Will it be the EOS M1? [CR2]

[Bekippe]

Another thing to note: look at the marking position on an A7 or A9 for the focal plane vs the marking on the 5DIV. Yes, Sony has a much shorter flange distance, but their sensor is also set further forward by a good amount.


Sony seemingly has more going on behind the sensor than Canon does. If the sensor could be about as far back as it was in the Film days (ex: turn an AE-1 into a mirrorless camera), having the longer flange distance wouldn't change the overall body size very much.


For special wide-angle lenses where the shorter flange length could reduce lens size, have the sensor on a slide that moves it forward to the "short" flange position inside the body. If you can move lens elements back and forth with precision, you can move the sensor as well.

 

[jedy]

My ideal would be a fullframe mirrorless, reasonably sized (maybe sized like a Rebel?), new lens mount, with some decent manual prime lenses, f1.4-f2. Lenses with aperture rings and proper distance markings for good old zone focusing. Considering this is a very niche set of asks for my preferred photography, I think I'll just have to get to the back of the queue and wait a very long time (and possibly even longer). Canon will be catering for the mass market well before even considering a few niche interests, if at all. Perhaps manual lenses will get built by third party lens companies like Zeiss or Voigtlander, eventually.

 

[jolyonralph]

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.


One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)

 

[rrcphoto]

the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.

you get with this:

- a slightly smaller camera than the 6D Mark II but with the ergonomics of the EOS series cameras.
- a camera that weighs less (no pentaprism, simpler shutter assembly) (a A7II weighs 625g, a 6D Mark II weighs 765g)

if canon wants to compete head on size by size against a Sony A7 series body, then they can do so with an SL2 sized camera without much problem.

the tougher thing for canon is to port from the powershot code all the EVF, focus tools, performance optimization and get that working with the DSLR firmware.

the second hurdle is Canon's EOS utility and the fact that it doesn't support liveview fps "overdrive" capable cameras such as mirrorless ( the M5 for instance, refreshes liveview up to 120hz).

while people in their mom's basement think that is easy, it's a chore - there's a reason why many of the features on the M5 for instance, hasn't made it into the DSLR firmware yet.

If canon goes with a short mount, they are adding to that series of problems significantly and most in here are waving it off as nothing.. good god...

for instance - if they use the EF-M mount, they are working with a 18mm registration distance. that's new technologies that are absolutely necessary to produce the sensor (BSI,etc). Canon has never done a BSI sensor, not even in R&D.

if they work with another registration distance that is not EF-M and not EF, then they are adding yet-another-mount-and-lens series to their portfolio. Canon has a finite limit to the amount of lenses that they can create in a year - just like sony does as well (how many really new A mount lenses have come out in the last 4+ years).

Then we have perception. This will be a very difficult problem - especially after they have already done that historically in the past with the FD mount - how many will think this is just another wholesale mount switch. this really plays havoc with the largest and most successful mount in the history of photography.

the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:

- you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
- you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.

 

[Talys]

the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.

They could also swap an EVF into a 5D IV

Then they'd have 2 models of FF mirrorless!

 

[BillB]

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.


One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)

The only time I really notice the weight of the DSLR is when I have a zoom on it. (Don't have any heavy primes.)

 

[rrcphoto]

the quickest and less risk path for canon to take is basically add an EVF onto a 6D Mark II camera body and call things good.

They could also swap an EVF into a 5D IV

Then they'd have 2 models of FF mirrorless!

pretty much. i can see over time, canon will simply flip the pentaprism assembly with an EVF throughout the lineup and keep it the same as it is now. each camera will be slightly smaller, weigh less but still have the EOS ergonomics. the EF-M lineup is there if you want to get to travel small.

the big ticket items is firmware and EOS utility. those simply need to be improved for Mirrorless. Canon has all the other technologies in place already.

 

[rrcphoto]

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight.

a 6D mark II weighs 765g the A7RII weighs 625g.

the 6D Mark II is vastly better ergonomically from grip, fully articulating screen, battery size, haptics,etc.

there's a good chance that a mirrorless form of the 6D Mark II would actually weigh less than the A7RII.

 

[traveller]

Another thing to note: look at the marking position on an A7 or A9 for the focal plane vs the marking on the 5DIV. Yes, Sony has a much shorter flange distance, but their sensor is also set further forward by a good amount.


Sony seemingly has more going on behind the sensor than Canon does. If the sensor could be about as far back as it was in the Film days (ex: turn an AE-1 into a mirrorless camera), having the longer flange distance wouldn't change the overall body size very much.


For special wide-angle lenses where the shorter flange length could reduce lens size, have the sensor on a slide that moves it forward to the "short" flange position inside the body. If you can move lens elements back and forth with precision, you can move the sensor as well.

Wouldn't it be lovely if Canon could mount the sensor as far back as the film plane on a traditional SLR.... sadly, no one yet can, as digital camera sensors and their associated electronics are thicker than film, plus most people would insist that LCD displays are also pretty indispensable. This is one reason why I think, so many people were disappointed with the bulkiness of the Nikon Df.

I'm not convinced that the 'more going on' behind a Sony sensor is visible without a microscope and moving a sensor back and forth might be possible (and is patented by Canon, I think), but that doesn't mean it is entirely practicable. Surely it's easier just to use a tube like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008O0IE2Y/ref=asc_df_B008O0IE2Y14855106?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=cpbcouk-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B008O0IE2Y?

 

[AvTvM]

the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:
- you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
- you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.

wrong. Even when looking at EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ... http://j.mp/2xyGhAl

we clearly see what the shorter Flange distance allows in size savings for tele / zoom lenses. Same would be true for mirrorless FF lenses - IF new lens mount parameters are optimally chosen.

btw: comparison shows SL2 - Canon's smallest DSLR ... vs. EOS M5 - largest Canon MILC to date. Same would apply for FF mirrorless cams.

Probably any lens up to 200mm focal length [barring TS-E and other special purpose lenses] would be smaller with a new mirrorless mount compared to an equivalent EF lens. Primes and zooms.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.


One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)

Umm .... is there really actually any such thing as In Body Stabilization for still shots ? How on earth does it work ? Video is obvious - just use a CPU to line up the frames - but when you only have one frame what do you do ? put Gyroscopes into the camera body ? I'd love to know ...

 

[dak723]

For me the problem with DSLRs isn't so much the size, but the weight. Ergonomics don't have to be compromised, you can make the camera slightly larger than the A7RII and still benefit from a weight reduction.


One reason the sensor is so far forward in the A7RII is to allow for the in body stabilization (another trick Canon haven't got a working solution for yet, except for video)

Umm .... is there really actually any such thing as In Body Stabilization for still shots ? How on earth does it work ? Video is obvious - just use a CPU to line up the frames - but when you only have one frame what do you do ? put Gyroscopes into the camera body ? I'd love to know ...

Yes, the Olympus M4/3rds cameras have had it since the introduction of the OM-D E-M5 a number of years ago and Sony has it in their FF cameras since the A7 II, I believe. If you do an internet search, you can learn all about it.

 

[rrcphoto]

the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:
- you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
- you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.

wrong. Even when looking at EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...

sure if you forget that the EF-M 18-150 is a much slower lens throughout the zoom range and ends up at 6.3.
:

 

[gmrza]

Aside from this, there are still very real challenges that mirrorless cameras need to overcome. If Canon were to use a native EF mount, the size benefit of a mirrorless assembly would be lost.

not true at all.

a full frame mirrorless camera can be made the same size as an SL2 with a 100% viewfinder. that's simply impossible to do with an DSLR.

what prevents the cameras being this small is the fact that the vast majority of people want better ergonomics. ergonomics require bigger cameras.

The point I was making is that if you use an EF lens, you need to maintain the same focal plane distance. Thus, even though you don't have a mirror, you still have to keep the lens at the same distance from the sensor. Only by changing the optical formula of the lens can you bring it closer to the focal plane.

 

[neuroanatomist]

the ONLY downsides to not working with a smaller mount hardly affects Canon Inc:
- you can't adapt nearly as many lenses.
- you can't make smaller primes with focals under < 40mm.

wrong. Even when looking at EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...

sure if you forget that the EF-M 18-150 is a much slower lens throughout the zoom range and ends up at 6.3.
:

Please, don't bother AvTvM with facts. He's never liked them.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: lens size sony 70-200 f2.8 vs canon

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.

Or...cheaper to manufacture without the correspondingly lower consumer cost, which means increased profit. I can certainly see that as a likely driver for a Canon FF MILC.

 

[weixing]

Hi,
Canon just release a few L lens with EF mount, so just wonder why Canon would come out a new mount for their FF MILC?? IMHO, if Canon go full MILC, I think it'll use EF-M mount and lens for entry level camera and those who want a small camera setup, EF mount for the rest and EF-S mount will slowly disappear.

Have a nice day.

 

[AvTvM]

EF-M 18-150 vs. EF-S 18-135 ...

sure if you forget that the EF-M 18-150 is a much slower lens throughout the zoom range and ends up at 6.3.
:

partially correct. From 24mm upwards the EF-M 18-150 is a bit slower. On the other hand it has 15mm more focal length [150mm vs. 135]. For the purpose of my comparison I considered those 2 factors about even. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1045&LensComp=1134&Units=E

mirrorless lenses designed for an optimally chosen lens mount do have size/weight advantages. Not only for wide-angle primes <40mm but also for zooms and certainly for lenses in the most commonly used focal length range [24-85mm FF equivalent FOV].

Yes, a 70-200/2.8 or 400/4.0 would not get smaller or lighter with a new mirrorless FF mount - we know that. But most users do not use such lenses frequently or at all. And if they are needed, size/weight of a little adapter will not matter. Many (moderately fast = f/1.8 and up) primes, common "consumer zooms" and even constant f/4 zooms could however be noticeably smaller and/or lighter.

My "wishlist" for a Canon FF MILC system starting line-up would be roughly:

PRIMES (all with blue gunk)
* EF-X 16/3.5 STM IS - very small & light
* EF-X 24/2.8 STM IS - smaller/lighter than EF 24/2.8 IS
* EF-X 35/2.8 STM IS - definitely a tiny pancake!
* EF-X 50/1.8 STM IS - slightly smaller than EF 50/1.8 and with further improved IQ
* EF-X 85/2.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller, noticeably lighter than EF 85/1.8, plus significantly improved IQ [less lateral CAs]
* EF-X 135/2.8 STM IS - significantly smaller & lighter than EF 135/2.0 L

f/4.0 ZOOMS - optically all at least as good as the EF versions
* EF-X 16-35/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF version
* EF-X 24-70/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF version
* EF-X 24-105/4.0 STM IS - somewhat smaller & lighter than EF 24-105 L II

I would buy many of these lenses - for a small, lite and fully competent Canon mirrorless FF camera. And ... I would also keep my f/2.8 EF L zooms and use them with adapter ... when really needed = on planned shootings, not for city trips, travel, alpine backcountry, general walk around. 8)

 

[traveller]

Aside from this, there are still very real challenges that mirrorless cameras need to overcome. If Canon were to use a native EF mount, the size benefit of a mirrorless assembly would be lost.

not true at all.

a full frame mirrorless camera can be made the same size as an SL2 with a 100% viewfinder. that's simply impossible to do with an DSLR.

what prevents the cameras being this small is the fact that the vast majority of people want better ergonomics. ergonomics require bigger cameras.

The point I was making is that if you use an EF lens, you need to maintain the same focal plane distance. Thus, even though you don't have a mirror, you still have to keep the lens at the same distance from the sensor. Only by changing the optical formula of the lens can you bring it closer to the focal plane.

100% is not a size issue, a viewfinder can be tiny and still offer a 100% view. Magnification is the issue, remembering that this is usually stated using a 50mm lens, regardless of whether the camera is full frame 35mm or APS-C, thus overstating the size of the the APS-C viewfinder by 1.5 or 1.6 times. Thus, in Canon-land the 1D X2 is the current "king" with a 0.76x finder, followed by the 5D series at 0.71x. The 7D series is quoted as having a 1x finder, which equates to 0.625x equivalent on full frame (if you prefer, it is 0.625x when using a 31.25mm lens, which is equivalent to the field of view of a 50mm lens on full frame).

That having been clarified (and I'm sure that I'm teaching most CR readers how to suck ovoid lens elements ), I don't buy the argument that a full frame DSLR the size of the SL2 cannot be given a large viewfinder. Compare the following:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/omd-em5/ZCOMPOM1FR.JPG

And:

http://camerasize.com/compact/#715,289,ha,f

Can we agree that the Olympus OM-1 is similar in size to the E-M5 and that the E-M5 is similar in size to the SL2? In that tiny SLR body from the 1970s, Olympus managed to squeeze a 97% 0.92x magnification viewfinder (they could have traded a few points magnification for 100%, but it was a different market back then). That's correct, the tiny OM-1 has a larger viewfinder than the current 1-series (the largest of any current DSLR).

This is an imaged that has been stolen so many times over the years that I don't know its original provenance (apologies if it's yours):

Okay, so you can't actually make an autofocus viewfinder this big, because of the light losses from the af system (or it would be extremely dim, or not have enough 'bite' to allow you to see the depth of field at large apertures), but there's certainly no reason why a 1D X2 sized viewfinder wouldn't fit in an SL2 body. The 1D X2 metering and autofocus systems are a different story!

 

[okaro]

If they go to a new FF mirrorless mount they need to make the flange focal distance big enough that they can create an adapter for the EF-M mount. It would make no sense to create lenses that cannot be used with existing mirrorless cameras.