A Prototype Full Frame Mirrorless From Canon Exists [CR1]

[Rocky]

There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.

^^This.

At issue is the target market. For entry-level APS-C mirrorless, that market is new customers – a new mount is fine, with an adapter for current system owners. But for FF mirrorless, the target market is current ILC owners. For Sony, that means pulling customers away from Canon/Nikon. But for Canon, the largest source of FF MILC buyers is current Canon dSLR owners.

There could be a comparability issue between a new FF mirrorless mount and the aps-c M line. An M camera will take an EF lens with an adapter, but it might be difficult to adapt lenses with the new FF mirrorless mount to an M camera

If the flange disttance is about 29 mm, it will not be a problem. I have been adapting the Leica lenses for my M.

 

[Loswr]

Sony is the best example.

The best example of you completely missing the point, true.

Existing EF-lens owners refusing to use an adapter will have to live with their decision. Their problem, not Canon's.

Except if no adapter is required to mount an EF lens on a Canon FF MILC. I know it will come as a shock to you if Canon chooses to do something you don't think is a good idea…but it won't surprise anyone who lives in the real world.

 

[Loswr]

There is also the problem of convincing people to buy a mirrorless camera that requires adapters to use EF lenses when they can buy a DSLR that they can use without adapters. Then there are the people with a Canon DSLR who will not add a mirrorless camera that requires an adapter to use the lenses that are compatible with the DSLR.

^^This.

At issue is the target market. For entry-level APS-C mirrorless, that market is new customers – a new mount is fine, with an adapter for current system owners. But for FF mirrorless, the target market is current ILC owners. For Sony, that means pulling customers away from Canon/Nikon. But for Canon, the largest source of FF MILC buyers is current Canon dSLR owners.

There could be a comparability issue between a new FF mirrorless mount and the aps-c M line. An M camera will take an EF lens with an adapter, but it might be difficult to adapt lenses with the new FF mirrorless mount to an M camera

If the flange disttance is about 29 mm, it will not be a problem. I have been adapting the Leica lenses for my M.

So, Canon will design a new mount to save 15mm? I doubt it…

 

[AvTvM]

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.

And yes, i would be surprised if Canon launches mirrorless FF with EF mount-nozzled cameras.

 

[Loswr]

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.

So, a 4-6mm thick adapter to mount ‘EF-X’ lenses on the far more numerous EOS M cameras. EdMika ergonomics, that’s a non-starter.

 

[AvTvM]

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.

So, a 4-6mm thick adapter to mount ‘EF-X’ lenses on the far more numerous EOS M cameras. EdMika ergonomics, that’s a non-starter.

No prob, it will work - even with 4mm FFD difference. Original Canon adapter, not EdMika, not Novoflex and most definitely not Metabones.

and besides: once there are - decent and compact (!) - Canon FF MILCs available ... only a tiny minority of EOS M camera owners will want to mount EF-X lenses a few times a year ... overwhelming majority of EF-X owners will go natively with "EF-X" lenses on their FF EOS "M-Pro" cameras - a large one for large hands and large lenses and a small one for small hands and all situations where big, fat gear is not needed but rather contra-productive.

 

[BillB]

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.

So, a 4-6mm thick adapter to mount ‘EF-X’ lenses on the far more numerous EOS M cameras. EdMika ergonomics, that’s a non-starter.

No prob, it will work - even with 4mm FFD difference. Original Canon adapter, not EdMika, not Novoflex and most definitely not Metabones.

and besides: once there are - decent and compact (!) - Canon FF MILCs available ... only a tiny minority of EOS M camera owners will want to mount EF-X lenses a few times a year ... overwhelming majority of EF-X owners will go natively with "EF-X" lenses on their FF EOS "M-Pro" cameras - a large one for large hands and large lenses and a small one for small hands and all situations where big, fat gear is not needed but rather contra-productive.

So one question is whether a practical adapter can be designed to mount EF-X lenses to EOS-M cameras. Another question is how many people with Canon DSLR's are going to buy EF-X cameras that require them to use adapters to use EF Lenses. A third question is how many people will buy EF-X "Super M" cameras rather than lighter and cheaper plain old aps-c M cameras. Underlying these questions, there is the question of designing significantly smaller high quality, but reasonably priced, zooms.

I am now content to leave it to Canon, the market, and time to work out the answers to these questions. Of course, the wrong answers to any of these questions will merely demonstrate Canon's traditional stupidity, irrespectiive of how many EF mount mirrorless cameras Canon manages to sell.

 

[Loswr]

29mm FFD is likely more than needed. 22-24 mm is probably right.

So, a 4-6mm thick adapter to mount ‘EF-X’ lenses on the far more numerous EOS M cameras. EdMika ergonomics, that’s a non-starter.

No prob, it will work - even with 4mm FFD difference. Original Canon adapter, not EdMika, not Novoflex and most definitely not Metabones.

and besides: once there are - decent and compact (!) - Canon FF MILCs available ... only a tiny minority of EOS M camera owners will want to mount EF-X lenses a few times a year ... overwhelming majority of EF-X owners will go natively with "EF-X" lenses on their FF EOS "M-Pro" cameras - a large one for large hands and large lenses and a small one for small hands and all situations where big, fat gear is not needed but rather contra-productive.

No doubt that's all true in the AvTvM Universe. :

 

[3kramd5]

The point is - Leica aside - the shorter flange distance that Sony has results in BIGGER lenses.

Do you know that for a fact, or is it just supposition?

I am not an optical engineer, so I suppose it is supposition. Others are making the same suppositions...

It is not supposition to say that given an optical formula, the focal point is a fixed distance from the last glass element, and that you can't change that distance without changing the optical formula. I mean, that's a fact. It's physics.

Of course that’s not supposition. But it doesn’t relate to what I asked. I’ll try to word it differently: given the e-mount Sony lenses which are larger than canon EF lenses (something which seems to occupy a lot of attention on these boards), are they larger *because of* the flange distance as per the assertion, or is it because of a combination of design decisions, including the desire to get the light to strike the sensor close to perpendicularly from a rear element with a significant size constraint relative to the sensor?

In other words, if canon were to design a new mount, but made the throat diameter larger than did Sony, could they not put the rear element closer to the sensor while maintaining close to perpincidularity, and thus achieve a smaller overall length than does Sony?

Note: I’m not talking probabilities or business strategy, just the optics.

 

[Talys]

Of course that’s not supposition. But it doesn’t relate to what I asked. I’ll try to word it differently: given the e-mount Sony lenses which are larger than canon EF lenses (something which seems to occupy a lot of attention on these boards), are they larger *because of* the flange distance as per the assertion, or is it because of a combination of design decisions, including the desire to get the light to strike the sensor close to perpendicularly from a rear element with a significant size constraint relative to the sensor?

In other words, if canon were to design a new mount, but made the throat diameter larger than did Sony, could they not put the rear element closer to the sensor while maintaining close to perpincidularity, and thus achieve a smaller overall length than does Sony?

Note: I’m not talking probabilities or business strategy, just the optics.

Like I said, I am no expert on the optics and defer to others who know better. I'm only providing observations of what I've seen commercially manufactured by companies I'd consider using, and know too little about the science to add to a meaningful discussion of the optics.

But my obsession is with the reverse: why be so concerned about reducing the flange distance to make a smaller professional camera, when most of the professional lenses are going to just make the total package size the same -- and really, whether it's 1cm larger or smaller, irrelevant, since the total camera size is 15+ cm?

I mean, are we so obsessed with size that 14cm vs 15cm is meaningful?

I get it: there are some people who want to use cameras that are 7cm total length, with 50mm barrels, rather than 16cm cameras with 88mm barrels. But until the lens issue is resolved -- where most of that bulk is-- why obssess over a centimeter in height and depth on the body at the cost of breaking backwards compatibility?

It seems like some people think that Canon and Sony and Nikon are either holding back the ability to make such optics, or, if the body is made, the lenses will follow. I just don't think this is so.

 

[3kramd5]

I agree that the magnitues we are taking about here might be trivial. Would I take a 1” shorter lens if it came 30% bigger around? Probably not. If size is a major concern, buy a camera with a smaller format.

I’m just curious about the statements of fact being made, and wary of conclusions drawn from a small sample (the Sony designs).

 

[Talys]

I agree that the magnitues we are taking about here might be trivial. Would I take a 1” shorter lens if it came 30% bigger around? Probably not. If size is a major concern, buy a camera with a smaller format.

I’m just curious about the statements of fact being made, and wary of conclusions drawn from a small sample (the Sony designs).

On this, we are in agreement. If you look a page or two back, I posed it as a question as to the benefit of / or in search of the ideal FFD and throat diameter -- to anyone who has expertise in that, but particularly to those who say that Canon's EF is terrible or that Sony's FE botched it. It would be up to Canon to convince me that I really want to make a mount change, and doing so would require some real benefits. It doesn't have to be exclusively size, but sure, total size, as a ratio on lenses that I feel are on the big and heavy end, does matter.

I'm not sure that either is exactly right. What I would absolutely not look forward to is replacing all of my EF lenses with lenses like Sony FE's -- generally a little bigger, no mechanical ring focus, and way more expensive.

I realize that the sample size of 1 is not a good one. However, the maximum sample size we're going to realistically be looking at is... three So it's a third of the potential full frame mirrorless mounts. I discount Leica because it's just too specialty, and targets a market that is unlikely to ever be mainstream.

Going to FACTS, Sigma recently said this in an interview:

If you had designed the recently-announced E-mount primes from the ground up for Sony’s full-frame cameras, would they be smaller?

The wide-angle lenses would be, yes. We just announced E-mount versions of the 14mm, 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm. Probably, the 14mm, 20mm and 24mm lenses could have been smaller [if they were designed for Sony full-frame from the beginning]. But any lens longer than 35mm, they’d be about the same size. Our 35mm F1.4, for example, is about the same size as the Sony 35mm F1.4. But for wider lenses, because of the short flange-back distance of the E-mount, we could make them smaller.

This is one of the reasons we decided on our approach with these lenses. Because the size difference would have been minimal with most of the focal lengths, we focused on making the performance better and smoother, using our existing optical designs.

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning

So my issue is that the biggest 14mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm primes don't have a size issue. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole line of new lenses that 30% more just for those types of sizes. It's the bigger lenses, particularly 2.8 trinity zooms, that would be most interesting.

 

[Rocky]

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.

 

[AvTvM]

So my issue is that the biggest 14mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm primes don't have a size issue. I'm certainly not going to buy a whole line of new lenses that 30% more just for those types of sizes. It's the bigger lenses, particularly 2.8 trinity zooms, that would be most interesting.

forget zooms like a 70-200/2.8 ... size is determined by diameter of entry pupil ... which drives diameter of front element. They will remain the same size, mirrorslap or no mirrorslpa. But for lenses thes size and weight of the f/2.8 "pro" zooms ... certainly adding a small adapter which weighs close to nothing and adds only about 3cm to length should be no issue, following you logic, right?

To understand the size difference that comes form EF mount vs. shorter FFD "EF-X" mount ... just compare a EOS 6D ii to a Sony A7 (1st gen).

What i am after is a super compact and fully competent, though not "pro"-level" interchangable lens mirrorless FF camera - sized somewhere between Sony RX-1R II and Sony A7 (first series! not II or even III) ... plus a small lineup of good IQ, moderately fast, ultra-compact and very affordable primes - eg 20/3.5, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 85/2.8, all IS STM plus equally good IQ, ultra-compact and affordable constant f/4 zooms ... e.g. 16-35/4 [could definitely be made smaller than EF version with a new-mount and shorter FFD) plus 24-85/4.0 ... and maybe a 50-150/4.0 [not sure how compact that one could be made].

Backwards compatible with all existing EF lenses via a simple, original Canon adapter without any glass elements and no impact on IQ.

I am absolutely convinced there would be "more than enough" buyers for such a Canon FF mirrorless system.

And no problem with me, if Canon as a "full line-up producer" also makes and sells many other, larger mirrorless bodies and lenses.

Other way round .. if ONLY large mirrorless Canon cameras with EF mount and large(r than necessary) lenses would be offered, totally negating freed up space by removing mirrorbox = no buy.

 

[Loswr]

I am absolutely convinced there would be "more than enough" buyers for such a Canon FF mirrorless system.

So what?

 

[Loswr]

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this 'dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses' that you mention.

EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 (on APS-C): 1.66 stops of vignetting
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 (on APS-C): 1.92 stops of vignetting
EF 35mm f/2 IS @ f/2 (on FF): 2.23 stops of vignetting

Can you explain why you believe having less vignetting than similar lenses (on their intended sensor format) is a problem? ??? ??? ???

 

[Rocky]

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this 'dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses' that you mention.

EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 (on APS-C): 1.66 stops of vignetting
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 (on APS-C): 1.92 stops of vignetting
EF 35mm f/2 IS @ f/2 (on FF): 2.23 stops of vignetting

Can you explain why you believe having less vignetting than similar lenses (on their intended sensor format) is a problem? ??? ??? ???

Sorry, I do not have the other two lenses. The EF-M 22/2 is not bad after all. That is the only fast EF-M I got.

 

[Loswr]

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this 'dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses' that you mention.

EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 (on APS-C): 1.66 stops of vignetting
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 (on APS-C): 1.92 stops of vignetting
EF 35mm f/2 IS @ f/2 (on FF): 2.23 stops of vignetting

Can you explain why you believe having less vignetting than similar lenses (on their intended sensor format) is a problem? ??? ??? ???

Sorry, I do not have the other two lenses. The EF-M 22/2 is not bad after all. That is the only fast EF-M I got.

Fair enough. Try the 24/1.4L II on FF – it has well over three stops of vignetting. But then, the M11-22 at 11mm wide open has about 3 stops, too.

 

[Rocky]

Until Canon fix the dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses (like EF-M 22/2), EF mount may be the only reasonable solution for the new FF mirrorless.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this 'dark corner problem caused by short flange compact wide angle lenses' that you mention.

EF-M 22mm f/2 @ f/2 (on APS-C): 1.66 stops of vignetting
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8 (on APS-C): 1.92 stops of vignetting
EF 35mm f/2 IS @ f/2 (on FF): 2.23 stops of vignetting

Can you explain why you believe having less vignetting than similar lenses (on their intended sensor format) is a problem? ??? ??? ???

Sorry, I do not have the other two lenses. The EF-M 22/2 is not bad after all. That is the only fast EF-M I got.

Fair enough. Try the 24/1.4L II on FF – it has well over three stops of vignetting. But then, the M11-22 at 11mm wide open has about 3 stops, too.

Now I understand why Canon is having in camera vignetting correction for lazy people like me that does not shoot raw.