Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[AvTvM]

Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global

regrettably not. ;D

Otherwise ...
* Sony E-mount would have been designed "really right" from start - no-compromise, fully FF capable. Much wider diameter, slightly longer FFD.

* Sony E-mount APS-C lenses would have been as small, dirt cheap and optically good as Canon EF-M lenses

* Sony E-mount lenses ["FE" series] would be a lot smaller, optically as good and half price of what they are currently selling for ... thanks to wisely chosen lens mount parameters and associated benefits for lens construction

* Sony RX1R II would be as small as it is, but equipped with a lens mount up front instead of a fixed 35mm lens. It would have sold like hotcakes for €/USD 1899,- [body plus "non-Zeiss" 24-70/4.0 kit zoom] ... instead of sitting unsold on shop shelves at a totally ludicrous MSRP of USD/€ 4000

* all Sony cameras would have global electronic shutter by now 8)

* all Sony cameras would have a user interface [front wheel, thumb wheel, all control points on right side for 1-handed operation] and a menu system as good as Canon EOS 8)

Should Sony read this, I am open for an interesting job offer.

 

[SecureGSM]

Shoot Vivek a message and see what transpires

https://www.linkedin.com/in/vivek-handoo-b6958a1/

Should Sony read this, I am open for a interesting job offers.

 

[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.

The main advantage is the ability to have all of your information, exposure tools and focusing aids directly available in your viewfinder. Personally I find DMF to be an extremely powerful tool for getting critical focus on fussy scenes, and you simply cannot do that at all with a DSLR. With a DSLR you just have to hope that the camera gets the right critical focus, you are removed from the equation. As a creative artist, that is a bad thing. DMF was a game changer for me, and I will never go back to a DSLR as a result. They are simply inadequate.

DSLRs had an advantage with focusing speed, especially in low light, but the most recent iterations of AF in higher end MILC models have caught up to that. DSLRs are about as good as they can get in terms of focusing and tracking, but MILCs have no ceiling in that respect.

Thank you.
Please would you explain what DMF is and why it is so much better than the selectable AF points I have on my DSLR? If I position the AF point correctly then the results are always acceptable - so what does DMF offer in addition to this?

 

[jolyonralph]

I personally like my EF-M lenses. They seem to outperform most EF-S lenses.

I have both the EF-M 15-45 mm kit lens for my M5 as well as the EF-S 18-55 mm kit lens for my 77D. Both offer equally superlative performances. ;D

The 15-45 is the poorest-quality EF-M lens, even the old discontinued 18-55 was better (and better than the EF-S 18-55 in my experience)

The EF-M 22mm, 28mm macro and the 11-22mm are superb lenses. The 18-150 is very good considering what it is, but mostly I use the 22 and the 11-22 on my M3 (full spectrum converted), M5 and M6.

 

[traveller]

Lots of debate here of EF versus EF-M vs. new mount. As this is such a controversial subject, I will stick my neck out: if there is a full-frame mirrorless camera launched as a new line, it will be EF-M mount. It will not be EF mount and there will be no new dedicated FF mirrorless mount to fulfil all the technical performance requirements of the CR-Forum-axe-grinders. It's all about the marketing message, not technical ivory towers.

Canon does not create cameras for the handful of people that frequent the CR Forums (great as you guys and gals are! ), they create them for the mainstream. Canon will want to send the message to this EOS-M mainstream that "there is an upgrade path to full-frame" in the same way as this exists for EOS DSLR users and Sony E-mount users. If Canon produces its first FF mirrorless camera in EF-mount or creates a new dedicated FF-mirrorless mount, they are effectively telling the market that the EF-M mount is 'low-end' only. Nikon tried this approach, creating a mirrorless sub-category below DSLRs, with their 1-series and look at the disaster that ensued. Canon will be wary of sending the same signals to the market with EOS-M and killing a successful line.

This is not to say that Canon never will produce a mirrorless camera with an EF mount -probably all the EF mount range will eventually go mirrorless, with perhaps the exception of the top tier models (1D, 5D, 7D ~maybe~ series).

 

[AvTvM]

* Canon EF-S and EF-M ARE a limited lineup of "low end/consumer to middle class" lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Maximum bang for the buck and the size/weight actually.
* Nikon DX ... worse [fewer attractive DX lenses, no mirrorless APS-C].
* Sony E-mount [for APS-C] ... worse [lower IQ lenses at higher prices than Canon EF-M]
* Fujifilm does have higher end APS-C lenses. But no FF system.

There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand.
"upgrade" from APS-C system to FF means: throw away all your "old" camera/s and lenses and buy expensive new stuff.

A Canon mirrorless FF system with new native mount ["EF-X?"] will however offer *an excellent upgrade path* for Canon EF lens users: a simple and cheap adapter is all that's needed. You can even keep and use your "old" mirrorslapper as long as you want.

I do believe, even "stupid Canon" is smart enough to not use EF-M for FF = NOT to repeat Sony E-mount mistake.

 

[jolyonralph]

There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand.

Wrong

Sony APS-C E lenses work perfectly well on the full-frame cameras. In fact, some of them provide enough of an image circle that they can produce a full-frame image at certain zooms if you turn off the automatic 'switch to crop mode'.

See: http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-10-18-e-mount-lens/

 

[jolyonralph]

Actually, even the EF-S 18-55 II IS lens I tried with the metabones adaptor on the A7RII gave almost a full-frame image at the mid points of its zoom.

Not that I'd advocate buying an A7RII and metabones adaptor just to use the EF-S 18-55, but it does show that once you take the mirror out of the equation then yes, sometimes these lenses are more flexible than you think.

 

[AvTvM]

There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand.

Wrong

Sony APS-C E lenses work perfectly well on the full-frame cameras. In fact, some of them provide enough of an image circle that they can produce a full-frame image at certain zooms if you turn off the automatic 'switch to crop mode'.

See: http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-10-18-e-mount-lens/

Thanks but no thanks. This is a perverted idiocy, not anything I'd call an "upgrade path".

To start with, Sony APS-C E-mount lenses [not the FE lenses] are relative pieces of cr*p ... even on an APS-C sensor. Using said crop lenses on a full frame sensor is just "beyond ridiculous". Why on earth would anybody in their right mind buy an expensive FF camera and then stick such pieces of junk onto them? :

 

[Hector1970]

I'm not sure technically reading through the thread whether Canon can retain the EF mount or have to create a new mount.
For Canon if they want alot of users to move to mirrorless it would be best to keep the EF mount.
The next best thing would be a cheap but excellent adapter that would be future proofed.

I do alot of sports photography and high frame rate is a big advantage in fast moving sports (it does have a downside with the volume of photographs to trawl through).
If Canon made a mirrorless that would do 16-20 FPS and record images to a buffer with the button half pressed (like the Olympus Pro mode) I'd be very interested.
It may also be possible to be alot quieter.
(The 5D IV is very loud in silent mode in a church).

A smaller size would be an advantage on smaller lens but once you get into 300-600 F2.8 a small camera isn't any particular advantage.

I think Canon could make a great mirrorless full frame M1 with the best of other mirrorless cameras included like focus peaking, electronic zoom , pre recording photos, very high frame rate, good focusing system etc.
I'd hate to see a mediocre first attempt

 

[traveller]

There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand.

Wrong

Sony APS-C E lenses work perfectly well on the full-frame cameras. In fact, some of them provide enough of an image circle that they can produce a full-frame image at certain zooms if you turn off the automatic 'switch to crop mode'.

See: http://briansmith.com/sony-a7r-10-18-e-mount-lens/

Thanks but no thanks. This is a perverted idiocy, not anything I'd call an "upgrade path".

To start with, Sony APS-C E-mount lenses [not the FE lenses] are relative pieces of cr*p ... even on an APS-C sensor. Using said crop lenses on a full frame sensor is just "beyond ridiculous". Why on earth would anybody in their right mind buy an expensive FF camera and then stick such pieces of junk onto them? :

We all know the reality of the "upgrade path", but marketing isn't about reality, it's about creating the impression in people's minds that something is possible. Besides, if you are careful with your lens selection, maintaining the same mount whilst "going full frame" can save you money. I still have my (now repurposed) 50mm f/1.4 and my 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, though I had to trade in my UWA zoom for something more appropriate. Not taking a hit on the 70-200 trade-in helped tip the balance in favour of the 5D3 over the D800, which would have been my choice if I had needed to start again from scratch. I wonder how many other customers Canon has retained in this way?

The issue with the Sony A7&9 series is that you can get EF-FE mount adapters. Whilst these aren't great, it means that if you don't have top-level autofocus requirements, you can make do whilst you spread the transition costs. It also allows Canon users to sample the Sony bodies without needing a full lens set straight away. This is quite a big threat to Canon and I think that this is another reason why they'll try to have a "smaller & lighter hi-res' mirrorless FF option soon.

 

[traveller]

I'm not sure technically reading through the thread whether Canon can retain the EF mount or have to create a new mount.
For Canon if they want alot of users to move to mirrorless it would be best to keep the EF mount.
The next best thing would be a cheap but excellent adapter that would be future proofed.

I do alot of sports photography and high frame rate is a big advantage in fast moving sports (it does have a downside with the volume of photographs to trawl through).
If Canon made a mirrorless that would do 16-20 FPS and record images to a buffer with the button half pressed (like the Olympus Pro mode) I'd be very interested.
It may also be possible to be alot quieter.
(The 5D IV is very loud in silent mode in a church).

A smaller size would be an advantage on smaller lens but once you get into 300-600 F2.8 a small camera isn't any particular advantage.

I think Canon could make a great mirrorless full frame M1 with the best of other mirrorless cameras included like focus peaking, electronic zoom , pre recording photos, very high frame rate, good focusing system etc.
I'd hate to see a mediocre first attempt

Technically, there's nothing stopping Canon just removing the mirror from any of their full frame cameras and marketing it as their mirrorless option (hopefully whilst replacing the viewfinder with an EVF ), all the technology is already in place - it would be the same as using your 5D4 in live view mode. The question is whether this is the best strategy, or whether a mount with a shorter flange back distance would offer more design freedom for lenses and the possibility of a more compact body. Personally, I think that we'll eventually see both approaches from Canon, it's just a case of which one first.

 

[BillB]

* Canon EF-S and EF-M ARE a limited lineup of "low end/consumer to middle class" lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Maximum bang for the buck and the size/weight actually.
* Nikon DX ... worse [fewer attractive DX lenses, no mirrorless APS-C].
* Sony E-mount [for APS-C] ... worse [lower IQ lenses at higher prices than Canon EF-M]
* Fujifilm does have higher end APS-C lenses. But no FF system.

There is no meaningful "upgrade path" from APS-C systems to FF systems. Not for any brand.
"upgrade" from APS-C system to FF means: throw away all your "old" camera/s and lenses and buy expensive new stuff.

A Canon mirrorless FF system with new native mount ["EF-X?"] will however offer *an excellent upgrade path* for Canon EF lens users: a simple and cheap adapter is all that's needed. You can even keep and use your "old" mirrorslapper as long as you want.

I do believe, even "stupid Canon" is smart enough to not use EF-M for FF = NOT to repeat Sony E-mount mistake.

As you point out, along with many others, the selection of EF-S and EF-M is quite limited. On the other hand, all EF lenses work perfectly well on Canon APS-C cameras, with or without an adaptor. Get the EF lenses first and then get the fullframe camera later. Seems like a transition strategy to me.

 

[AvTvM]

As you point out, along with many others, the selection of EF-S and EF-M is quite limited. On the other hand, all EF lenses work perfectly well on Canon APS-C cameras, with or without an adaptor. Get the EF lenses first and then get the fullframe camera later. Seems like a transition strategy to me.

technically yes. In practice entry and "upgrade path" does not work this way. Many Canon users start/ed with an affordable APS-C "Rebel" series DSLR plus EF-S kit zoom. By the time they are ready for their second lens most will rather buy another affordable EF-S lens, e.g. a tele-zoom [EF-S 55-250 etc.] or a longer convenience zoom [EF-S 18-200 etc.] or possibly a faster/better standard zoom [EF-S 17-55] or a UWA [EF-S 10-18, 10-22]. Buying big, heavy and expensive EF full-frame lenses is typically not a consideration until people are well advanced and quite sure photography is one of their main hobbies/occupations.

In between are one or multiple upgrades to newer/better APS-C DSLRs ... from Rebel xxD and 7D/2 lineup. Until the time these "progressing enthusiasts" are ready to "upgrade" to FF they may have also own an EF 50/1.8 or 1.4 and or an EF 70-300 lens, but mostly it will be EF-S lenses ... all of which have to go in order to go "full frame". The same holds true for Nikon, Sony, Pentax, ...

Again, in practice there is NO upgrade path from APS-C to FF systems. Yes, Canon speedlites can still be used. And the initial tripod - if a sturdy enough model was purchased.

"Upgrade path" does not hold up as an argument for Canon to NOT bring their FF mirrorless system with a brand spanking new mount, optimally chosen for mirrorless FF cameras and a great new "EF-X?" lens lineup ... to be sold over the next 30 years. Short-term there will be 4 mounts - 2 for APS-C [EF-S, EF-M] and 2 for FF [EF, EF-X?]. At the end of the day new lenses will only come in EF-X? mount for FF and EF-M mount for APS-C. EF-X? lenses will be fully compatible with EF-M mount of course, same way EF lenses can be used on EF-S camera bodies.

 

[BillB]

Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global

regrettably not. ;D

Otherwise ...
* Sony E-mount would have been designed "really right" from start - no-compromise, fully FF capable. Much wider diameter, slightly longer FFD.

* Sony E-mount APS-C lenses would have been as small, dirt cheap and optically good as Canon EF-M lenses

* Sony E-mount lenses ["FE" series] would be a lot smaller, optically as good and half price of what they are currently selling for ... thanks to wisely chosen lens mount parameters and associated benefits for lens construction

* Sony RX1R II would be as small as it is, but equipped with a lens mount up front instead of a fixed 35mm lens. It would have sold like hotcakes for €/USD 1899,- [body plus "non-Zeiss" 24-70/4.0 kit zoom] ... instead of sitting unsold on shop shelves at a totally ludicrous MSRP of USD/€ 4000

* all Sony cameras would have global electronic shutter by now 8)

* all Sony cameras would have a user interface [front wheel, thumb wheel, all control points on right side for 1-handed operation] and a menu system as good as Canon EOS 8)

Should Sony read this, I am open for an interesting job offer.

So the path to success would be an RX1R II with interchangeable lenses that sells for $1899. Wonder how Sony missed that one.

 

[jolyonralph]

The thing that's most amusing about this debate is that it will make not one tiny bit of difference to the actual decision about which mount will be used - a decision Canon probably settled on a year or more ago.

We just have to wait and see what Canon decide to bring us.

 

[BillB]

The thing that's most amusing about this debate is that it will make not one tiny bit of difference to the actual decision about which mount will be used - a decision Canon probably settled on a year or more ago.

We just have to wait and see what Canon decide to bring us.

Where is the fun in that?

 

[slclick]

We really need this body to be released with an EF mount and the 50L 1.X at the same time to close the door on these threads, wild hopes and dreams and to take more photographs.

 

[PRINZMETAL]

lens size sony 70-200 f2.8 vs canon

Those who think that mirrorless len size will be much smaller and lighter than current zoom lens at say f2.8 they are probably wrong. I just checked Sony's full frame mirrorless 70-200 f2.8 vs canon's. Canon's is shorter, the diameter and weight are about the same.

If one was to make a lens smaller one gives up the f2.8.

So why mirrorless? To me the advantages will be in the long run cheaper for the manufacturer to make with perhaps corresponding less consumer costs. Two, no need for lens af adjustments (to me that is a big deal). And, the ability to make smaller/lighter bodies.

To me from a consumer's standpoint, these are not really significant. From a manufacturer's perspective, driving down manufacturing costs with a simpler body is paramount if they don't give up sales in the process.

Bp

 

[Ozarker]

Not only Sony consult with AvTvM, but he is on the engineering panel for Sony Digital Imaging Global

regrettably not. ;D

Otherwise ...
* Sony E-mount would have been designed "really right" from start - no-compromise, fully FF capable. Much wider diameter, slightly longer FFD.

* Sony E-mount APS-C lenses would have been as small, dirt cheap and optically good as Canon EF-M lenses

* Sony E-mount lenses ["FE" series] would be a lot smaller, optically as good and half price of what they are currently selling for ... thanks to wisely chosen lens mount parameters and associated benefits for lens construction

* Sony RX1R II would be as small as it is, but equipped with a lens mount up front instead of a fixed 35mm lens. It would have sold like hotcakes for €/USD 1899,- [body plus "non-Zeiss" 24-70/4.0 kit zoom] ... instead of sitting unsold on shop shelves at a totally ludicrous MSRP of USD/€ 4000

* all Sony cameras would have global electronic shutter by now 8)

* all Sony cameras would have a user interface [front wheel, thumb wheel, all control points on right side for 1-handed operation] and a menu system as good as Canon EOS 8)

Should Sony read this, I am open for an interesting job offer.

The offer and the check are in the mail. We at Sony really, really, really need you on our engineering panel and want to pick you up before Canon does.