Canon ff mirrorless - where will it fit in the line up?

[Deleted member 379512]

With the release of the new Sony a73, and the M50 from Canon, it looks like the mirrorless options are maturing to a point where they look to be just as strong an option as the dslr competition (more a evf or ovf than the other features difference now)

With that, where is Canon likely to put the ff mirrorless offering when it arrives? That is, are we expecting it at the same level as the latest Sony's, or is it more likely at the 6dmk2 level?

If the former, does Canon have any real path to doing that without leaving the 5dmk4 out in the cold?

 

[BillB]

With the release of the new Sony a73, and the M50 from Canon, it looks like the mirrorless options are maturing to a point where they look to be just as strong an option as the dslr competition (more a evf or ovf than the other features difference now)

With that, where is Canon likely to put the ff mirrorless offering when it arrives? That is, are we expecting it at the same level as the latest Sony's, or is it more likely at the 6dmk2 level?

If the former, does Canon have any real path to doing that without leaving the 5dmk4 out in the cold?

If you replace the OVF on the 5DIV with an EVF, I think you are pretty much there. I can't see much wrong with the Liveview capabilities of the 5DIV. So maybe adding an EVF version of the 5DIV while keeping the DSLR version in production? Supposedly, the production cost of the EVF would be less than the DSLR version, which would leave some pricing flexibility.

 

[3kramd5]

^^

How good is Live View AF compared to the dedicated PDAF unit? If it’s not as good, the impetus to buy a 5D without the mirror is pretty limited when the SLR is on the shelf next to it.

 

[BillB]

^^

How good is Live View AF compared to the dedicated PDAF unit? If it’s not as good, the impetus to buy a 5D without the mirror is pretty limited when the SLR is on the shelf next to it.

The 5DIV Liveview AF seems pretty good to me, but I think you are asking a key question. How much of a premium are people willing to pay for a DSLR with dedicated PDAF, especially if a size and weight penalty is involved as well? This question is going to be there whatever sensors and processors go into the cameras.

 

[Deleted member 379512]

With the release of the new Sony a73, and the M50 from Canon, it looks like the mirrorless options are maturing to a point where they look to be just as strong an option as the dslr competition (more a evf or ovf than the other features difference now)

With that, where is Canon likely to put the ff mirrorless offering when it arrives? That is, are we expecting it at the same level as the latest Sony's, or is it more likely at the 6dmk2 level?

If the former, does Canon have any real path to doing that without leaving the 5dmk4 out in the cold?

If you replace the OVF on the 5DIV with an EVF, I think you are pretty much there. I can't see much wrong with the Liveview capabilities of the 5DIV. So maybe adding an EVF version of the 5DIV while keeping the DSLR version in production? Supposedly, the production cost of the EVF would be less than the DSLR version, which would leave some pricing flexibility.

I wonder how much change the ovf - evf would have in the overall cost, I can't see it being more than a small amount. The 5dmk4 specs as a mirrorless as it stands at the moment would be pretty disappointing, considering what else is available, unless they went for 6dmk2 pricing. Even then, there would be a few things missing from making it a great mirrorless, like focus peaking type aids in live-view/evf, ibis etc.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

So far, Canon has positioned Mirrorless as high end power shots. A FF may be just a bit higher, but still use the power shot like interface and firmware.

 

[Tugela]

Canon are not likely to produce a high end FF MILC until such time as they have something that can effectively compete with the a7/a9 cameras IMO, otherwise they will just look bad. You will probably continue to see things like the current M series and maybe an entry level FF camera equivalent to the 6D.

 

[mjg79]

I think there is a possibility that Canon has decided that mirrorless, especially the EF-M mount, suits APS-C size sensors better. When you look at lenses like the 11-22 and 22/2 it shows the advantages that APS-C offers. Fuji has shown just what can be achieved with a crop sensor.

Nobody knows what will happen with full frame. The EF mount has been so central to Canon's success I'm not convinced they will give it up.

For one thing look at a Sony A7 with a 24-70/2.8 lens - it's not only a bigger package than a 5D with 24-70L it's also very cumbersome and inelegant to use. Canon thinks very carefully about ergonomics and a new mount with a smaller flange distance is likely to be worse, not better, for any lens longer than about 35mm as the centre of gravity shifts forward rather than remaining fairly centralised.

The one area that the Sony FE mount has afforded big advantages is in wider lenses. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is tiny compared to the classic one. The Laowa 15mm f2.0 is very small, the Voigtlander 10mm lens is tiny given it's focal length and Sony's 16-35GM on an A7 gives a smaller package but equal quality to Canon's 16-35III with 5D.

With EF-S Canon, because of the smaller mirror, allowed lens design that protruded further backwards. I still think there is a chance Canon will keep the EF mount for full frame but make it an EF-X mount with no mirror but the same mount - and allow lens design for wide angle lenses to protrude right into what was the mirror box. This would allow them to maintain the superior ergonomics for a 70-200/2.8 for example but also make sure the next 16-35, whenever that comes, is considerably smaller when it sits on the camera by having some of its elements sitting inside the camera.

You can already see this sort of design in wide angle Leica M mount lenses where some rear elements rather stick out. If Canon pushed it a long way it would require a different sort of rear lens cap. One would assume some kind of metal shroud could protect the exposed elements as Voigtlander does on its wide angle M mount lenses.

If you want to see an explicit example of what could be achieved see this:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1.html

A high performance 15mm 4.5 DSLR lens that becomes effectively a pancake by having the rear lens elements sit inside the mirror box.

I've no idea whether Canon will go down this route but it would allow them to "have their cake and eat it" - achieve the benefits of a shorter flange distance for wide angle lenses without the ergonomic compromises for longer lenses. Seeing Voigtlander putting out small 10 and 12mm lenses for Sony's new cameras shows what can be achieved by getting the lens elements closer to the sensor so I am sure Canon will be studying it.

 

[bwud]

For one thing look at a Sony A7 with a 24-70/2.8 lens - it's not only a bigger package than a 5D with 24-70L

A Sony 24-70 2.8 GM on an A7 slightly [perhaps: insignificantly] longer overall package than the (newest) Canon 24-70 2.8 L II mounted to a 5D, but the package is not bigger overall.

I don’t quite follow why people seemingly assume that Sony’s first attempt at full frame lenses for its mirrorless mount represents anything other than that: Sony’s first attempt. It has little bearing on how canon might design a shorter flange lens. Additionally, like Canon is often able to make things smaller (my 24-70 2.8L is longer and heavier than the current II model, and makes for a longer package than the a7+GM), so might be Sony with a version II.

That said, I agree with the potential for re-purposing EF for mixed used as described.

 

[mjg79]

For one thing look at a Sony A7 with a 24-70/2.8 lens - it's not only a bigger package than a 5D with 24-70L

A Sony 24-70 2.8 GM on an A7 slightly [perhaps: insignificantly] longer overall package than the (newest) Canon 24-70 2.8 L II mounted to a 5D, but the package is not bigger overall.

I don’t quite follow why people seemingly assume that Sony’s first attempt at full frame lenses for its mirrorless mount represents anything other than that: Sony’s first attempt. It has little bearing on how canon might design a shorter flange lens. Additionally, like Canon is often able to make things smaller (my 24-70 2.8L is longer and heavier than the current II model, and makes for a longer package than the a7+GM), so might be Sony with a version II.

That said, I agree with the potential for re-purposing EF for mixed used as described.

True, I should have been more clear what I meant, I wasn't really trying to argue a very specific point about the 24-70GM lens more I was trying to say that when it comes to fast aperture, full frame lenses with a focal length greater than 24-35mm there isn't any reason to assume the lenses are going to be *dramatically* smaller with a shorter flange distance so I picked one that is bigger just to illustrate it (and yes you're correct the overall package was the wrong term, I meant that it is longer overall - albeit only slightly).

You're quite right, it's possible Sony will refine it and make it smaller in coming years. I think many had assumed however, when the A7 first came out, that we would be seeing the benefits seen in for example the Loxia 21mm/2.8 replicated across the spectrum and would be able to get very small 85/1.4, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. I don't believe we will get an FE mount 24-70/2.8, for example, that is half the size of the current one.

I think the belief that the lenses would get dramatically smaller underpins many of the arguments that Canon must abandon the EF mount and I think the picture is more complicated than that.

Whatever happens I am very happy that the market is heating up in terms of cameras, formats and lenses from so many manufacturers; I think Canon will fight back hard in the coming years.