What will be the mirrorless full-frame mount?

[ahsanford]

After all the hubbub caused by the recent CR2 on the FF mirrorless mount situation, what say ye?

Don't vote what you want -- vote what you think will happen.

- A

 

[Loswr]

EF-M. One and done.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As I recall, Chuck Westfal once said that the EOS-M mount was not adequate for FF. Canon has a patent on a new mount for mirrorless FF as well as a EF adaptor.

Since EOS M lenses will not cover FF, I expect another new mount. This has the advantage (for Canon) that Canon can enforce their patent, and make it difficult for third party lens makers to compete.

Personally, I'd be happy with faster AF in a FF body. Canon does not yet have fast AF with their FF sensors using their dual pixel sensors.

I see no reason for Canon to produce a FF mirrorless except for those wanting a smaller body, and a new set of consumer grade lenses.

A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.

 

[Loswr]

As I recall, Chuck Westfal once said that the EOS-M mount was not adequate for FF.

Interesting. Since the Sony FE mount (for FF sensors) actually has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount, I'm not sure why that would be the case.

 

[ahsanford]

A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.

We have heard this many times, and yes, the ability to shoot Live View if you want and go back to vanilla mirror SLR use is undoubtedly an upside.

But while Live View is great, but it's not the true mirrorless photography experience of having a customize-able viewfinder with all the feedback you do (or don't) want while the camera is in its ideal handhold shooting posture with your eye on the frame and the ability to change settings without looking at knobs/dials/buttons. (I cannot stand shooting handheld in Live View.)

- A

 

[unfocused]

Years of reading CR have taught me that it is safer to bet on Craig's information at CR2 and above, rather than bet against it. If his sources are saying no fourth mount, then there probably won't be a fourth mount.

I doubt if Canon can produce a full frame that will work with all EF-S or EF-M lenses and they won't release a camera that works with some but not all, so that only leaves EF. They may release a couple of new pancakes, but generally, since size isn't going to be the deciding factor, I'd say EF all the way.

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if it looks pretty much like a DSLR and isn't all that much smaller.

 

[9VIII]

I wish they would go for a full EF mount, but with the curved sensor rumors it makes sense to try and follow Sony's design style.

 

[Bob Howland]

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size. The lens mount size is not the issue - compare the SL1 size and weight with the size and weight of the M5. Furthermore, if they create an M mount variant for FF, they will have to support both FF and APS-C sensors for both the M and EF lens mounts - four different lens lines. Real photographers will, of course, use the FF EF mount.

Wild guess: if there is a "new" lens mount some time in the future, it will be identical to the EF mount except that the camera will have an 18mm to 22mm flange distance. Every camera body will come with a very secure 22mm to 26mm extension tube. If the flange distance is 22mm, Canon will also introduce an adapter, 4mm thick, permitting the new line of FF mirrorless lenses to be used on M-mount bodies.

 

[AvTvM]

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.

Of course not. All EF lenses will remain fully functional by use of a simple EF-X/EF adapter. That way whwnever an EF lens is to be used, it can be used. And whenever a new native "EF-X" lens is available and better or smaller/lighter for the task at hand, that one will be used.

Canon has many years to introduce new EF-X lenses and users have many years to lust and G.A.S. over nwe EF-X lenses. And they will be BUYING, BUYING, BUYING for many years to come. Just like when CDs succeeded vinyl. And then streaming succeeded CDs. I myself have many pieces of music that I bought and paid for 4 times by now.

So why should Canon NOT introduce a native mirrorless/short flange-distance FF lens line-up along with a new lineup of mirrorless FF cameras?

4 lens lines will only exist for a very short transitional period. EF-S will be killed off first, together with Rebel mirrorslappers. Replaced by EOS M models and EF-M glass.

EF glass will be maintained for longer, but eventually, only a limited lineup of EF-M (crop) and a full lineup of EF-X (FF) lenses will be made.

 

[Labdoc]

I am a dinosaur but the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics. The SLR was Invented by Thomas Sutton in 1861 in production by 1898 in Japan. Some might say older is better but at some point, the argument doesn't hold water.

The moving parts reach the limit of increased performance. If today you were to invent the ultimate form some call the 1DX2, 5D, etc or even something a little smaller, there would be no mirror. It would all be solid state. It took years to get the SLR perfected, EVF will be worked out, overheating and battery life too. I think Canon is going EF FF on a 6D level to not aggravate the loyal EF owners out there, show they are serious and not be left behind.

 

[j-nord]

If there was a new mount in the works, possibly announced 1 year from now, wouldn't we be seeing lens patents by now or very soon??

 

[rrcphoto]

EF mount all the way. stupid of canon to do otherwise.

 

[rrcphoto]

If there was a new mount in the works, possibly announced 1 year from now, wouldn't we be seeing lens patents by now or very soon??

the patents would be a long long time ago.. it takes 5+ years for the lens development.

and no, they can use existing formulations

 

[rrcphoto]

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.

Of course not. All EF lenses will remain fully functional by use of a simple EF-X/EF adapter. That way whwnever an EF lens is to be used, it can be used.

except no one really likes using adapters, and they can potentially harm optical performance.

 

[Don Haines]

Look at this logically.....

So Canon decides to go down the FF mirrorless path..... They still need ergonomics, and that means keeping the camera body about the same size it is now in order for it to fit hands and have space for controls.... So the EF mount is very likely

 

[ahsanford]

Full blown EF mount. Canon isn't stupid enough to orphan 100 million EF lenses just for a trivial reduction in camera size.

Of course not. All EF lenses will remain fully functional by use of a simple EF-X/EF adapter. That way whwnever an EF lens is to be used, it can be used.

except no one really likes using adapters, and they can potentially harm optical performance.

Reasonably nightmarish scenario:

1) Canon goes with EF-M and an adaptor.
2) You collect a few small EF-M lenses but also use a lot of EF glass via the adaptor.
3) You go out for (say) a portrait shoot with an FF EF-M lens attached to the mirrorless body and a bag full of EF lenses.
4) Because your mirrorless rig had a native EF-M lens on it last, you forget to put the EF adaptor in your bag.
5) S.O.L.

Or the CAPA version of that argument: you can't leave an adaptor at home (and ruin a shoot) if the adaptor doesn't exist.

I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

A 80D, 5D MK IV, 1DX II, and 7D MK II can all be operated in a mirrorless like mode using live view mode, complete with short battery life and slower autofocus. They have a huge advantage in that they can also operate as DSLR's with much better performance, and use EF lenses.

We have heard this many times, and yes, the ability to shoot Live View if you want and go back to vanilla mirror SLR use is undoubtedly an upside.

But while Live View is great, but it's not the true mirrorless photography experience of having a customize-able viewfinder with all the feedback you do (or don't) want while the camera is in its ideal handhold shooting posture with your eye on the frame and the ability to change settings without looking at knobs/dials/buttons. (I cannot stand shooting handheld in Live View.)

- A

Number 1 difference..... A mirrorless camera does not have to have a mechanical shutter constantly engaged...... And that is a lot of power!

Number 2 difference..... A mirrorless camera has an EVF, and that means you can do a lot of things differently than with an optical viewfinder

And yes, I agree with ahsanford, trying to use a hand held camera through liveview stinks! The ergonomics is terrible!

 

[unfocused]

...the mirror is legacy from the film days and vacuum tube electronics...
...The moving parts reach the limit of increased performance...If today you were to invent the ultimate form some call the 1DX2, 5D, etc or even something a little smaller, there would be no mirror. It would all be solid state... EVF will be worked out, overheating and battery life too...

I don't think anyone disputes that "sooner or later" EVF may replace the reflex mirror. It's just a matter of when that might occur and what the end result will look like.

The current state of technology right now is that EVF are not as good as the reflex mirror for most users. The reflex mirror is an elegantly simple design that relies on a free energy source (light) to illuminate the viewfinder and show an image at the exact moment of exposure. (Or at least, what passes for the exact moment in terms of human vision and the speed of light).

So far, electronics have not been able to improve on that simple solution. If they do, then we will see a relatively rapid conversion to the new technology. But, it is likely to be transparent to most users. The SLR form factor has a lot going for it, so I expect that the mirrorless body type will be evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

Like most users, I don't care about the technology, just so long as it works. But, what people will care about is if it requires the purchase of new lenses or requires compromises in how one uses their lenses (adapters, etc.). For that reason, I expect that when and if EVF replace the reflex mirror, the resulting cameras will still look like and act like DSLRs.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't think anyone disputes that "sooner or later" EVF may replace the reflex mirror. It's just a matter of when that might occur and what the end result will look like.

I generally believe it is inevitable, but a hybrid EVF/OVF setup could be the future if Canon wants to temper the blow of yanking mirrors from everyone. In that case, higher end shoppers can keep their mirrors while the revolution (or, if you are a mirrorless hater, the metastasis) of mirrorless could progress.

- A

 

[AvTvM]

I'm voted for full EF as the practical / cheaper call for Canon. I appreciate the market (seemingly) revolves around being smaller and lighter, but the minute you go long or go fast with a FF lens, the mirrorless size/weight savings seem to evaporate.

Small MILCs have a huge size advantage when used with compact native glass. ONLY when using fat large glass the package will be large. All other times it will be compact and light.

I shoot 99% of my images with focal lengths available as nice compact native short-flange back lenses on a very compact mirrorless cam. 99% of the time I want to have a package as small and light as possible. The other 1% of the time I use EF glass and then don't mind taking along the small adapter. I do not want a FF MILC with an ugly EF-nozzle sticking out in front nor with an ugly bulky pseudo-prism hump on top. I bet the vast majority of photographers/enthusiasts/amateur (potential MILC buyers) out there has a very similar usage pattern.

Why should Canon use a design that does not allow to leverage size advantage of mirrorless cameras and that will not allow them to sell millions of new, native "EF-X" lenses over many years to come? I bet, Canon will go exactly the same route Sony has taken. Small cameras, small glass where possible, large glass where needed. No NOZZLE cam.