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

[AvTvM]

Perhaps I phrased that incorrectly. L lenses (24-70 2.8 Mk2, 135L, 16-35 f/4L) slower focusing on adapted M5 than on native FF but in no means hunting or inaccurate. Relative to the 50 1.8 STM and 40 2.8 adapted or the native EF-M, I'll have to get back to you on that. The 50 1.8 STM does very well on the M5.... the 40, not so well but still no slouch. The 50 is just a great pairing. I would say the 50 adapted is as fast as the EF-M 22. My findings on the 40 mirror Dustin's I have found. But it's only AF speed, everything else is fine. I will get around to testing the adapted L vs STM's on the M5 one of these days and tell you what I thought.

Thank you, this is what I want to drill down on. The thin mirrorless + adaptor camp would have us believe that there are no tradeoffs to AF performance on an adaptor, and if that hasn't been your experience, it might imply that the most discerning/picky photographer might need a true EF mount make their EF glass sing. (Could also be DPAF vs. the standard SLR AF, in fairness.)

Again: I'd like more on this from everyone, please. Those who have an M5 or M6, relatively modern FF SLR w/DPAF, some quick L lenses and an adaptor, please go to town and tell us what you find!

Ideally, we'd compare the focus speed of:

SLR standard AF setup
SLR with AF on LiveView
M5/M6 through an adaptor

- A

I would never be surprised that anytime (everytime?) you add an adapter, an extender, bellows, extension tubes, spacers or an XYT4-X Pro Optical Modulator to a lens and extend the distance between rear element and sensor, you would lose something.

you also must be joking. we are not talking about "optical modifiers" here. We talk about an as-simple-as can be distance tube with electrical wiring-thru which does nothing but re-establish the flange focal distance EF glass needs to properly work [on a mirrorless camera with a shorter FFD]. Provided the adapter is decently built and precise - as will be the case with original Canon adapters [just look at the EF/EF-M mount adapter!], there will be no IQ hit whatsoever.

Putting third party gear from the likes of metabones or cheap thrills china stuff between lens and body may have all sorts of "unwanted effects" ...

Not to mention "adapters" that bring optical glass elements into the light path ... as is the case e.g. with metabones "speed boosters" and similar stuff ... or with tele-converters ... including Canon's own, although they are rather decent - they do have a negative impact on IQ. no miracles in optics.

 

[slclick]

Again, glad we're talking.

I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.

And then we have others saying and adaptor is just an electrical passthrough and should have no performance hit at all.

And AvTvM may very well be right that differences in focusing with adaptors may be more about the core AF technology of the body and not the lens.

So let's sort that out. Prove it once and for all. Run the same damn EF lens the three different ways I mentioned above -- SLR with the traditional AF setup, SLR with DPAF in liveview, and the adapted M5/M6. This should be a pretty straightforward exercise.

- A

Great. Homework.

 

[ahsanford]

there will be no IQ hit whatsoever.

Agree, sure. But I was talking about AF speed all this time.

- A

P.S. Please try to trim quotes when you can. Many long re-posts in succession tend to kill threads off.

 

[privatebydesign]

Again, glad we're talking.

I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.

And then we have others saying and adaptor is just an electrical passthrough and should have no performance hit at all.

And AvTvM may very well be right that differences in focusing with adaptors may be more about the core AF technology of the body and not the lens.

So let's sort that out. Prove it once and for all. Run the same damn EF lens the three different ways I mentioned above -- SLR with the traditional AF setup, SLR with DPAF in liveview, and the adapted M5/M6. This should be a pretty straightforward exercise.

- A

Or read the results by a universally respected tester who has already looked into it.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ especially off center and even on smaller formats.

You are all talking about a 135 format sensor, comparatively large, and using the lenses native image circle.

 

[ahsanford]

Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ...

Again, I'm talking about AF speed.

But nice link, thx.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ...

Again, I'm talking about AF speed.

But nice link, thx.

- A

The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter. But that is irrelevant because you will never have two cameras that you can test it on, i.e. with the same primary AF that takes the same lens with and without an adapter.

 

[ahsanford]

The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter.

That is a sentence. Has anyone ever proven that? Makes sense, but why are so many folks arguing over this in this forum right now? Let's end that with some data, eh?

Test [any EF lens] on:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using the standard SLR AF setup
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using LiveView / DPAF
[*]An M5/M6 with an adaptor using the standard DPAF-based AF
[/list]

If (3) is slower to focus than (2), seeing as both cameras are using DPAF, one might presume the adaptor could be the cause. What else might it be? (Asking honestly, not rhetorically.)

(1) vs. (2) is just a curiosity of mine.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The AF speed isn't impacted by a simple tube type adapter.

That is a sentence. Has anyone ever proven that? Makes sense, but why are so many folks arguing over this in this forum right now? Let's end that with some data, eh?

Test [any EF lens] on:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using the standard SLR AF setup
[*]Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using LiveView / DPAF
[*]An M5/M6 with an adaptor using the standard DPAF-based AF
[/list]

If (3) is slower to focus than (2), seeing as both cameras are using DPAF, one might presume the adaptor could be the cause. What else might it be? (Asking honestly, not rhetorically.)

(1) vs. (2) is just a curiosity of mine.

- A

No. Because of my second sentence. "But that is irrelevant because you will never have two cameras that you can test it on, i.e. with the same primary AF that takes the same lens with and without an adapter."

Your suggested test is the test that isn't. An M5 and "Any EF mount SLR with DPAF using LiveView / DPAF" are NOT the same thing.

Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.

There is no reason why to should be. But even the best 'simple' adapters are an optical compromise. It's a compromise I can see Canon making going down a sensor size where the body can be much smaller and the main 'advantage' of that is smaller system size and the worst of the compromises are mitigated by using the best part of the image circle. I cannot see Canon doing that for a high quality and expensive, pro and advanced amateur orientated system where IQ and endless mindless testing will pull every theoretical and real compromise out on display for all to see.

Besides, the best indicator that Canon will retain the EF amount for the FF mirrorless system is the fact that Nikon have already said they are making a mount change. Nikon and Canon are deliberately contrarian.

 

[mppix]

Again, glad we're talking.

I've repeatedly heard one group of users state 'adding extra bits can't be helping' or 'Sony's adaptors don't work that well', etc. and imply that adaptors have a performance cost.

And then we have others saying and adaptor is just an electrical passthrough and should have no performance hit at all.

And AvTvM may very well be right that differences in focusing with adaptors may be more about the core AF technology of the body and not the lens.

So let's sort that out. Prove it once and for all. Run the same damn EF lens the three different ways I mentioned above -- SLR with the traditional AF setup, SLR with DPAF in liveview, and the adapted M5/M6. This should be a pretty straightforward exercise.

- A

Or read the results by a universally respected tester who has already looked into it.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/

Roger's conclusion is that even good quality 'simple' tube type adapters have a real impact on IQ especially off center and even on smaller formats.

You are all talking about a 135 format sensor, comparatively large, and using the lenses native image circle.

Nice link. So Canon "Air" may be different than other manufacturers "Air" in extension tubes after all

 

[ahsanford]

Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.

I think you are missing the point. I agree with you. But no one has proven this for those that do not agree with you.

So let's just go and knock that piece of work out. I know there's not a perfect means to do this, so I've proposed what I've proposed. If there's a better way to do it, propose that and I'll support you.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.

I think you are missing the point. I agree with you. But no one has proven this for those that do not agree with you.

So let's just go and knock that piece of work out. I know there's not a perfect means to do this, so I've proposed what I've proposed. If there's a better way to do it, propose that and I'll support you.

- A

Sorry, for a second there I choked on my dinner!

Since when did anybody here ever prove anything to anybody? Those that understand logic and accept open methodology testing generally agree on facts, then there are the other half of the forum, call them "the deplorables" if you like, I wouldn't, who won't accept facts based answers or opinions, ever, no matter the source.

I propose stop trying to pander to the illogical whims of people trying to waste your time, it is a precious commodity we only start to realize is as limited as it is when we don't have much left. Who cares what the answer is to a pointless question that can never be answered? Your test would prove nothing but give those that want it another source of straw to build their army of irrelevance.

When the Canon FF mirrorless comes out, whatever it is or has or does, it will be criticized by many who have never used it. Some will declare it, DOA, some will say they are going to jump ship, some will say it is the end of Canon for whatever pet reason they have. Others will like it, hell I still like my original M as it does everything I ever expected it to. But when this FF mirrorless does come out those that are interested in it can test it's AF speed as it is relevant to their uses and needs with the lenses they require.

Or, stop feeding the trolls...

 

[Don Haines]

Electrical charge, as in this application, is not effected to any impactful degree by a short straight additional length and a single extra connection, ergo the AF speed won't be affected by the addition of a short straight-through adapter.

I think you are missing the point. I agree with you. But no one has proven this for those that do not agree with you.

So let's just go and knock that piece of work out. I know there's not a perfect means to do this, so I've proposed what I've proposed. If there's a better way to do it, propose that and I'll support you.

- A

Sorry, for a second there I choked on my dinner!

Since when did anybody here ever prove anything to anybody? Those that understand logic and accept open methodology testing generally agree on facts, then there are the other half of the forum, call them "the deplorables" if you like, I wouldn't, who won't accept facts based answers or opinions, ever, no matter the source.

I propose stop trying to pander to the illogical whims of people trying to waste your time, it is a precious commodity we only start to realize is as limited as it is when we don't have much left. Who cares what the answer is to a pointless question that can never be answered? Your test would prove nothing but give those that want it another source of straw to build their army of irrelevance.

When the Canon FF mirrorless comes out, whatever it is or has or does, it will be criticized by many who have never used it. Some will declare it, DOA, some will say they are going to jump ship, some will say it is the end of Canon for whatever pet reason they have. Others will like it, hell I still like my original M as it does everything I ever expected it to. But when this FF mirrorless does come out those that are interested in it can test it's AF speed as it is relevant to their uses and needs with the lenses they require.

Or, stop feeding the trolls...

I agree.

This is like mixing apples and oranges together to find out what grapefruit and kiwi taste like. There is no applicable data to be found. When something comes out, then it will be as it is.

 

[ahsanford]

OR... We find out adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF.

What conclusions would we draw then? Perhaps the adaptor is as much of an instantaneous passenger as we all believe and it turns out that the time to lock with DPAF on two different cameras is different.

So it's not just my fighting ignorance or walking disagreement into agreement. I actually find that path of inquiry interesting independently of that. Much like how no one seems to study AF accuracy/consistency, few seem to study AF speed. So let's do that.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

OR... We find out adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF.

What conclusions would we draw then? Perhaps the adaptor is as much of an instantaneous passenger as we all believe and it turns out that the time to lock with DPAF on two different cameras is different.

So it's not just my fighting ignorance or walking disagreement into agreement. I actually find that path of inquiry interesting independently of that. Much like how no one seems to study AF accuracy/consistency, few seem to study AF speed. So let's do that.

- A

No, you just open the barn to more straw for the contrarians to built their straw men out of.

The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.

 

[ahsanford]

The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.

So in this sea of uncertainty, it's best to sit on our hands and say "At I least I know I'm right"?

That might work for you, but I'd like to learn more about this. Sure, it might be a highly granular combination-dependent piece of information that may not apply to future bodies and future adaptors, but it gives us a read on how well Canon does on this front today. That's enough for me.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The results of your test would not help you determine anything other than the simplest of results, it doesn't give you any useful data with which to extrapolate potential results from future gear. So if you want to know if adapted EF glass on EF-M is in fact slower to focus than on native EF under DPAF then you can know that, but not anything about a future FF Canon mirrorless camera, nothing about adapters etc etc. We know practically nothing about the various algorithms that actually number crunch this stuff, or any one of a multitude of factors and processes that make up the the differences between an M5 and a DSLR with DPAF, or the differences between an M or DSLR with DPAF and the future FF Canon mirrorless.

So in this sea of uncertainty, it's best to sit on our hands and say "At I least I know I'm right"?

That might work for you, but I'd like to learn more about this. Sure, it might be a highly granular combination-dependent piece of information that may not apply to future bodies and future adaptors, but it gives us a read on how well Canon does on this front today. That's enough for me.

- A

No not at all, but don't forget two things.

1/ The immortal quote from Mark Twain “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
2/ If you are in it for the photography there are better ways to spend your time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGngRlWHmZw

Of course a sound understanding of the basics of photography are helpful to achieve your intended goal, but not much more to create incredible and engaging images.

 

[AvTvM]

as stated before: on any mirrorless canon camera (almost) ALL existing canon EF-lenses will be "legacy" as far as AF performance is concerned.

(almost): very few possible exceptions: 1. STM, 2. nano USM, 3. maybe! latest version chipped lenses that were launched after DP-AF DSLRs came out.

"legacy" and questionmarks re. AF performance apply no matter, whether an EF lens is mounted using a (simple distance tube) mount adapter or not.

just accept it folks. your (old) EF glass, including "premium" L shards - will overall never be "as good" as new, designed for mirrorless lenses will be when used on new mirrorless cameras. to get best performance, you will have to buy new glass for new (FF mirrorless) cameras. the delta in terms of AF performance and other dimensions may be tiny in some cases, but it is there and it will get largdr with every new generation of Canon FF cameras to come.

nothing wrong with that, just a fact if technical development. and Canon's business model for years to come. "you can continue using your existing lenses, but if you want superior, native performance, then buy our new lenses." business as usual.

 

[Takingshots]

I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.

 

[Loswr]

I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.

Indeed...and the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Always.

Of course, it's more likely that you're all talk and no action. Just like three years ago when you were going to buy the a7RII.

At this juncture if Sony A7rii is as good as they stated on the write up, I will pass up Canon and go for Sony. I will be waiting for more reviews and test field b4 plunging 3,000 + dough into the new system. I will use meta bone for my Canon lens....

 

[slclick]

I am one not to wait till next year and anticipate what will be coming and whether my L lens will be good on this Canon FF mirrorless. My 60D is about to retire and vacation is on the horizon.
Remember not too long ago alot of anticipation went into 6D mk ii but it was a let down. While the filed tests are in progress on the Sony A7iii, I will spend the $2000 when it is available. Compare to 6D mk ii in terms of pricing and specs .. it's a no brainer.

So tell us about the letdown, when YOU used the 6D2 how did it let you down? Or, do you mean by internet camera YouTube pundits? Really, this is tiring. The reality of the 6D2 is that people reading about it bash it and users and owners love it.