Canon Full Frame Mirrorless is Definitely Coming, and The Wait Won't Be as Long as We Thought

[docsmith]

There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.

I would be curious if over the years Canon has identified other ways to improve on the EF mount. That could be interesting. Less clipped bokeh?

Overall, I find the rumors of before Q1 2019 and Canon reaching out to EoL and pros in January to be difficult to reconcile. It takes time to design, source parts, and the manufacture a camera. The only way that makes sense is if the questions were more about firmware or features that could be added easily. But the basic physical camera was already pretty well set.

 

[Lucidmike78]

It would be nice if they kept the camera bodies the same size, and instead of the prism, put the best OVF in there, an electronic variable ND, and an AA filter that you can switch on and off. I would love to not have an AA filter for landscapes, but have it for portraits and for whenever the situation may call for it. Maybe even increase the size of the battery so that it keeps the weight after the prism is gone and the battery life is extended. The 5D4's battery life is pretty short and will only get shorter with the OVF. And while we're at it, a fully articulating screen would be very useful to mix up perspectives and compositions.

 

[Don Haines]

What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.

Yes, you can barely notice the vignetting.....

 

[jolyonralph]

Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine

 

[Loswr]

What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.

Yes, you can barely notice the vignetting.....

With a Sony, you could push those shadows eight stops without a problem and never even notice the vignetting. But alas, this is Canon.

 

[jolyonralph]

There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.

The GM series from Sony were not designed as lightweight lenses, but to be as good optically as they can with little compromise for weight.

If you look at the non-GM series lens for Sony you'll see plenty of options where high quality lenses are able to be constructed with a far lighter weight.

 

[ahsanford]

I would be curious if over the years Canon has identified other ways to improve on the EF mount. That could be interesting. Less clipped bokeh?

Pull out the mirror box and clipped bokeh should be greatly mitigated, no? (Anyone have an A7 + adaptor + one of the D-shaped wide open bokeh suspects (either 85L comes to mind) to confirm this?)

But I'm not sure how you'd mitigate that in the current EF SLR setup. The mirror can only be so big to mitigate this before into clunks into something internally or forces major internal geometry changes.

- A

 

[slclick]

I like the idea of built in ND and AA on and off. Once again, please keep it 5/6 Series big, too many cramped controls kills the user experience and just plain rules out the Joystick.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine

So sayeth anyone who tells me my 100mm front filtering setup will be fine with the 11-24 / 14-24 lenses. :

Physics is a jerk that way.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.

Yes, you can barely notice the vignetting.....

Looks like a 16-35 f/2.8L III shot wide open at 16mm.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If you look at the non-GM series lens for Sony you'll see plenty of options where high quality lenses are able to be constructed with a far lighter weight.

Sure, but good luck convincing a working professional that f/2 primes and f/4 zooms are quick enough for their needs. I appreciate these slower lenses can be very well built (Zeiss, especially), but the principal driver of size is FL + speed, and pros aren't going to avoid using combinations of a specific FL + speed they've always used on their SLRs.

Again: Physics = jerk on this front. If you want shorter/lighter lenses for more than just a handful of shorter FL lenses, you kinda have to curve the sensor, don't you?

- A

 

[tmroper]

I hope they go more for a Leica SL type form factor, rather than the Sony Alphas (but with much better ergonomics than the SL). I've used the Sonys, and own a Lumix g7, and while I do like many features a mirrorless offers, I can't stand hitting some button or wheel every single time I pick one up. I know it's partly a learned muscle memory thing, but at some point, too small is just plain too small for constant, all day use.

 

[Don Haines]

Well, obviously at 10mm you have a few problems but from about 14mm or 15mm it's fine

Yes, I was quite surprised at how well it worked at 16mm....

 

[AvTvM]

What is the other option? A full-frame mirrorless camera won't have the EF mount - but it COULD have the EF-S mount, for exactly the same reason. Your EF-S 10-22 suddenly becomes a great ultrawide angle zoom for your full frame mirrorless.

Yes, you can barely notice the vignetting.....

With a Sony, you could push those shadows eight stops without a problem and never even notice the vignetting. But alas, this is Canon.

LOL ;D

 

[docsmith]

There would need to be a much more significant benefit in size and weight than we've seen from the Sony GM series to necessitate a change from the EF mount.

The GM series from Sony were not designed as lightweight lenses, but to be as good optically as they can with little compromise for weight.

If you look at the non-GM series lens for Sony you'll see plenty of options where high quality lenses are able to be constructed with a far lighter weight.

Sure, I've seen the smaller Sony lenses. But if I am eventually replacing my EF "L" lenses, I am going to want both the optical quality and some other reason to move off of the EF lens mount.

In other words, to necessitate a change in mount, hold quality, cost and all other things equal (or better) to current EF lenses, and the EF-X lens mount needs to be better is some way. Otherwise, why bother?

And the GM is not better than EF L lenses (depends on focal length, but, overall, pretty similar). Yet, the 24-70 GM is a bit longer and heavier:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=787&LensComp=1105&Units=E

Quality (24 mm):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1105&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Quality (70 mm):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1105&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

 

[Tangent]

Minority opinion: I think C needs to have a new EF-FF-M mount that would eliminate the mirror box throw distance of the EF mount. Not to do so would put C at permanent disadvantage in lens design for FF mirrorless. Ten years from now C mirrorless would seem dinosaurish if it still had the EF mirror throw still in place. Not good. Customers ten years from now would be saying Not Acceptable.

Option 1: Maybe there could be an accommodation for both without an adapter: perhaps a helical mechanism so that an EF lens could mount and click in place and stop, but an EF-FF-M mount lens would mount and then be able to twist a bit further as it is drawn in to click into place closer to the sensor. Seems feasible. But maybe too costly.

Option 2: Sell the new EF-FF-M camera bundled with a "free" EF adapter. Set an accessory price for the EF adapter at somewhere near cost -- not the usual cost plus 500 percent that applies for most accessories.

I think C had better get the EF-FF-M mount right, and if it means distributing EF adapters at a loss and allocating this as an expense to EF-FF-M conversion it would be worth it to take that hit. Sticking with a legacy mirror throw mount is not a long term option. Again, imho: I realize it is a minority view around here.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Chances that Canon does anything that might imply their EF lens line-up will become obsolete equals zero. EF mount was good enough for their Cinema line which didn’t require it. Why would they go another direction for full frame mirrorless. Weight and size constrained users can go with EF-m. Quality of Canons apps-c mirrorless cameras still has a lot of room for growth. There isn’t anything magicical about 36mm sensors

 

[AvTvM]

Again, imho: I realize it is a minority view around here.

ONLY around here. somehow the forum seems to be dominated by large-handed, all-day large-white-lens shooting folks ... reality is different.


reality looks different. Almost everybody wants smaller and lighter gear that handles 90% of all capturing situations perfectly well ... big gear only to be carried along and mounted (via adapter) when really needed.

 

[BillB]

Can you name me the last time Canon recycled a FF sensor in another body?

I don’t think that applies in this case. The different sensors are needed for product differentiation among DSLRs. There is no need for that with mirrorless because the body style itself is the difference. A Recycled 5D IV sensor would actually boost confidence in a new product and help sell it to enthusiasts.

If they do use a recycled 5DIV sensor, I think the camera would have to have a price below the 5DIV if they want to move sales. At the same price level, I don't know how many people would take a EVF over an OVF, especially for a camera with the 5DIV's Liveview capabilities, which you ought to use if you are using a tripod. If Canon wants to introduce a mirrorless at the 5DIV price level, I think they would want to have a sensor significantly better than the one in the 5DIV.

 

[blackbox]

Hoping a Senior Canon rep is reading this, if it is not a EF mount, I will be leaving Canon for for Sony!!