Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[ahsanford]

I'm a complete rank amateur and not a technician so please excuse me if this contains glaring mistakes but I'm not too sure why there's such a debate about the mount : surely it'll either be EF or EF-M plus adaptor or something else with adaptor ... either way won't all our modern existing lenses are all going to work fantastically well ? Can we not all be absolutely 100% certain Canon will attend to autofocus and get it working just fine ?

Yes. Be it with a full EF mount or thinner new mount + adaptor, EF lenses will work on this new FF mirrorless system from day one. The #1 market for this rig is existing Canon owners, and Canon is not nearly foolish enough to turn them off with a thin mount + no EF adaptor for it.

- A

 

[jjesp]

Forget it. Canon won't do it. They only wan't to make steams of new beginner DSLR's, and some pro models. They somehow forgot the layer in between. All the entusiasts... A full frame mirrorless from Canon? It won't happen for the next 3-4 years! So don't dream to much! Mirrorless system? Go for Fuji, Leica or Sony.

 

[neuroanatomist]

so funny, all the whimpering re. new native FF mirrorless mount. Of course both Nikon and Canon FF MILCs will come with new, short FFD mounts.

Oh, yes...of course. Because your hit rate for predicting Canon's actions is what? 10%? 20% in a good year?

 

[AvTvM]

so funny, all the whimpering re. new native FF mirrorless mount. Of course both Nikon and Canon FF MILCs will come with new, short FFD mounts.

Oh, yes...of course. Because your hit rate for predicting Canon's actions is what? 10%? 20% in a good year?

Of course, because it is the only solution making any sense at all.
A Pentax K-01 style Canon mirrorless cam [with bolted-on fixed pig snout] would not provide better AF performance or IQ with EF glass than a slim body with adaptor. So its much smarter to make it smaller, because many people like the option of being able to go small (at times) and, secondly but more importantly, Canon will sell many more new EF-X? lenses over the next 20 years as people move to their FF MILCs and acquire some new lenses in due course ... a lot more units than just continueing to sell Mk. II, Mk. III, Mk. IV ... mirrorslapper EF lenses. Canon is NOT stupid in that respect.

 

[ahsanford]

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

Those that insist mirrorless is all about being small need to remind themselves about the brutal physics of sensor size vs. aperture and acknowledge -- a least with a flat sensor -- a (say) 70-200 f/2.8 or 85 f/1.4 lens is still a whopper of a lens in the mirrorless world, and that whopper needs to be gripped and well-balanced. Full EF + big chunky grip makes a lot of sense for those folks.

And those that insist that mirrorless is not about being small do need to review their recent history, because other than the recent Sigma Quattro ILC platform, I believe every single mirrorless ILC platform to date that removed its mirror took ended up taking the thin route. As much as f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms are going to be big, if you can pump the brakes on reach and aperture (enthusiasts, I'm looking at you), you can create some nice and compact setups.

That's why I see this as a 50-50. Keeping up with the Joneses sense says that Canon will follow the market and go thin, but converting the pros of the world to use mirrorless makes sense to give a zero pain crossover with a full EF mount.

Or, of course, Canon could end up offering both. Thin for the enthusiasts that will invest in 'new and slick', full EF for pros who want seamless use, similar ergonomics, no fear of leaving an adaptor at home, etc.

- A

 

[hendrik-sg]

Mirrorless makes sense as long as the lenses are small, with a 24-70 2.8 lens, the size advantage is gone.

So if they bring a FF mirrorless camera, it would need some smaller lenses, which use the mirrorless advantage, bigger ones can remain EF lenses with adapter.

Canon just released long living value lenses like the new T/S lenses and the 85mm these would not be developped shortly before there mount gets obsolete.

If customers would have a concern that the mount will be obsolete soon, just this would make it obsolete, nobody would buy anything expensive for it anymore

 

[ahsanford]

Canon just released long living value lenses like the new T/S lenses and the 85mm these would not be developped shortly before there mount gets obsolete.

If customers would have a concern that the mount will be obsolete soon, just this would make it obsolete, nobody would buy anything expensive for it anymore

EF will be around for decades -- it won't be obsoleted anytime soon as the EF portfolio is (IMHO) Canon's #1 entrenched competitive advantage. We're really just debating if we get a new 4th mount or possibly just a new line of larger image circle lenses for EF-M (some argue EF-M can support a FF sensor just fine) at this point.

But Canon's FF mirrorless will be full EF or it will something thinner with an adaptor. I hate to say "never" or act like I know what will happen, but I simply cannot fathom why it would not be one of those two things.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

I'll just amend that graph by saying that a short flange doesn't preclude a properly designed grip of any particular size.

The only reason a lot of mirrorless cameras have a poor grip isn't because they're small, it's because camera manufacturers just aren't particularly good at designing cameras and don't approach ergonomics in a methodical way.
And in fact a lot of DSLRs have poorly designed grips as well anyway (the D800 comes to mind for example).

Funnily enough, the body of a 6D already is quite thin except where the mount is. Canon could very well, if they wanted to, keep the 6D's design as it is, without the EF mount protrusion, for example - not that this is what I'd recommend.

 

[ahsanford]

Mirrorless makes sense as long as the lenses are small, with a 24-70 2.8 lens, the size advantage is gone.

Sure, but:

• No mirror slap
• EVF --> amplifying light in dark rooms
• EVF --> Focus peaking / manual focus assistance
• EVF --> LiveView level control through the viewfinder while handholding the camera in your preferred ergonomic setup (i.e. to your eye, off-tripod)
• No mirror = less mechanical elements that can fail
• No mirror = one less bottleneck for high fps shooting
• No mirror = vastly expanded AF point coverage across the frame

...makes sense regardless of size savings. Mirrorless isn't just about saving space.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

I'll just amend that graph by saying that a short flange doesn't preclude a properly designed grip of any particular size.

+1. I've been saying this for some time. See pic below. Unless you are only shooting a pancake, there is zero justification for how tiny grips have been in mirrorless to date. Larger grip is only a good thing in that it gets you more stable shooting, more controls/buttons like our SLRs and more battery. Other than the total camera width, unless you only pack your mirrorless rig with lens unattached, tiny grips don't save you any space in your bag.

- A

 

[MayaTlab]

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

I'll just amend that graph by saying that a short flange doesn't preclude a properly designed grip of any particular size.

+1. I've been saying this for some time. See pic below. Unless you are only shooting a pancake, there is zero justification for how tiny grips have been in mirrorless to date. Larger grip is only a good thing in that it gets you more stable shooting, more controls/buttons like our SLRs and more battery. Other than the total camera width, unless you only pack your mirrorless rig with lens unattached, tiny grips don't save you any space in your bag.

- A

That's a neat graph and I share the overall thinking.

When I put a camera in my bags, what matters most is the overall box dimensions of the camera (few exceptions to that principle exist of course). Any space within that box that isn't filled with camera bits could be wasted opportunities.

A very good example of that is grip height vs pentaprism height. I have no understanding why every single camera manufacturers insists that the central pentaprism must be towering over the rest of the body by 2 cm or more, even when it would have made sense to raise the grip height - while keeping the pentaprism height constant - to avoid having your little finger dangle in the void below.

The EM1II is a good example of a camera that despite reducing the pentaprism height over its predecessor, has actually improved the grip, partly by raising the grip height.

I still think that it's very important to have a few really small cameras in a lineup, but it shouldn't be an irrational, systemic modus operandi. And even small grips can be much improved over the mostly woeful things we've seen lately.

 

[Tugela]

This has been worked on for a while, remember - the longer you spend developing and fine-tuning a camera the more likely that your basic technology (eg sensor) is going to be out of date the day you launch.

Things like the form factor, lens mount, etc, these are decisions that would have been made a long time ago. You design the stuff that doesn't age first, and then as you get closer to your launch date you build in the latest tech you have available. If there are prototypes going around Canon right now then that would indicate they're in that final stage of internal acceptance, which means they're unlikely to step back now.

More likely they were waiting until they had a processor that could compete (at least on paper) with those that Sony and Panasonic have.

 

[unfocused]

I think the new mount vs. old mount debate may largely hinge on where Canon sees the development of the 1D line headed over the next decade.

If you believe that eventually, once all the technical details get worked out, the mirrorless design will have sufficient advantages to obsolete the SLR design, then you have to ask how Canon and Nikon will treat their flagship cameras.

Would a mirrorless 1DX or Nikon D? have essentially the same ergonomics as the SLR versions? Probably. The flagship market is very conservative and they don't take kindly to people moving their cheese about. Nor, would professionals much like the idea of adding an adapter that can be lost, malfunction, compromise quality or simply be viewed as an unneeded inconvenience. And, since SLRs and Mirrorless are likely to live side-by-side for many years, Canon and Nikon need to accommodate the professional who carries two bodies.

Alternatively, in a decade or so, would Canon and Nikon have two different mirrorless series – an enthusiast series with a new native mount and a professional series with EF mount? Given that the enthusiast and professional markets need one another to make the economies of scale work, I expect that a single full frame mirrorless series would be much more likely.

Given the minimal advantages that a new mount offers, I just don't see it working out that way.

 

[jolyonralph]

(from the image)

No need to buy new lenses.
Big mount = chunky grip = more battery.
You can't accidentally leave a mount adapter at home if it doesn't exist.
Canon can focus lens resources on EF / EF-S / EF-M instead of building up a portfolio in this new thin mount.

In order: Wrong, wrong, tenuous and unconnected to the point

No need to buy new lenses. You don't need to buy new lenses in any case assuming you have the EF adapter.

Big mount = chunky grip = more battery. - Newsflash. you don't have to have a weedy battery in a mirrorless. Canon's mirrorless do because they use the same cheap batteries as the newer Rebels. Look at the Sony A9 and you'll see that what you're saying is basically nonsense.

You can't accidentally leave a mount adapter at home if it doesn't exist. - Your forgetfulness isn't really a great reason to define which lens mount should be used.

Canon can focus lens resources on EF / EF-S / EF-M instead of building up a portfolio in this new thin mount. - Canon will focus their lens resources in the same way they always do - whatever can bring them the best profit. You may prefer they don't design new lenses for a mount you don't want to buy, but that's your problem not theirs. Personally, I have no interest in Canon Cinema cameras or their lenses, but I don't bitch that they are wasting resources that should be dedicated to designing 50mm f1.4IS lenses or whatever

 

[raptor3x]

Big mount = chunky grip = more battery. - Newsflash. you don't have to have a weedy battery in a mirrorless. Canon's mirrorless do because they use the same cheap batteries as the newer Rebels. Look at the Sony A9 and you'll see that what you're saying is basically nonsense.

Just like Olympus did with the E-M1ii, Sony made room for the new battery by making the grip larger.

 

[unfocused]

(from the image)

No need to buy new lenses.
Big mount = chunky grip = more battery.
You can't accidentally leave a mount adapter at home if it doesn't exist.
Canon can focus lens resources on EF / EF-S / EF-M instead of building up a portfolio in this new thin mount.

In order: Wrong, wrong, tenuous and unconnected to the point

I think you are confusing points and counterpoints.

Ahsanford simply listed what he considered to be some pros in favor of each option. Obviously, one can argue counterpoints, but that doesn't make the points "wrong," it simply offers up counter arguments. Which of course, can go on back and forth forever (and probably will, given the nature of this forum).

 

[jolyonralph]

I was just (helpfully ) pointing out that nothing in the 'con' column really was a genuine disadvantage.

 

[rrcphoto]

The FF mount mirrorless decision (EF vs. thinner than EF) remains a 50-50 call at best.

there's alot to be said for your chart.

but.

a few things. canon EF mount already can adapt quite a bit of old glass. about the only old glass that can't is the FD mount, and minolta mount glass, and leica/other rangefinder mount glass.

Contax / Yashica / OM1/2 / Pentax M42/K mount ,etc can all be adapted now.

not to mention that canon wouldn't even give a rats behind behind old glass compatibility.

on the con list, you missed the elephant in the room - there's 120 million reasons why canon wouldn't switch wholesale to a new mount, and it really has to the increase of buyer uncertainty. that just KILLED the A mount marketshare that Sony had slowly brought up. Sony right now if they didn't kill the A mount off, would be over Nikon in total marketshare. Now they are play even second fiddle to Nikon.

Sony had adapters and everything - they even had smart adapters that canon wouldn't do probably. It still just killed the A mount off as a viable supported mount with a healthy mount marketshare.

Don't think that Canon is stupid enough to try the same thing that Sony did.

 

[bvukich]

I have maybe $10k in EF glass. Not an obscene amount, but not trivial either.

I want a Canon FF mirrorless to be whatever mount will perform the best, even if it's not EF. All I ask is a mount converter that's not obscenely priced. I'll probably get one or two native lenses that make sense (~35/50mm prime, and wide-ish zoom come to mind), and for everything else I'll use converted.

 

[midluk]

A smaller flange distance for size reasons does not make any sense in a FF mirrorless. If you use fast lenses, it won't be small or light, and if you don't use fast lenses, you better use APS-C.

I think that being able to adapt glass is more a con than a pro for Canon. You are supposed to buy their lenses, not adapt anything else.

The only advantages of a small flange distance I can see are easier to design wide angle lenses and a bigger possible tilt for T/S-lenses.