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

[ahsanford]

While I acknowledge that ergonomics are subjective, as is any use of the word 'better', let me ask...have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.

Yes, agree of course, but you miss my point. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with a better ergonomic setup than the competition, great for us. But if that better design doesn't look/feel/handle like the 5D/6D/7D bodies we use, it will mean moving from SLR on one shoulder to the mirrorless on our other will be a less seamless experience.

So I think for a such a massive userbase, the ergonomics / controls should be better than the competition, but also familiar to us. Canon shouldn't come up with something left-field controls wise with FF mirrorless, IMHO.

As a nutty example, let's day Canon drops the back main wheel in favor of zoning the touchscreen into an AF selection part of the screen and a 'do what the big wheel used to do' part of the screen. It could be brilliant, and open up the door for a massive back LCD. But if you are also shooting with a 5D that trip/assignment/event, switching between the two will be clunky.

I'm not discouraging innovation here, but keep the changes modest and familiar.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If it could have a good focus system and 12 FPS I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I keep seeing (here above) plus others hoping for / presuming FF mirrorless will have higher fps than SLR. I get that -- the mirrorbox isn't rate limiting anymore. But is there any chance that the AF might be? Are we confident that DPAF can process all that input with AF in each frame, or will Canon pull some A7 I and II nonsense with locked AF after the first frame?

- A

 

[unfocused]

...I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment. So lets use this incredible stupidity of our competitors - namely Nikon and Fuji - and combat Sony why they are still at fairly low market share ... go ahead, let's test the waters with some decent, small FF MILC products at decent prices and see how many we sell. And be ready to ramp up production facilities in the space vacated by our dying mirrorslapper business of yesteryear ... "

Ignoring some of the over-the-top sarcasm here, the core flaw with this reasoning is that it's too expensive and too risky for companies to randomly "test the waters" with products. Instead they use market research to test the waters and determine whether or not something is viable.

You have an idea that you are convinced is viable. But, there is little doubt that Canon has already tested your ideas and determined whether or not you are correct. The only way you will ever know (short of conducting your own market research and developing your own competing product) if you were correct or not is to wait and see what comes to market.

If the product you prefer comes to market, then you can pat yourself on the back for being visionary. But, if it doesn't then you can either conclude you were wrong or you can go to your grave complaining about "stupid" Canon.

 

[KirkD]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

 

[ahsanford]

have you tried using an a7-series body with a 24-70/2.8GM or 70-200/2.8GM? I have, and I can confidently state that the ergonomics of my 1D X with the corresponding f/2.8L zooms is better. Much better.

I have tried the A7S MkII with 24-70 f/4 OSS. Ergonomics is really really awful.

Sorry, Neuro, I blew past that question. Yes on an A7R2 when I visited B&H a few years back, but no on big glass. But even the f/4 zoom I think was bolted on there was enough to tell me what a hot mess big/fast glass would be on that body. My hands -- which are not big -- were cramped and immediately reminded me of the 'iron claw' grip I always had to use when I bolted my EF 24-70 f/2.8L I on my old T1i. In short, it sucked.

Some of Sony's body design decisions could be rationalized, I guess.

Cramped/limited controls are a value proposition you opt into, it says 'To keep things small, this is the cost'. Tiny buttons and menu-drilling-down it is. Fair trade.

But an undersized grip too close to a mount intended for big/heavy glass is more of a prison sentence, it says 'My hands hurt without end, and that reality is all my fault'. No logic that it fits in a tinier bag will make your hands feel better.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

So what tech, exactly, is Canon "one year behind Sony in" if they are leaps and bounds ahead of Sony in lenses, auto focus and color science? And how important is it to the actual end image?

 

[Ozarker]

Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?

Then for video I'm seeing wishes approaching 1000fps? Wow. Wouldn't it be better, at that point, to just slow things down in software? Again, I don't know. I don't shoot video at all.

How fast is too fast?

 

[scyrene]

Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?

Then for video I'm seeing wishes approaching 1000fps? Wow. Wouldn't it be better, at that point, to just slow things down in software? Again, I don't know. I don't shoot video at all.

How fast is too fast?

1000fps for video has interesting creative and scientific applications, but for many purposes would be overkill (I'd love to have the option, however). Slowing down in software, if I understand you correctly, is not the same at all. It just puts a bigger pause between each frame, rather than having more frames (almost like the difference between digital and optical zoom, if you'll allow the metaphor). As for 120fps stills, I totally agree. Once again, I suppose one could argue that more is always better just in case, but imho for almost everyone almost all the time, it would be too much. Until and unless software can help - and be trusted - to select key moments, then it's unrealistic to expect people to sift through that many shots, even if memory cards could accomodate them all.

 

[deleteme]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

I would actually say that Canon may not be nearly as far behind as one may think as Sony is in a state of refining it's A7 line as opposed to making quantum leaps in design and manufacture.

With their ability to have watched Sony "experiment" on the public, Canon has seen what they are making and what the market is asking for or rejecting. IMO they have also had the luxury of a very large market share permitting them a cautious approach to entering the mirrorless market. They can now avoid a lot of the mistakes that they may have made absent a pioneer.

 

[ahsanford]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

I would actually say that Canon may not be nearly as far behind as one may think as Sony is in a state of refining it's A7 line as opposed to making quantum leaps in design and manufacture.

With their ability to have watched Sony "experiment" on the public, Canon has seen what they are making and what the market is asking for or rejecting. IMO they have also had the luxury of a very large market share permitting them a cautious approach to entering the mirrorless market. They can now avoid a lot of the mistakes that they may have made absent a pioneer.

+1. When you lead the market, it's much wiser to be a fast follower than a brave innovator. There is more to lose than to gain, and as you said, the waiting period isn't Canon sitting on its rear. I'm guessing every moment since the A7 brand was launched was marketing research gold for Canon's future endeavors.

I'm not saying Canon doesn't innovate -- they do in very strategic areas that reward a portfolio and not a spec sheet (DPAF is the great example, touch AF point selection surely to go wide in future models, etc.). But Canon doesn't need to swing for the fences and periodically strike out. Sony has to take chances to win share, while Canon does not.

- A

 

[Loswr]

I suspect most users don't typically use tripods (which is why Canon got away with omitting the tripod foot from the later kit-included EF mount adapters).

if you ask me, then it was rather some "innovative Canon controller type" saying "leave out the foot ... it will save us 99 cent on each kit" ...

if i view that move positively: it opens up the market for EdMika, RRS, Novoflex and a dirty dozen Chinese CNC milling shops to bring a *really right" tripod foot for Canon adapters to market ... the one with Arca dovetail grooves built in.

Canon has been shipping the bundled mount adapter without the tripod foot for quite some time now...so, where are all the *really right" tripod foot adapters? If there were a significant market for them, they'd be available. There's one from Chinese CNC shop Kenro selling on eBay for $26. One. Chris Hejnar was contacted about it around a year ago and asked to make one, he determined he couldn't do it profitably for the market demand.

Once again you succeed in demonstrating how radically your understanding of the market differs from those who actually produce ILCs and related products. I applaud your persistence in believing that your understanding is correct, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. :

 

[Ozarker]

Well, I see people mentioning 120fps stills shooting for sports and wildlife, etc. Maybe somebody needs that. I don't know. I would find handling that many files overwhelming. I can see filling my CF card over and over again in an hour. Surely with that capability there would also be the capability to slow the capture rate down? Selectable fps? I'd be more than thrilled with 14 fps myself. Even that would be a chore for me to go through. What about pros that have to quickly select photos and transmit them to editors? Do they have time to go through tens of thousands of photos to pick what to send?

Then for video I'm seeing wishes approaching 1000fps? Wow. Wouldn't it be better, at that point, to just slow things down in software? Again, I don't know. I don't shoot video at all.

How fast is too fast?

1000fps for video has interesting creative and scientific applications, but for many purposes would be overkill (I'd love to have the option, however). Slowing down in software, if I understand you correctly, is not the same at all. It just puts a bigger pause between each frame, rather than having more frames (almost like the difference between digital and optical zoom, if you'll allow the metaphor). As for 120fps stills, I totally agree. Once again, I suppose one could argue that more is always better just in case, but imho for almost everyone almost all the time, it would be too much. Until and unless software can help - and be trusted - to select key moments, then it's unrealistic to expect people to sift through that many shots, even if memory cards could accomodate them all.

Exactly. For me there comes a point when too fast actually slows everything down.

I would guess some will say that if Brand X can do it, then Brand Y has to do it or be left behind. I just don't buy that argument in all cases. Toyota is far more profitable than Ferrari, but their street models could not compete in the same class.

On top of that are speed limits. In this hobby, the speed limits for me are memory, computing power, patience, etc.

Yes, Ferrari can brag about besting a Corolla on speed. Practically, though, it doesn't matter much and actually becomes a far lesser value to most people. That is the world Canon is in. Canon markets to the masses for the most profit.

Uncle Earl might be able to go out and buy a 1DX II and all the L lenses. He could brag about it, but that's about it because he really has no practical use for such a beast.

I think the same goes in the megapixel war. There comes a point for most of us where more is just too much to handle. The average person, and this forum's population does not represent the average person, doesn't upgrade every time something new comes out screaming, "It's about time!"

I think that is what is missing sometimes in the Canon vs Nikon vs Sony debates about who is ahead or behind. Just because a camera can do something doesn't necessarily mean it is practical or useful at all.

 

[BillB]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

I would actually say that Canon may not be nearly as far behind as one may think as Sony is in a state of refining it's A7 line as opposed to making quantum leaps in design and manufacture.

With their ability to have watched Sony "experiment" on the public, Canon has seen what they are making and what the market is asking for or rejecting. IMO they have also had the luxury of a very large market share permitting them a cautious approach to entering the mirrorless market. They can now avoid a lot of the mistakes that they may have made absent a pioneer.

+1. When you lead the market, it's much wiser to be a fast follower than a brave innovator. There is more to lose than to gain, and as you said, the waiting period isn't Canon sitting on its rear. I'm guessing every moment since the A7 brand was launched was marketing research gold for Canon's future endeavors.

I'm not saying Canon doesn't innovate -- they do in very strategic areas that reward a portfolio and not a spec sheet (DPAF is the great example, touch AF point selection surely to go wide in future models, etc.). But Canon doesn't need to swing for the fences and periodically strike out. Sony has to take chances to win share, while Canon does not.

- A

Canon may be a year behind in the sense that Canon will roll out a midrange equivalent a year after the A7III hit the market. However that does not necessarily means that that Canon is a year behind in the development of new features and additional cameras. That depends on what is in the pipeline and we are only guessing about that.

 

[dak723]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

So what tech, exactly, is Canon "one year behind Sony in" if they are leaps and bounds ahead of Sony in lenses, auto focus and color science? And how important is it to the actual end image?

Golly, I was going to say the exact same thing but you beat me to it!

Funny how the Sony lovers have no perspective. And, oh, Sony is about 25 years behind in ergonomics...

 

[Random Orbits]

I suspect most users don't typically use tripods (which is why Canon got away with omitting the tripod foot from the later kit-included EF mount adapters).

if you ask me, then it was rather some "innovative Canon controller type" saying "leave out the foot ... it will save us 99 cent on each kit" ...

if i view that move positively: it opens up the market for EdMika, RRS, Novoflex and a dirty dozen Chinese CNC milling shops to bring a *really right" tripod foot for Canon adapters to market ... the one with Arca dovetail grooves built in.

Canon has been shipping the bundled mount adapter without the tripod foot for quite some time now...so, where are all the *really right" tripod foot adapters? If there were a significant market for them, they'd be available. There's one from Chinese CNC shop Kenro selling on eBay for $26. One. Chris Hejnar was contacted about it around a year ago and asked to make one, he determined he couldn't do it profitably for the market demand.

Once again you succeed in demonstrating how radically your understanding of the market differs from those who actually produce ILCs and related products. I applaud your persistence in believing that your understanding is correct, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. :

+1. I always found the tripod foot fiddly and rarely used it. I had added a generic RRS plate to it to be compatible with AS tripods, but the most use it got was with a M3 + 18-135 IS lens for video. And that happened because RRS didn't make M3 plates. With RRS and others supporting the new Canon EF-M cameras, the value of the tripod foot for the EF-M adapter decreases. The L-plate on the body is more versatile because you can change orientation, and you can use a tripod with any lens -- not just adapted lenses. All the heavier/longer telephoto lenses have tripod colllars already anyway.

That said, I'm keeping my original adapter with foot and selling the NIB adapter that came with the M5. Keeping it for sentimental rather than functional reasons.

 

[Talys]

Canon is approximately one year behind Sony in mirrorless tech, given what the Sony A7III can do. This is welcome news, but they will have a difficult time catching up. Right now, there are three things holding me to Canon ... my investment in Canon glass, Canon's focussing technology, and Canon's colour science.

So what tech, exactly, is Canon "one year behind Sony in" if they are leaps and bounds ahead of Sony in lenses, auto focus and color science? And how important is it to the actual end image?

On the actual image end, the only thing that Sony really has going for it is that their sensor has a highly desirable mix of resolution, SNR/ISO curve, and drive speed for their high-end enthusiast product. It is a better blend than what Canon currently offers in cameras launched in 2016 and prior.

The rest of it is a lot of technology that doesn't ultimately impact the image, though some things only possible with an EVF like focus magnification is nice technology -- with the caveat that Sony's implementation is often very awkward, making it awesome to demonstrate but clumsy to use.

My hope, like others, is that Canon takes a cue, and simply develops similar features in their EVF full frame, but in a way that is much more usable.

And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.

 

[BillB]

...I conclude from it: "there are interesting market segments totally uncovered at the moment. So lets use this incredible stupidity of our competitors - namely Nikon and Fuji - and combat Sony why they are still at fairly low market share ... go ahead, let's test the waters with some decent, small FF MILC products at decent prices and see how many we sell. And be ready to ramp up production facilities in the space vacated by our dying mirrorslapper business of yesteryear ... "

Ignoring some of the over-the-top sarcasm here, the core flaw with this reasoning is that it's too expensive and too risky for companies to randomly "test the waters" with products. Instead they use market research to test the waters and determine whether or not something is viable.

You have an idea that you are convinced is viable. But, there is little doubt that Canon has already tested your ideas and determined whether or not you are correct. The only way you will ever know (short of conducting your own market research and developing your own competing product) if you were correct or not is to wait and see what comes to market.

If the product you prefer comes to market, then you can pat yourself on the back for being visionary. But, if it doesn't then you can either conclude you were wrong or you can go to your grave complaining about "stupid" Canon.

If the first Canon fullframe mirrorless camera is coming sooner than we think, that means that Canon has already locked up the design of that camera, including the design of the mount that it will have. Trying to guess what decisions Canon has made does have some amusement value for me, and I actually learn things that interest me when posts discuss what may or may not be possible in camera design. However, I find it difficult to see any value in repeated posts on what Canon should have done, when we don't even know yet what they did. Either Canon did or did not decide to base its entire mirrorless camera line on a new camera mount intended to optimize a very small FF, relatively inexpensive, mirrorless camera using small high quality lenses, or it did not. At some point we will find out.

 

[ahsanford]

And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.

+1. I'm bracing for a spate of focus by wire lenses to accompany this launch. :-[

Perhaps adapted-in-crop crowd can shed some light on this. Can anyone tell me if their adapted Ring USM glass on EF-M worked all right? Was it slower to confirm, less accurate, less consistent, etc? Did the FTM mechanical override still work well on the adaptor, or did the AF kick back in and try to re-lock when you used it?

I'm not saying I'll never use a focus by wire lens (after all, my new 50 prime may very well be Nano USM), but if I can adapt a Ring USM lens that does the same job, I always will.

- A

 

[bwud]

And for heavens sake, let me keep my mechanical USM focus rings, please please please.

+1. I'm bracing for a spate of focus by wire lenses to accompany this launch. :-[

Perhaps adapted-in-crop crowd can shed some light on this. Can anyone tell me if their adapted Ring USM glass on EF-M worked all right? Was it slower to confirm, less accurate, less consistent, etc? Did the FTM mechanical override still work well on the adaptor, or did the AF kick back in and try to re-lock when you used it?

I'm not saying I'll never use a focus by wire lens (after all, my new 50 prime may very well be Nano USM), but if I can adapt a Ring USM lens that does the same job, I always will.

- A

I have no issues using my canon mechanical focus lenses adapted. My cameras are all set up with focus decoupled from the shutter button, so there is no conflict between MF and AF. I don’t use focus confirmation (don’t know if the Sony bodies even support it) so I can’t speak to that question. Zoom in the EVF makes manual focus a joy. I still prefer the experience of mechanical focus rings. None of the FBW lenses I have (24-70GM, 100-400GM, batis 25, batis 85) really have the feel right.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When I consider all the latest FF EF lens releases by Canon (TS-E, 85 1.4, the upcoming 70-200 f/4 etc) I just don't see the EF mount being replaced completely or being reduced to a more or less 'use a bad adapter for them'-alternative.

Either EF mount or a really well thought-through adapter solution for EF lenses it will be.
My two cents ^^

The patent for a EF / EF-s adapter to a new lens mount for mirrorless was discussed on Canon Rumors almost 3 years ago, so Canon has had a plan for a long time, the question is if they will actually come out with the new lens mount.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26883.15

"A patent showing an EF/EF-S adaptor for a full frame mirrorless from Canon has appeared. There is a switch on the adaptor to go between EF and EF-S lenses. Patent Publication No. 2015-118208 (Google Translated)

• Published 2015.6.25
• Filing date 2013.12.18

Canon patents

• Flange back is shorter body
• Flange back is long, a lens having the same image circle as the image pickup device body
• Flange back is long, a lens with a smaller image circle than the image pickup device body
• Mount adapter to change the diameter of the flare cut stop, depending on the image circle of mounting the lens"