusing. If you need something like DMF then MILCs have a massive advantage. With a DSLR you have to take whatever the AF chooses to focus on, but with a MILC you can do fine adjustments to account for stuff like twigs or whatever that might interfere.

People who only use DSLRs are probably completely oblivious to just how useful and powerful DMF is.

 

[justinB]

I think that eventually the rebel lineup will be all mirrorless

Eventually we will all be dead.

Not me. I plan to live forever.

 

[Hillsilly]

As mentioned above, the dual viewfinder solution (like the Fuji X100) would be the ideal solution and the best of both worlds - fast focus when required, and an EVF when required. It would be a more expensive solution, but Canon should at least consider it in the high end models. It would also be an easy way to show a point of distinction with other mirrorless camera that only have an EVF option.

 

[denstore]

... I really can't see the fascination with small cameras. When using fast, heavy lenses, small camera bodies are frustrating and impractical.
So, why mirrorless at all?

Because the overwhelming majority of camera users does not use large lenses at all or at least not all the time.

I use big heavy lenses only very occasionally. And then typically on a tripod. Small camera no issue, big lenses usually have tripod ring/foot.

I seriously doubt full frame users prefere small lenses. Most people I know that owns FF cameras usually prefere either medium/large aperture zooms, like 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 combined with 70-200/2.8 or 70-300, or, like myself, large aperture primes. The smallest lens I use regularly is a 35/2.0 IS, and even that one feels unbalanced on a small body like the M50, imho. I can’t see the reason in this quest for the holy small full frame camera. If you prefere small cameras, why not go with a Leica?

 

[TunaErgan]

Even though making a full-size Mirrorless would compromise its main argument of being lightweight and small, it would be better overall for it as full-size bodies handles way better than smaller cameras. Especially pro-bodies, even though they are heavy, handle perfectly and people -and i- would be more than interested to see several full-size mirrorlesses as small size handles somewhat badly. My preference would be different sized mirrorlesses like one small sized-like a sony-, one medium sized-like a 7D-, and one pro body size-like a 1D-. The bigger body will increase handling and capabilities as well but may increase the price tag. Personally i would go for the pro body one, even though the hefty pricetag would be a problem, it may compete easily with the 1D series or A9-A7 class cameras

 

[stevelee]

I don't even know what a "full size mirrorless crop camera" would be, unless it is something for agriculture journalists.

 

[Ozarker]

People say the main argument for mirrorless is size and weight. I disagree. The reason for any change in format should be IQ. Ergonomics have to stay comfortable. Size of the lens/camera combo with existing glass (fast lenses) in the Canon lineup makes that part of the pro mirrorless argument moot.

Canon may very well come out with a FF compact and DSLR sized camera.

Are there very small and very fast modern lenses out there? Absolutely, in the M4/3 crowd and they are pretty good. M.ZUIKO ED 17MM F1.2 PRO, M.ZUIKO ED 25MM F1.2 PRO, M.ZUIKO ED 45MM F1.2 PRO. As the focal length increases the speed decreases after 45mm (90mm FOV on Micro 4/3) to about f/2 then f/2.8 (in the PRO line). How would that translate to FF? Don't know. Bigger for sure.

At any rate, I would prefer a DSLR sized camera if I were in the market for mirrorless. I'm not.

 

[Ozarker]

... I really can't see the fascination with small cameras. When using fast, heavy lenses, small camera bodies are frustrating and impractical.
So, why mirrorless at all?

Because the overwhelming majority of camera users does not use large lenses at all or at least not all the time.

I use big heavy lenses only very occasionally. And then typically on a tripod. Small camera no issue, big lenses usually have tripod ring/foot.

Believe me, they are terribly cramped and frustrating even with lightweight / small lenses. Ergonomic problems with current offerings is problematic, for some of us, with any present lens because the bodies are terrible... but maybe Canon will come out with two body sizes and lenses that will work on either. Ergonomics aren't as important for some people.

Surely Fullstop could agree that a full sized body would be better for large lenses and quit harping that everything about the bodies must be small. That one size fits all. That DSLR sized bodies must go away. That's what he keeps going on with. That is why people disagree with him so strongly. It's his way or the highway.

These tiny bodies are no fun at all for me.

Does anyone have photos of their hands actually on a FF Sony? Not under average sized hands. Not children's hands. Fullstop says the Oly and the FF Sony are about the same size. He posted photos of the two cameras side by side in another thread.

Honestly, does anyone out there really want to walk around with their hands like this all day? Even with a small and lightweight lens? I can't see Canon doing this. Not on FF. Imagine your FF "L" glass on this. Imagine any lens on this. Does anyone want to shoot a wedding with this?

BTW: The m4/3 M.ZUIKO ED 45MM F1.2 PRO = $1,199.00 USD. It seems one pays for speed no matter what the sensor size. Would FF be less? Doubt it.

 

[denstore]

I don't even know what a "full size mirrorless crop camera" would be, unless it is something for agriculture journalists.

;D

Sorry, but since English isn’t my first language, things might come out a bit silly. But we could continue the discussion in Swedish instead if it helps.

 

[Ozarker]

I don't even know what a "full size mirrorless crop camera" would be, unless it is something for agriculture journalists.

;D

Sorry, but since English isn’t my first language, things might come out a bit silly. But we could continue the discussion in Swedish instead if it helps.

I think he means a DSLR size crop sensor camera.

 

[denstore]

I don't even know what a "full size mirrorless crop camera" would be, unless it is something for agriculture journalists.

;D

Sorry, but since English isn’t my first language, things might come out a bit silly. But we could continue the discussion in Swedish instead if it helps.

I think he means a DSLR size crop sensor camera.

Is that a 1DX DSLR, a 5D DSLR or a SL2 DSLR?

 

[Ozarker]

I don't even know what a "full size mirrorless crop camera" would be, unless it is something for agriculture journalists.

;D

Sorry, but since English isn’t my first language, things might come out a bit silly. But we could continue the discussion in Swedish instead if it helps.

I think he means a DSLR size crop sensor camera.

Is that a 1DX DSLR, a 5D DSLR or a SL2 DSLR?

The SL2 is the only crop sensor camera in your list.

 

[fullstop]

i am using my EOS M (1st gen) camera far more than my 5D3. i find ergonomics better on the tiny EOS M, because it has a good touchscreen that is fairly well integrated into overall user interface. longest lens i am occassionally using is tamron 150-600, also preferably on EOS M because of UI advantage: i AF and make all settings on responsive touchscreen and then release shutter with small Canon RC-1 remote trigger (IR). with large lenses i would not need "any UI, physical controls or menu" on camera, i'd prefer bluetooth and a decent smartphone app to get things done. looking forward to trying out my daughters new M50 (wifi, bluetooth, nfc, flippy touchscreen) once i can get my hands on it.

i never handhold a 600mm lens, not even a relatively compact, lightweight one, although i have a stable hand and decent shooting technique. long tele lens always goes on tripod with me, perfectly balanced, remote triggered, and camera body can and shall be as small as possible also for that use case.

handheld, i will be using ultra-compact f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes or very compact f/4 zooms (no interest in f/5.6 or f/6.3 lenses). i will also buy very compact, non-L, good IQ, affordable EF-x 16-35/4 IS STM and EF-X 24-70/4 IS STM zooms for new short FFD "slim" mount.

 

[denstore]

Is that a 1DX DSLR, a 5D DSLR or a SL2 DSLR?

The SL2 is the only crop sensor camera in your list.

Yes, I know. But the size of the sensor really shouldn’t be a reason for making the camera big or small. The intended use, and fitting ergonomics for that use ought to be the reason for making small or large cameras. Too many seem to believe that smaller cameras are superior to larger cameras, only because of their size.

 

[jolyonralph]

Too many seem to believe that smaller cameras are superior to larger cameras, only because of their size.

And too many think that you have to make a camera large for the ergonomics to be right. If you make the camera really small (eg original EOS M) then yes, ergnomics suffer significantly. But you can make smaller cameras with great ergonomics. You may just take a while to get used to it if you're used to a 5D, but that's all.

 

[Adelino]

I think that eventually the rebel lineup will be all mirrorless

Eventually we will all be dead.

I guess you've given up on the future. May your passing be peaceful.

 

[denstore]

And too many think that you have to make a camera large for the ergonomics to be right. If you make the camera really small (eg original EOS M) then yes, ergnomics suffer significantly. But you can make smaller cameras with great ergonomics. You may just take a while to get used to it if you're used to a 5D, but that's all.

Maybe. But I suppose that it depends on your hands and which lenses you prefer. My most used lenses are my 85 and my 135. The 85 is a bit clumsy on my 6D2, and I doubt I would have liked my 70-200/2.8 on this camera. The main reason is that the 6D2 isn’t big enough for me to use all fingers fully, and that makes the grip less positive than it was on my old 5D2 or 7D. Non of those cameras feel as good as my old 1V. But again, it’s a matter of taste and size of hands and fingers.

 

[Don Haines]

Too many seem to believe that smaller cameras are superior to larger cameras, only because of their size.

And too many think that you have to make a camera large for the ergonomics to be right. If you make the camera really small (eg original EOS M) then yes, ergnomics suffer significantly. But you can make smaller cameras with great ergonomics. You may just take a while to get used to it if you're used to a 5D, but that's all.

I seem to be stuck on Rev 2

got a 5D2, 6D2, and a 7D2....

I rate the ergonomics (from worst to best) as 5D2, 7D2, 6D2.... I rate the 6D2 as best because of the touchscreen interface, but the joystick on the 7D2 beats the button pad on the 6D2 hands down....