Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

[rrcphoto]

- Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.

that keeps on being said, and it's still wrong.

if you account for a reasonable grip, the mount registration distance makes no difference in the body depth.

PS .. the K-01 isn't mirrorless.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, that's unfortunate, but unsurprising.

At least they made the M5, a new macro and superzoom for it prior to that decision.

Canon will move forward with mirrorless, it'll be less expensive because it requires less investment, but won't come with the weight/size reductions we've seen in the A7R series. A shame, but on FF it's a more logical move, one I personally don't agree with as it's short sighted in my opinion, but keeping costs down is also important so perhaps not so short sighted?

That's the $64,000 question. Is there more money to be made in the setup on the right or on the left?

- A

 

[rrcphoto]

not much difference ..

besides.. canon doesn't make small full frame cameras because they really don't see the need to.

that's how small an EF mount mirrorless camera could be, or even slightly smaller.

Size or weight isn't the issue.

 

[Bob Howland]

The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.

 

[ahsanford]

The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.

But would that same body handle a 70-200 f/2.8 well? I hated my old T1i with a 70-200 on it.

I also would hate the feature/dial tiny spacing compared to my 5D3.

I still think the body needs to be big and chunky to wield the bigger glass we know people will put on it. But perhaps the money Canon saves on *not* doing a new thin mount and new lenses for FF mirrorless might mean that they can financially afford to offer an SL1-style tiny rig and a chunkier 5D-like rig for those who want to slap bigger lenses on it.

- A

 

[mb66energy]

Is Canon supporting me to save money?

I was nearly sure about buying the EOS M5 to make use of
- EF-M 2.0 22mm (very compact solution)
- EF-S 2.8 60mm via adapter (compact macro solution)
- FD 2.5 135 S.C. + FD 3.5 135 S.C. (VERY VERY GOOD LENS) + 1.4 50 S.S.C. + 3.5 50 S.S.C. via FD adapter
the fun solutions and interesting vor technical photo- and videography

But this EOS M FF sounds interesting so should I wait or buy the EOS M5? I think I can't and won't wait any longer for newer sensor tech especially DPAF in conjunction with video and an EVF that makes video much easier compared to non-EVF solutions.

Specs for an EOS M FF that are mandatory for me are:
- adaptability of FD lenses
- DPAF
- some external power supply solution e.g. an USB plug which could be fed by a 2A power bank
(10W total should be enough, if not: combine battery + external power supply to serve peak loads).
good combo between compactness and longer duration if needed.
&
- good ergonomics
- very good IQ

 

[docsmith]

During the 5DIV tear down, Roger noted that there was a lot of open air in the 5DIV body. His take, and I would be inclined to agree, is that Canon could have made the 5DIV smaller, if it had wanted too. But, instead, they CHOOSE to make it the size they did. They want that form factor.

I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon and have always thought the "size" argument was overstated (not completely wrong, but just overstated). All the comparisons of the SLR1 to EOS-M, and various lens/body combos have, IMO, shown this. I own the M1 and sometimes do use it for the size/weight benefit, but it really isn't that small with the EFm 18-55 mounted on it. It is more "smallish." I will likely be buying the G7x II for my "small" camera.

All of these leads to my point: I am not expecting a Canon FF mirrorless camera to be that small. Just smaller. If Canon goes this way, they could put in a reasonable battery. So, I am expecting something a bit larger than the Sony, but not much.

 

[dak723]

I applaud any decision to keep the EF mount and not have a new one for FF mirrorless. As the SL1 showed, you can design a camera that becomes smaller and lighter than the typical design. The camera may remain thicker (due to the flange distance) but they certainly can make it less wide and high than their current DSLR FFs.

The main reason I applaud keeping the EF mount and the current flange distance is due to the problems in lens design the very short flange distance creates. Sony's A7 series have the shortest flange distance for a FF camera and having tried the 28-70mm lens kit lens was astounded at how poor the edge performance was. (Blurrier, for example, than the same shot taken with my SL1 and kit lens). And when I say "edge" I'm talking a good 20-30% of the pic being blurry. There are articles on the web that discuss the challenges and shortcomings of the short flange distance with FF sensors, so this is not just my opinion. I know Sony has some patents for trying to improve on edge performance, but when they may become a reality is unknown. People who decide to go FF are normally not the consumers who only stick with the kit lens, but have many lenses including large zooms, so size for FF users won't be their major concern, in my opinion.

 

[mb66energy]

The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.

But would that same body handle a 70-200 f/2.8 well? I hated my old T1i with a 70-200 on it.

I also would hate the feature/dial tiny spacing compared to my 5D3.

I still think the body needs to be big and chunky to wield the bigger glass we know people will put on it. But perhaps the money Canon saves on *not* doing a new thin mount and new lenses for FF mirrorless might mean that they can financially afford to offer an SL1-style tiny rig and a chunkier 5D-like rig for those who want to slap bigger lenses on it.

- A

Powershot S95 introduced the ring around the lens base (if I remember that correctly). This should be possible with mirrorless cameras easily. And two rings on a EOS M FF design with standard EF mount gives enough space on a tube extension for two rings with different haptics to set e.g. f-stop and exp. compensation ... so perhaps this is a solution to circumvent cameras which have a too high population density of controls.

 

[rrcphoto]

The SL1, with its full size EF-S mount, is about the same size as the M5, except for depth, and 20 grams lighter. That would be small and light enough for me.

But would that same body handle a 70-200 f/2.8 well? I hated my old T1i with a 70-200 on it.

I also would hate the feature/dial tiny spacing compared to my 5D3.

they could do a bigger one .. it really depends on what market they are trying to hit really.

 

[ahsanford]

Where is AvTvM? I'd expect fire and brimstone for this decision.

- A

 

[marcel]

The problem is this:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

 

[sanj]

Yayyyyyyyy

 

[jedy]

But this EOS M FF sounds interesting so should I wait or buy the EOS M5? I think I can't and won't wait any longer for newer sensor tech especially DPAF in conjunction with video and an EVF that makes video much easier compared to non-EVF solutions.

Well, this post offers no real solid news on a FF mirrorless and states late 2017 at the earliest. Are you really willing to wait for a camera that could be a few years away and with no idea what it will look like or how it will function?

 

[ahsanford]

The problem is this:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

And overpopulation surely dooms us all. But let's not jump to the inevitable future so fast, shall we?

There is still money to be made and cameras to be released, and regardless of the soccer moms and hockey dads opting out of a Rebel or point and shoot in favor of a cell phone, there are fundamental limitations with cell phone cameras that will keep SLRs and (better) mirrorless rigs afloat for a long time.

They'll just cost more and come out less often.

- A

 

[jebrady03]

I didn't read more than the first few posts so I apologize if this is already been said, but Canon has stated on numerous occasions that the entire purpose of the EOS M line is to have a larger sensor camera with a very small form-factor. That's why they have kept the bodies small and kept the lenses as mostly slow aperture zooms. An EF mount FF mirrorless flies in the face of their own logic.

Rather than create a full frame mirrorless that is the size of their current DSLR full frame cameras, why wouldn't they simply invest the resources into a true, 100% functional evf / ovf combo? To me, that makes a hell of a lot more sense. A lot of people quote Fuji's evf / ovf combo but have never actually held it up to their eye. For longer focal length it's pretty worthless. And at wider lengths the lens barrel obstructs the view. The OVA that is. However, dropping an EVF into the current viewfinder space of the OVF in a DSLR and making both fully functional... That's all that really needs to be done for an EF mirrorless FF camera from Canon.

 

[JonAustin]

I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon ...

Nor have I. I follow these threads because they are interesting and informative from both technological and business standpoints (what will Canon do / what market(s) are they attempting to target, etc.).

Personally, I love the form factor of FF SLRs, and use mine with battery grips nearly as often as not. I detest using the back LCD as a viewfinder, and don't want to give up my TTL OVF unless / until the EVF becomes so good that I can't tell the difference between the two.

My wife has been using an S95 for the past 4-5 years and is totally satisfied with it. I'm OK with it, since I've convinced her to shoot in RAW mode (I do all the downloading, post processing and image cataloging in our family). If / when she ever outgrows it, I would attempt to persuade her to consider a Gx or an EOS M series body, but she would probably opt for another Sx, as the small form factor is of paramount importance to her. I'd never get her to go for an EF-mount mirrorless, FF or not.

 

[ahsanford]

That's the $64,000 question. Is there more money to be made in the setup on the right or on the left?

- A

Why drop the mirror to loose AF performance and OVF performance, if you're not saving size/weight? There's no business case to make it.

If/when I go back to FF, I may be picking Fuji MF mirrorless or Nikon FF mirrorless, not Canon FF mirrorless, simply put. It's a decision they gotta make, but I'll tell you it really doesn't appeal to anyone, in my opinion. Even if I still had all my L glass and 5D, I'd just keep getting the new 5D and L's, grab an M5 for my small/light personal stuff, and be done with it. A 6D mirrorless with extension tube full time is a joke.

Again: some believe mirrorless is all about size and weight. Others do not share that opinion.

The second group would say that there are some things mirrorless can do that an SLR cannot (gasp!):

• Peaking for manual focus use
• Histo in the viewfinder
• Amplify light in a dark room
• AF points all over the map (SLRs can't do this through an OVF)
• Less mechanical stuff to fail
• No need for AFMA
• No mirror slap
• The ability to adapt older lenses (Canon would appear to be not pursuing this if they go for a full EF mount)
• (Someone will insert 5 more things that I forgot)

Keep in mind all these 'pros' are coming from an SLR guy who does not use mirrorless (other than my cell phone). I'm just interested in how the market copes / avoids / embraces / suffers through first baby steps of mirrorless as it's such a big change.

And yes, there are boatloads of cons with mirrorless right now. I'm not mitigating those so much as answering your question above.

- A

 

[Mistral75]

- Lack of compactness due to the 44mm flange-to-sensor distance; either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro.

that keeps on being said, and it's still wrong.

if you account for a reasonable grip, the mount registration distance makes no difference in the body depth.

PS .. the K-01 isn't mirrorless.

I stand by my words: "either thick body à la Pentax K-01 or 'long-nosed body' à la Sigma SD Quattro." and the Pentax K-01 is definitely a mirrorless camera: it doesn't even have a viewfinder.

 

[ahsanford]

I have never been on the mirrorless bandwagon ...

Nor have I. I follow these threads because they are interesting and informative from both technological and business standpoints (what will Canon do / what market(s) are they attempting to target, etc.).

Personally, I love the form factor of FF SLRs, and use mine with battery grips nearly as often as not. I detest using the back LCD as a viewfinder, and don't want to give up my TTL OVF unless / until the EVF becomes so good that I can't tell the difference between the two.

+1 on just about everything you said.

But mirrorless will inevitably swallow the whale and take the place of SLRs except in the most AF / responsiveness demanding applications like sports and wildlife. It won't be soon, say 10-15 years, but I could see a 5D line that is only offered in mirrorless, but a 1D-like SLR will always be here to stay.

- A