Canon Full Frame Mirrorless [CR2]

[sanj]

My need is an almost pocketable full frame with a fixed 35mm 1.4 IS and clean ISO at 3200. Built in flash pls.

 

[pedro]

<p>The product roadmap for mirrorless from Canon has no been finalized and there’s a good chance we’re going to hear a lot of conflicting information over the coming months. The source doesn’t expect any sort of full frame mirrorless announcement until the end of 2017 at the earliest.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

... until the end of 2017 at the earliest
... too late!

Until then, the price of the by then still great Sony A7sII will be just about right for me as an ultra lowlight body along with my trusty 6D 8)

 

[AvTvM]

no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.

So yes, for a short transitional period there will be 4 Canon lens mounts, but within 5 years there will only be 2 left: EF-M (APS-C) and "EF-X" (FF). EF-S will be phased out first, EF will be maintained longer, especially for those lenses where short flange distance does not bring any optical and/or size advantages (e.g. tele lenses).

And yes, stupid Canon is highly likely to first bring an expensive *fixed lens* FF camera ("rich man's point and shoot"] 4 years after Sony RX-1/R/II. Canon entry will be even more expensive, have a lesser sensor but a better user interface.

All of it just to make us wait an extra 1 or 2 years until we finally get a - hopefully worthwhile - Canon mirrorless FF interchangeable lens camera system. Until then, my Canon purchases will be kept to a minimum. Stupid, Canon!

 

[jolyonralph]

Am I right in assuming that current EF-M lenses won't cover a full frame sensor if it were possible to fit one into an EOS M today

Probably, but you may well be surprised. One interesting experiment is to take standard Canon EF-S lenses and, with the metabones adaptor, use them on the Sony A7RII FF mirrorless. By default it recognises these are APS-C lenses and crops down accordingly (ie 18mpx 1.5x crop rather than 40mpx full frame), but in the menu you can force it to use the full sensor and then we see some interesting things.

Most lenses I tried comfortably fill a much greater area than the APS-C rectangle (albeit with decreased sharpness and vignetting). The venerable EF-S 18-55 kit lens almost fills the full frame sensor at 24mm with just a tiny crop at the corners!

Certainly if you had an EF-M lens and could fit it on a FF mirrorless camera I wouldn't expect FF coverage in every case, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get more than the APS-C area.

If I were Canon, I'd announce a new Mirrorless FF camera as (assuming same sensor size as A7RII) a 18/40mpx camera stating that the standard resolution is 18mpx, with 40mpx full frame available only with suitable lenses.
That way there would be much less confusion.


Also.... It's not like Canon has a huge range of EF-M lenses that would become obsolete right now...

 

[Zv]

Am I right in assuming that current EF-M lenses won't cover a full frame sensor if it were possible to fit one into an EOS M today

Probably, but you may well be surprised. One interesting experiment is to take standard Canon EF-S lenses and, with the metabones adaptor, use them on the Sony A7RII FF mirrorless. By default it recognises these are APS-C lenses and crops down accordingly (ie 18mpx 1.5x crop rather than 40mpx full frame), but in the menu you can force it to use the full sensor and then we see some interesting things.

Most lenses I tried comfortably fill a much greater area than the APS-C rectangle (albeit with decreased sharpness and vignetting). The venerable EF-S 18-55 kit lens almost fills the full frame sensor at 24mm with just a tiny crop at the corners!

Certainly if you had an EF-M lens and could fit it on a FF mirrorless camera I wouldn't expect FF coverage in every case, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get more than the APS-C area.

If I were Canon, I'd announce a new Mirrorless FF camera as (assuming same sensor size as A7RII) a 18/40mpx camera stating that the standard resolution is 18mpx, with 40mpx full frame available only with suitable lenses.
That way there would be much less confusion.


Also.... It's not like Canon has a huge range of EF-M lenses that would become obsolete right now...

Thank you for your reply! Yeah I think your last couple of points are good ones. There could be a crop mode on the theoretical FF mirrorless for use with existing EF-M lenses that way you get some use out of them while waiting for more EF-Mx (or whatever you want to call them) lenses are being developed. Obviously the EF-M adaptor would work as a way to get full use out of the sensor in the meantime.

Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?

 

[jolyonralph]

What I'd really like to see is the whole front mount area of the camera being detachable, so that you could swap out an EF-M mount for a dedicated EF-mount (perhaps with a built-in ND filter option) , or a dedicated EF Tilt/shift mount. Enterprising third parties could then even replace the mounts with mounts for whatever favourite lenses you prefer, and unlike adaptors this would allow theoretically almost any type of lens to be connected as you'd have much greater control of flange distance.

So who knows, maybe a future canon mirrorless camera could become the de-facto best mirrorless camera for Nikon shooters

Of course, Canon would never allow that to happen. but still it would be great.

 

[AvTvM]

Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?

yes, but ... the rumoured "speedbooster-type" adaptor would work just the other way round: allowing use of FF lenses on crop sensor camera.

There is no adaptor and no method to use crop-lenses usable on FF sensors in any meaningful way. Sensors offering "crop mode" is just a poor workaround when no suitable, proper native FF lenses are available ... either because photog does not have them or because manufacturer does not - yet - make them.

Why is it so difficult for some to understand and accept, that Canon had 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorslapper past and will have 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorrless future?

Yesteryear/mirrorslappers: 1 full range of EF lenses for full frame cameras and 1 limited line of EF-S lenses for crop-sensor cameras

Tomorrow/mirrorless: 1 full assortment of "EF-X" full-frame mirrorless optimized [short flange distance] lenses - including fast, big, fat, expensive L-glass - and 1 limited lineup of size- and budget-oriented EF-M crop lenses

Just like Sony did. From A-mount with FF and a crop lens lines to mirrorless E-Mount, again with crop [E] and FF [FE] lenses.

perfectly fine with me. That's why I have not been buying any EF lenses for some time and limit purchases to dirt-cheap EF-M crop lenses .. until "EF-X" FF mirrorless line finally arrives.

 

[jeffa4444]

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus

nope, it's to reduce mechanical dependancies on the mirror mechanism - you know.. that's why they call it .. MIRROR-LESS .. and not "short registration distance" cameras?
[/quote

When was the last time you sat on lens standards committees (I am)? I said MIRRORLESS so by defacto that means no mirror which includes its mechanical components. My point was clear a shorter back-focus has advantages in providing uniform light distribution to the whole sensor (which should include a larger image circle to mitigate lens shading in corners) as well as other optical improvements.

 

[Mistral75]

There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup

Although most readers have jumped to the conclusion that Canon will make a EOS mount (EF mount) mirrorless camera, there is another way of interpreting this. Canon will convert the EF-M mount into a 35mm mount. There is a growing trend towards creating mirrorless mounts with ultra short flange distances e.g. the Sony FE mount with a 18mm flange distance, Leica SL mount with 19mm, and Hasselblad X mount with 20mm. (...)

Something like that?

 

[Loswr]

There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup

Although most readers have jumped to the conclusion that Canon will make a EOS mount (EF mount) mirrorless camera, there is another way of interpreting this. Canon will convert the EF-M mount into a 35mm mount. There is a growing trend towards creating mirrorless mounts with ultra short flange distances e.g. the Sony FE mount with a 18mm flange distance, Leica SL mount with 19mm, and Hasselblad X mount with 20mm. (...)

Something like that?

History repeating itself...a year later, almost to the day...

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

 

[Zv]

Hey, wasn't there a rumor about a new EF-M adaptor? I wonder if that's related somehow to this rumor? Will it be something that will work on this FF mirrorless perhaps?

yes, but ... the rumoured "speedbooster-type" adaptor would work just the other way round: allowing use of FF lenses on crop sensor camera.

There is no adaptor and no method to use crop-lenses usable on FF sensors in any meaningful way. Sensors offering "crop mode" is just a poor workaround when no suitable, proper native FF lenses are available ... either because photog does not have them or because manufacturer does not - yet - make them.

Why is it so difficult for some to understand and accept, that Canon had 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorslapper past and will have 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorrless future?

Yesteryear/mirrorslappers: 1 full range of EF lenses for full frame cameras and 1 limited line of EF-S lenses for crop-sensor cameras

Tomorrow/mirrorless: 1 full assortment of "EF-X" full-frame mirrorless optimized [short flange distance] lenses - including fast, big, fat, expensive L-glass - and 1 limited lineup of size- and budget-oriented EF-M crop lenses

Just like Sony did. From A-mount with FF and a crop lens lines to mirrorless E-Mount, again with crop [E] and FF [FE] lenses.

perfectly fine with me. That's why I have not been buying any EF lenses for some time and limit purchases to dirt-cheap EF-M crop lenses .. until "EF-X" FF mirrorless line finally arrives.

Sorry I don't quite understand that bit at the start. I've read it a few times and it's got me confused.

I was talking about an EFM adaptor version 2, an updated version of the existing one, which allows use of FF lenses on the EOS M. I was asking if this update would be designed to be used just like the current one is but future proofed for this rumored camera. Basically I was implying that there may be a connection between those two events, a clue if you will. Why do we need a new adaptor, I wonder?

But you seem to be talking about speedboosters and though I've never used one I was under the impression they allow you to use a lens on a body without the "crop penalty" so in essence providing a boost.

Or do you mean an adaptor that allows you to use existing EFM lenses on this rumored FF body (which would be dumb because if it's EFM mount you could just stick the lens on it and maybe lose some corners due to the smaller image circle, which is why I mentioned the crop mode that uses 1.6 crop of the FF sensor). This wouldn't be ideal but it would at least make the camera backwards compatible with current lenses in a way (essentially making it into a regular EOS M). No adaptor required unless you want to mount an EF lens.

 

[Luds34]

no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.

Why? Because you say so? FF and small are not synonymous. If one wants small, you go with a smaller sensor. There are a lot of small, mirrorless systems outs there, even Canon has the small/compact crowd covered with their own M line.

I'm with others who have said this camera will be fixed lens (the ultra conservative approach, test the waters sort of deal) or it will be EF mount (I see this more likely). Let's assume EF mount for a minute. I could see them taking an approach of taking basically a 6D or 5D body, maybe some tweaks, and deliver that. Take out the mirror, replace the pentaprism with an EVF, bam, done! Why lose the solid ergonomics that exist on the current cameras that many already love?

 

[j-nord]

There will not be a 4th mount (EF, EF-S, EF-M) added to the Canon ILC lineup

Although most readers have jumped to the conclusion that Canon will make a EOS mount (EF mount) mirrorless camera, there is another way of interpreting this. Canon will convert the EF-M mount into a 35mm mount. There is a growing trend towards creating mirrorless mounts with ultra short flange distances e.g. the Sony FE mount with a 18mm flange distance, Leica SL mount with 19mm, and Hasselblad X mount with 20mm. (...)

Something like that?

History repeating itself...a year later, almost to the day...

There is a raging debate on this right now on the FF mirrorless post from a few days ago.
Canon can't reasonably support 4 mounts. They have tough decisions to make by the time FF mirrorless arrives.

I'm not convinced they can't just have one EF-M mount, and apply a firmware-driven crop mode when an EF-M lens with an APS-C image circle is mounted.

Note that the Sony FF E-mount has a smaller throat diameter than the EF-M mount. Superimposing the Sony FF sensor onto the M mount opening suggests that it may work...

Canon likes to keep us waiting and guessing so we can have the same discussion over the course of years

 

[douglaurent]

so much the most hyperbole ever.
:

Fixed it for you.

- A

Well, no matter which explanation you will find why Canon's current products lack functions, and why Canon's future releases also will be late and limited, the facts remain the same for someone who has to shoot something.

One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.

A lot of common real world scenarios will end like this example. You either spend more or carry more stuff, or you are limited in functionality. And right now it looks as if the disadvantage of being a Canon customer will remain at least until the year 2020. The traditional idea of buying Canon products should be reinstalled, which is to get the overall best products, and not products with some of the best features.

 

[Loswr]

Why is it so difficult for some to understand and accept, that Canon had 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorslapper past and will have 2 lines of lenses in the mirrorrless future?

Yesteryear/mirrorslappers: 1 full range of EF lenses for full frame cameras and 1 limited line of EF-S lenses for crop-sensor cameras

Tomorrow/mirrorless: 1 full assortment of "EF-X" full-frame mirrorless optimized [short flange distance] lenses - including fast, big, fat, expensive L-glass - and 1 limited lineup of size- and budget-oriented EF-M crop lenses

Why is it so difficult for some underrstand and accept, that Canon switching to mirrorless isn't like flipping a switch. At whatever point Canon enters the FF MILC market, there will be a long overlap where they make both dSLRs and MILC. Consider...the 1Ds, Canon's first FF dSLR, launched in 2002. Until late 2014, Canon continued producing the 35mm film EOS 1v – that's an overlap of ~12 years!

What you're suggesting means two full ranges of FF lenses, and two limited ranges of crop lenses. Four distinct lines. For a long time. It's very unlikely that Canon will launch a completely new parallel FF MILC lens lineup with a 4th mount variation, given the current state of the MILC market. And speaking of your delusional state...

Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.

Pulling data from your ass again?

MILCs are still the minority in the market, hovering at ~25%. MILC shipments are falling – so far this year they've dropped nearly 20% compared to last year.

 

[rrcphoto]

USM len designed for off sensor phase detection AF, you have to buy new STM len anyway.

not quite true. with current versions of DPAF, AF using USM is just fine. STM is better for video.

 

[Loswr]

One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.

A lot of common real world scenarios will end like this example. You either spend more or carry more stuff, or you are limited in functionality. And right now it looks as if the disadvantage of being a Canon customer will remain at least until the year 2020. The traditional idea of buying Canon products should be reinstalled, which is to get the overall best products, and not products with some of the best features.

I guess that explains why Canon is hemorrhaging market share and Sony dominates the ILC market. Oh, wait... : : :

 

[rrcphoto]

no matter what rumors say ... there WILL HAVE To BE a new native mirrorless FF mount. Anything else makes no sense. Simple reason: long EF-mount does not allow for small mirrorless cameras. Market for small(er) camera bodies is much larger than market segment wanting big, fat cameras.

except as been stated on this very thread. Full frame cameras with 100% viewfinder coverage using an EVF do not have to be necessarily large. they can be made smaller than the SL1, if you are willing to forgo the ergonomics. the SL1, if you remove the flash hump is MUCH smaller than an A7 II.

 

[rrcphoto]

One very natural 2016 job would be the task to shoot 40-50MP photos with high frame rates, and at the same time stabilized mid range video at f2.8. As a Canon user, you need to carry around a 1DX2, 5D4 and 5DsR, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 24-70/4 IS, and a 24/2.8 IS, 28/2.8 IS, 35/2 IS, and still don't have 50-70/2.8 covered with IS. As a Sony user, you carry around an A99II and a 16-35/2.8 lens. You literally spend 40% of the money and carry 40% of the weight compared to the Canon solution.

please direct me to your "pharmacist"

 

[rrcphoto]

The whole point of mirrorless is to reduce the back-focus

nope, it's to reduce mechanical dependancies on the mirror mechanism - you know.. that's why they call it .. MIRROR-LESS .. and not "short registration distance" cameras?

When was the last time you sat on lens standards committees (I am)? I said MIRRORLESS so by defacto that means no mirror which includes its mechanical components. My point was clear a shorter back-focus has advantages in providing uniform light distribution to the whole sensor (which should include a larger image circle to mitigate lens shading in corners) as well as other optical improvements.

well actually you're wrong, short back focus doesn't provide a larger image circle nor does it actually assist with vignetting. it's actually more complicated because the variance in even the sensor stacks can cause significant differences in optical performance. In other words, it's harder for third party manufacturers to provide lenses that work well across different cameras and camera systems.

Not to mention that for full frame sensors, a short back focus, then relies on more expensive sensor fabrication, such as BSI, or clever microlenses (which can use their own sets of problems with adapted lenses, or longer focal lenses) to mitigate the issues of the angle of incidence hitting the microlenses, and the lack of light actually getting to the PD's.

it's not the main benefit of mirror-less at all, the main benefit is reducing manufacturing, QC and warranty costs to the manufacturer, and also providing a more homogeneous view for both stills and video. You can't even really say that small primes are an advantage, because it's in a narrow focal range and some people prefer the god aweful look of an EVF over an OVF. of course it's also a benefit for people that like to adapt lenses, but then again, the EF mount already allows a good amount of that.