Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[scyrene]

One day there will be no mirror cameras. Current lenses will be challenged by smaller (comparatively) lenses with great IQ.

How do you propose mirrorless bodies will shrink lenses of 200mm and greater? Until and unless new optics are devised, the ergonomics of many types of photography will be governed by the lens size.

 

[transpo1]

Seems obvious to me that the only advantage of the MILC (apart from no mirror etc) is that the lenses can be shorter, not smaller. Cannot be EF-M therefore, but it is very likely that Canon will adapt their EF range to some new format, but also provide an adapter for all EF lenses. They will not throw away the EF range on a new body.
So I expect this to be FF MILC with a new range of dedicated lenses (shorter) but with an adapter so everyone with EF lenses can use it.

Probably.

Hopefully, it is a new FF lens format with compact adapter in the box. I predict this will at least be in the $2500-$3000 range, body only. It won't be the 6DII sensor, which would make it DOA for many people. It should be a flagship mirrorless or 5DIV sensor. And if it doesn't have 4K, everyone here knows it will be DOA for me

 

[Jopa]

Very cool. If next gen DPAF works as good or better as PDAF - it's about time.

 

[Ozarker]

LOL. People keep talking about how lenses will be shorter on MILCs. How much shorter? Probably not enough to make any real difference. Half an inch? Quarter inch? Not as big around? Well, to get a fast lens, doesn't it have to have a certain design diameter to let enough light in to make it fast?

Also, many people assume the FF MILCs will have to be like those thin and ergonomically challenged cameras of Sony (Maybe other brands too).

I think the camera will be both comfortable to hold and also have an EF mount.

Doesn't a FF MILC require the same sized image circle on the sensor as, say, a 6D II, 5D mark IV, and 1DX mark II? Yup.

 

[dak723]

There are lots of folks who like the ergonomics of the larger FF cameras. Do you think Canon will alienate those folks when they go mirrorless? I don't. I think the mirrorless landscape isn't that complicated. You want small? You have the APS-C M system. You want larger? You will have the EF FF mirrorless system. I don't think there is enough of a FF market for more than one FF mount - at least for now. Maybe 5-10 years down the road.

 

[-1]

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.

The EF-M mount is about identical as they come to the Sony FE one. Will work fine for FF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mounts

Get one of these, hotglue it to your favorite "M" and you have your EF MILC...

Got a Meike meself and it is as solid as the Canon OEM:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=canon+mount+adapter+ef-eos+m+meike&_sop=15&LH_BIN=1&_osacat=78997&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xmount+adapter+ef+ef-m+meike.TRS0&_nkw=mount+adapter+ef+ef-m+meike&_sacat=78997

 

[AvTvM]

One day there will be no mirror cameras. Current lenses will be challenged by smaller (comparatively) lenses with great IQ.

How do you propose mirrorless bodies will shrink lenses of 200mm and greater? Until and unless new optics are devised, the ergonomics of many types of photography will be governed by the lens size.

99.9% of all image captures are made with lenses far shorter than 200mm focal length. most smartphones use around 24mm eq. FOV. even in professional context, tele lenses are a rare exception, limited to very few specialized fields of photography.

there is a huge size andyweight advantage to be had for the vast majority of FF gear use, once mirrorbox and viewfinder prism are eliminated from the equation AND IF the new FF lens parameters (flange distance and throat diameter) are optimally chosen (unlike Sony E-mount which was designed for APS-C image circle and pressed into FF usage only as an afterthought).

only a new native mount with short(er) Flange distance offers the best if both worlds: smaller / lighter gear for most photographic purposes - especially "general photography" AND use of existing EF glass of any size - depending on purpose/capture situation/photographer's intent abd preferences (sports, wildlife, low light, small DOF, macro, micro .. whatever - combined still less than 1% of all use scenarios).

gradually and over many years to come Canon Users will switch over their existing EF lens parks (used on mirrorless FF cams via simple and cheap adapter) to newly designed, native "EF-X lenses" with further improved specs and image quality (eg that blue gunk coating stuff etc.). instead of an EF 24-70/4 L IS mk. II or Mk. III, more and more people will buy a new, somewhat smaller, lighter, and optically better native mount EF-X 24-70/4 IS ... L and non L versions abailable at different size and price points. a lot more lenses to be sold for Canon over many years to come ... for that reason alone the future is obvious.

 

[Quackator]

Just weighing in: I am waiting for a full frame that in an ideal world (for me)
is similar to a 5D MkIV - in a 5D MkIV body!

I have held and tried most of todays mirrorless offerings, and settled for EOS M
(M, M3,M5) as add-on to 5D MkII, 5D MkIII, 5D MkIV and 1D-X.

Not because I want a small camera (that is actually my biggest grievance with them)
but because I wanted mirrorless.

Yes, I have lenses that I use exclusively with the M-series (e.g. 55-250 STM)
with their own mount converter permanently attached - and it bug me to death.

Strange that so many people have the thought hardwired in their brains that
mirrorless=small is a law of nature.

That said: The minute Canon offers a mirrorless 5D MkIV in a 5D MkIV body,
two of these are heading my way. I'd even be content if being mirrorless was
the only difference between them and the current 5D MkIV.

But of course I'd drop from my chair wildly masturbating if it came with a global
shutter, eliminating the x-sync barrier forever. I'd even trade a global shutter
for the dynamic range of the 5D MkIII.

And I would love the possibility to use a layout overlay with onboard tools
inside the viewfinder. Load any image from the card that is then displayed
superimposed over the viewfinder picture. It would be a massive improvement
for editorial photography.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

Just weighing in: I am waiting for a full frame that in an ideal world (for me)
is similar to a 5D MkIV - in a 5D MkIV body!

I have held and tried most of todays mirrorless offerings, and settled for EOS M
(M, M3,M5) as add-on to 5D MkII, 5D MkIII, 5D MkIV and 1D-X.

Not because I want a small camera (that is actually my biggest grievance with them)
but because I wanted mirrorless.

Yes, I have lenses that I use exclusively with the M-series (e.g. 55-250 STM)
with their own mount converter permanently attached - and it bug me to death.

Strange that so many people have the thought hardwired in their brains that
mirrorless=small is a law of nature.

That said: The minute Canon offers a mirrorless 5D MkIV in a 5D MkIV body,
two of these are heading my way. I'd even be content if being mirrorless was
the only difference between them and the current 5D MkIV.

But of course I'd drop from my chair wildly masturbating if it came with a global
shutter, eliminating the x-sync barrier forever. I'd even trade a global shutter
for the dynamic range of the 5D MkIII.

And I would love the possibility to use a layout overlay with onboard tools
inside the viewfinder. Load any image from the card that is then displayed
superimposed over the viewfinder picture. It would be a massive improvement
for editorial photography.

For those of use who are not particularly familiar with mirrorless cameras, what are the other advantages apart from size and weight? The people I know who have switched from a DSLR to a mirrorless camera have all said, without exception that the reason why they did so was because the DLSR was too big and heavy and they were tired of carrying it around all day. One other slight variation is that a large DSLR is too conspicuous for things like street photography. The people you are trying to photograph become aware that a large camera is pointing at them and they alter their behaviour. Some pose for the camera, some wave, some try and hide - probably not what the photographer wanted.
A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to shoot with a Fuji XT-2 for a day. There were many things I liked about the camera. It felt comfortable in my hands and the controls reminded me of my old film camera. There was a wide selection of lenses and every lens that I tried produced some excellent images.
However the one thing that I did not like was the electronic viewfinder. The optical viewfinder on my 5D mark 4 is much clearer and the electronic viewfinder on the XT2 always seemed to be just slightly behind the action.
I pointed this out to the Fuji representative and he said that you get used to it after a while. He said that you learn to anticipate what is going to happen when you are composing your shot. Well I don't understand why that is an improvement on my 5D mark 4 where I can see exactly what is happening and compose my shot in real time.
I can see that the mirror is a mechanical component that will eventually wear out, they are still quite noisy, and the movement of the mirror must limit the maximum number of shots per second. However it allows you to see through the lens without the intervention of any electronics and to me this is a huge benefit.

 

[jolyonralph]

I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.

Yes, both cameras are bulky when you add a 24-70 2.8 onto them, but the A7RII is no worse than the 5DSR in this case.

So you get benefits with some lenses, and with other lenses you are no worse off. So how in any reasonable view is this a disadvantage?

 

[Deleted member 378875]

I see this as two large market segments -- 'keep it small' and 'keep it seamless' that have relatively contradictory asks of Canon that speak to fundamentally different form factor camera lines w.r.t. the mount and lens ecosystem.

After that, sure -- we'll get wrapped around the axle about how they did / didn't...

• Automate the AFMA process
• Give us spot metering at any AF point
• Offer some kind of eye AF routine
• Give us a blackout free EVF
• Give us an SLR like control/button setup

...the way we wanted them to. That's going to happen.

But those things get sorted out in the next model or two without a huge impact to customer satisfaction, loyalty, etc. I see the mount decision as the huge fork in the road Canon will have to get right or potentially suffer for a long time:

• New mount and a less than perfect adapter or super tiny grip = angry customers who wanted a seamless EF experience, an identically handling second body to their primary FF SLR, etc.
  
  
• Keep the full EF mount and you horribly p--- off the 'keep it small' crowd, the folks who wanted to dabble with Nikon lenses, build small street/travel rigs, be more likely to carry a smaller rig around with them more of the time, etc.

Yes -- they certainly could end up doing both -- it's not like they're going to sign up for a dozen FF mirrorless lenses out of the gate. But the first body that comes out will all but certainly set the 'losing' party into a tantrum and send a small short-sighted/short-tempered portion of them to the exits.

- A

Couldn't canon do the following ...

1. To keep the people who want a seamless experience with EF lenses - just bring out a new Full Frame mirrorless with an EF mount.

2. To satisfy the people who want a smaller form factor - continue to develop the existing Mirrorless range (M5, M6) and introduce better lenses.

This gets very close to keeping most of the people happy most of the time.

Its your list of features which I'm more concerned about ... technology and innovation now permits a truly awesome camera ... I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting it "all, now"

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd expect a company like Canon - i.e. Successful, Investing and Profit Focused to have a series of developments in process, including perhaps the following;
- Fixed fast prime lens FF
- Fixed zoom lens FF
- APS-H in a EF-M mount
- FF in a EF mount
- APS-C in a even higher end EF-M mount

Then roll out the one that's most likely to make them most cash once Nikon show there cards

 

[jolyonralph]

For those of us who are not particularly familiar with mirrorless cameras, what are the other advantages apart from size and weight?

For me weight is a key advantage, but the main advantage is the electronic viewfinder.

Yes, the electronic viewfinder is slower than optical so inappropriate (at least in the consumer level devices I've used so far) for things such as fast action, but it offers three key advantages - the ability to boost low light situations - so you see what you're going to get in your image, the ability to zoom in when using manual focus so you know you're absolutely nailing the focus correctly, and the most important thing for me, the ability to use the viewfinder to review your images, including with zoom to check focus and sharpness.

Yes, you can do this on the rear display, but outdoors on a sunny day that's almost impossible even if you have perfect eyesight. Using the viewfinder makes this job so much easier.

Finally, mirrorless allows for much faster framerates. Although I haven't used the Sony A9 yet, this looks an outstanding camera and a good indication of what Mirrorless can offer beyond reduced weight.

Now, I wonder if the rumours running around that Canon are doing new DO lenses may be connected with this new mirrorless?

Imagine a compact 24-70/f2.8 IS DO STM for the new mount. You may all be upset about the idea of shifting to a new format, but if Canon actually come out with something revolutionary for it you'll all be changing your tune soon enough

 

[David Littleboy]

I can see that the mirror is a mechanical component that will eventually wear out, they are still quite noisy, and the movement of the mirror must limit the maximum number of shots per second. However it allows you to see through the lens without the intervention of any electronics and to me this is a huge benefit.

The thing is, the optical viewfinder requires a mirror, a separate AF system, a separate exposure system, and more radically retrofocus lenses. This stuff all costs. And in real life, the M5's viewfinder is fine.

Let me modify this: A/B comparing the M5 and the 5D II, the M5 viewfinder wins hands down. I have to painfully scrunch my face and nose against the back of the 5D II and still can barely see the corners. And inside in a well-lit office, the M5 viewfinder is noticeably brighter. (And that's with an f/2.8 lens on the 5D, and f/4.0 lens on the M5.)

(OK, truth in advertising: you have to turn off image review, or else using the EVF is seriously obnoxious. This requires hitting the playback button when you want to chimp, which is no problem whatsoever.)

And you can put the AF point anywhere in the frame, not just in the points the AF system happens to give you. This is really kewl for folks who shoot one shot at a time and like to get the DoF band where they want it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.

Yes, both cameras are bulky when you add a 24-70 2.8 onto them, but the A7RII is no worse than the 5DSR in this case.

So you get benefits with some lenses, and with other lenses you are no worse off. So how in any reasonable view is this a disadvantage?

I use a 24-70/2.8 far more frequently than any prime lens, especially a relatively slow one. Holding and using a small body with a large lens is an ergonomic shitfest, which is a pretty big disadvantage in any reasonable view.

 

[IglooEater]

I can slip the A7RII and 35mm f/2.8 into a pocket. The 5DSR with 40mm 2.8 isn't bad, but it's certainly not pocketable.

Yes, both cameras are bulky when you add a 24-70 2.8 onto them, but the A7RII is no worse than the 5DSR in this case.

So you get benefits with some lenses, and with other lenses you are no worse off. So how in any reasonable view is this a disadvantage?

I use a 24-70/2.8 far more frequently than any prime lens, especially a relatively slow one. Holding and using a small body with a large lens is an ergonomic shitfest, which is a pretty big disadvantage in any reasonable view.

Hmm when I tried an A7R I found it was pretty much an ergonomic disaster no matter what lense was on the front. But the point remains, that if someone wants a pocketable ff camera, mirrorless and a slow prime is pretty much the only way right now.

 

[jolyonralph]

Note this slow prime is the same speed as your fast zoom

 

[mb66energy]

A FF mirrorless is only interesting for me if it allows to uses FD lenses. So I am only interested in some low flange distance mount. If it has native EF mount I will use another brands FF mirrorless option whatever brand it is.
I have no need for it at the moment so I can wait.

My idea would be a camera with maybe EF-X mount (short flange distance) and removable adaptor + a variant where an adaptor is fixed by 6 screws to make it a native EF mount camera. Maybe equip the removable adaptor with some flange where the six screws can be fixed by users who never want to loose the adaptor.

 

[SecureGSM]

exactly, that is why Neuro used a zoom lens for convenience sake instead.

Note this slow prime is the same speed as your fast zoom

 

[jolyonralph]

exactly, that is why Neuro used a zoom lens for convenience sake instead.

Note this slow prime is the same speed as your fast zoom

To me having the lighter prime is far more convenient than the zoom in many (but not all) cases. After all, with 40mpx I can crop in almost as well as I could zoom with the 24-70 on my old 5D Mark III.

The combination allows me to take the camera places I wouldn't previously have wanted to (or been allowed to) take it.

I still use the 5DSR with the 24-70 more often than the A7RII, but I like the different style of working that I get with the A7RII which is very useful in many cases.

I have been on trips before where I took only the A7RII and the 35mm lens. There were times, sure, where I wished I'd carried something longer, but overall I enjoyed the freedom of not having to worry about lens changes, and not carrying a ton of kit with me everywhere.