Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
665
281
For all the speculation about speed and video and so on, I think that they may take this opportunity to play to the strengths of mirrorless and deliver a camera in the vein of the 5DSR.

RRC above noted the same.

This would leverage massive resolution, low vibration and advances in DR for a killer landscape, architectural, commercial camera. Not to mention that Canon sells a ton to amateurs who want all the latest trends.

High speed, while nice, is irrelevant for the bulk of potential buyers. I would still expect snappy focus and responsive performance just not 20fps.
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,033
1,094
Germany
Will be an interesting time if this becomes true.
I already can hear those crying and gripe at Canon that are now shouting the loudest that Canon has to develop a FF ML:
  • DOA, because
  • too big
  • to expensive
  • feature "x" missing and without that the market acceptance will be zero
  • no dedicated lenses with short flange distance.
  • esp. "my" EF-x xxxmm/F1.2 in the size of the EF-M 22mm/F2 is missing
  • blablabla
;)

The market, sales numbers and Canon profit will tell if it'll be DOA or a big success.
My guess is that'll be the later. Maybe They'll need a second iteration like with the EOS M to make it right.
But they should have learned from this.

About high speed:
Canon will be launching this new platform with a general purpose camera to reach as much customers as possible. Maybe high MP, so more studio and landscape oriented. but I am not sure about that.
High speed will come at least one or two bodies later.
 

M_S

EOS 90D
Jul 31, 2013
158
10
Since I like the ergonomics of the Mark3/4, I would like to see the follwoing:
  • Mark 4 Body and put an EVF in and the mirror out
  • Rotating and tilting bright screen as in the G12
  • double CFast cards
  • new sensor in the 40 MP region
  • two batteries in.
  • Get rid of the LCD screen on top and use an OLED like the Phase one

Done. All existing Canon lenses could be used.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,309
502
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
The move from FD to EF was essential to introduce AF - the pain was offset by long-term gain. No such extreme advantage exists with a move to mirrorless. Apart from to stop you whining (then again.... :-X).

Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy with all but the top range bodies. Even Sony with their much-praised adapters take a massive hit in performance then you use an adapter to fit a Canon lens.

So where is the sense, again?
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,033
1,094
Germany
Mikehit said:
AvTvM said:
...
I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
...
...
Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Hi Mikehit!

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.

Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.

So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
 

NorbR

EOS RP
Jan 15, 2014
256
4
Zürich, Switzerland
Mikehit said:
Even Sony with their much-praised adapters take a massive hit in performance then you use an adapter to fit a Canon lens.

So where is the sense, again?
Not really a fair comparison. Sony bodies, Canon lenses and Metabones (or Sigma) adapters are a combination of *three* items, all from different manufacturers. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a Canon body with a Canon adapter and Canon lenses would work much more smoothly, right out of the box.

I have to say, I really don't know which way Canon is going to go here ... I know what *I* would prefer, a straight EF mount, 6D-like body size, good grip, and no adapter. But I still feel that if I were making the decision as a Canon exec, I'd lean towards a new mount, shorter flange and an adapter for EF lenses. It seems more logical to me, you get the best of both worlds, you open the door to a larger range of bodies of all sizes, and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)

It wouldn't make me happiest, but it seems to make the most sense ... well, I'll wait and see.
 

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
122
98
Maximilian said:
Mikehit said:
AvTvM said:
...
I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
...
...
Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Hi Mikehit!

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.

Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.

So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance that light have to travel. Even if the teleconverter is glass-free, AF would still take a hit!

Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter. They cut the light that reach the sensor (among other things), which makes AF harder for the camera. I do realize that this is not only due to loss of light, but also due to the shallower DoF, but stack a few extension tubes or use a macro bellow & your frame will look darker in the viewfinder, making even manual focus harder (that, and the DoF gets ridiculously shallow as well). Basically, you will lose a few stops of light with these tubes. It could be the same problem with mirrorless cameras using AF adapters.

A full-frame mirrorless using EF mount lenses with the typical EOS focal flange distance is nothing to write home about. It's basically a permanently locked-up mirror Canon DSLR with EVF.

I don't think it is easy or even possible to do EF mount with shorter FFD. But who knows what magical tricks they might have? I believe that would require some glass element like the Speedbooster adapters, and I wouldn't be amazed if we gain a stop or two. The EF mount is larger in diameter than other 35mm format cameras, so it'd be interesting to see what they would do.

On side note, sure Canon ditched the FD and move with a new mount with their EOS AF cameras. But I doubt they would invest into an another Mirrorless-only FF mount that goes parallel with their DSLR's EF mount. We all know how Canon fears cannibalizing their sales ;)
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
NorbR said:
... and you get to to sell a bunch of new lenses to all your existing customers 8)
exactly. :)

Agree with the rest of your posting too, except I want a camera body *as small as possible+ to still be *fully functional*. To me that would be around Sony A7 (Mk. I) sizewise. :)
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
CR Pro
Nov 7, 2013
3,033
1,094
Germany
addola said:
I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance that light have to travel. Even if the teleconverter is glass-free, AF would still take a hit!

Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter. They cut the light that reach the sensor (among other things), which makes AF harder for the camera. I do realize that this is not only due to loss of light, but also due to the shallower DoF, but stack a few extension tubes or use a macro bellow & your frame will look darker in the viewfinder, making even manual focus harder (that, and the DoF gets ridiculously shallow as well). Basically, you will lose a few stops of light with these tubes. It could be the same problem with mirrorless cameras using AF adapters.
...
Hi addola!

Either you made a such bad joke about optics that I missed the pointe or you should go back learning about optics and lens optical formula.

Extension tubes are - physically - similar to flange distance adapters: no glass, just air, no electronics, just conduct the electrical signals from body to lens and back.
But they have a totally different influence on the optical formula of the lens in relationship to the image plane although both just alter the distance to the image plane.

An EF lens has an optical formula that is designed to create a certain image circle (about 43.3 mm and therefore an "image height" of about 21.65 mm in patents) on the image plane and therefore cover the full (FF) sensor area and deliver a certain amount of light on the sensor area, say 100%.
If you would place such a EF lens closer to the image plane, e.g. having a shorter flange distance like you have on a FF MILC you would modify that optical formula in a way that would make the image circle smaller and nor longer covering the full sensor. This will give you more light on that covered area (100% on a smaller area) but will also cause heavy vignetting (almost 0% light) on the outer area of the sensor. Additionally this could have other effects on the formula like the possible focus range.
A flange distance adapter simply corrects this error in the optical formula by setting the distance to the image plane back to the correct value.
An extension tube (for macro) now does something into the opposite direction. It puts the optical formula further away from the image plane, making the image circle bigger. So you can attain a higher magnification (subject will be reproduced bigger on the image plane, good for macro) at the cost of a smaller amount of light (less than 100%)reaching the image sensor as well as lower DOF and reduced focus range - mostly heavily reduced.

And about the longer "distance that light have to travel", say 1 cm for calculation:
This will cause some additional 3,33 e-11 s or say some 33,3 picoseconds of traveling time.
Effect on AF? Surely not! Especially as with a flange distance adapter the distance is now set back to "normal" again.
 

GHPhotography

EOS M50
May 9, 2016
32
0
Orlando, FL
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D

You (still) haven't explained why changing mounts would provide any real benefit to the camera system. For you to use the 1987 FD to EF change as an example you would have to give a reason for the switch (like AF back then). IF and ONLY IF you want to make a small, light camera system when using small primes and non-L style zooms a new mount is desireable (I would argue that the current M lineup provides this as the sacrifices in IQ you get with those lenses contradicts the reason most people want FF). As demonstrated by Sony, once you get into L style zooms or primes you lose the size and weight advantage, so the new mount provides no benefit and, depending on the mount, may negatively affect IQ with heavy vignettes etc.

So I'll ask the same question I have before (and many others have as well). What advantages come with the new mount you want, aside from size and weight?

As a side point not directed to AvTvM, could the new dedicated sensor mentioned simply be the first stills implementation of a global shutter for Canon?
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more capable than today's most "powerful" DLSRs in a much smaller and lighter package. It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses. Provided of course, mount parameters are well chosen = not like Sony E-mount :)

some people are also VERY confused about the type of adapter we are talking about here. It is NOT something like a teleconverter, but rather a very simple, very cheap "electrified extension tube". No glass inside, only air. Like the current Canon EF/EF-M mount adapter.

Such an adapter by itself has NO IMPACT on AF performance. Any difference in AF behavior comes only from using lenses with AF drive and firmware *optimized for separate phase-detect AF* [as in DSLRs] on mirrorless cameras with a different AF-system: on-sensor PD-AF / DP-AF / Contrast-Detect AF or any sort of hybrid between these AF-methods.

AF performance of EF lenses with STM AF drive should not be impacted by a simple extension-tube type mount adapter ... unless (deliberately?) caused by firmware ...
 

GHPhotography

EOS M50
May 9, 2016
32
0
Orlando, FL
AvTvM said:
Benefit of going to new mount with smaller flange distance is evident: it allows camera bodies way more capable than today's most "powerful" DLSRs in a much smaller and lighter package. It also allows lenses in most frequently used focal range [wide to normal] to be built more compact compared to today's DSLR lenses. Provided of course, mount parameters are well chosen = not like Sony E-mount :)

some people are also VERY confused about the type of adapter we are talking about here. It is NOT something like a teleconverter, but rather a very simple, very cheap "electrified extension tube". No glass inside, only air. Like the current Canon EF/EF-M mount adapter.

Such an adapter by itself has NO IMPACT on AF performance. Any difference in AF behavior comes only from using lenses with AF drive and firmware *optimized for separate phase-detect AF* [as in DSLRs] on mirrorless cameras with a different AF-system: on-sensor PD-AF / DP-AF / Contrast-Detect AF or any sort of hybrid between these AF-methods.

AF performance of EF lenses with STM AF drive should not be impacted by a simple extension-tube type mount adapter ... unless (deliberately?) caused by firmware ...
So there is no benefit from a new mount, aside from size and mass. I'm not going to run down the entire list of reasons why smaller isn't always (or, IMO, ever in this case) better, but I'll give the standard few. Anything less than a 5d size body means cramming buttons onto the back or putting them all in digital menus, which sucks. It also makes it difficult to hold onto and use, especially when using larger lenses. Personally, I prefer the 1D size bodies, I always use battery grips on my other bodies because I want the extra grip/controls. I am also considerably larger than most people, so that may be just a personal thing.

Compact bodies mean compact batteries, which means a few hundred shots or short video clips before swapping. it also means that heat is more difficult to dissipate, which leads to lock up (see Sony). Both of these are body killers for pros.

Finally, shorter flange distance means bending light more to hit the entire sensor, which means lower IQ. As Sony has shown, getting high quality glass on these bodies means none of the size and weight benefits matter anymore, and you are holding a poorly balanced camera with poor/nonexistent grips. It also seems to mean building that adaptor into the lenses, which ruins the whole point of a new mount anyway. Unless you have some new lens design that counters these issues it will always be the case. What magical flange distance means that these issues go away, and what proof do you have for your claims?
 

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
46
Switzerland
addola said:
Maximilian said:
Mikehit said:
AvTvM said:
...
I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.
...
...
Canon have immense experience in designing teleconverters, and still teleconverters take a hit on AF speed and accuracy ...
Hi Mikehit!

Sorry, but I don't get your point.

A flange distance adapter is not a teleconverter.
A teleconverter has an influence on optical formula, focal length and aperture.
An adapter is only setting the optical formula in relationship to the image plane.
And it has to conduct the electrical signals properly - without altering them.

Problem with EOS M and adapter hitting the AF performance of EF/EF-S lenses is also not clear to me.
But that's a question for Canon development. It seems they've decided to built up the EOS M AF system different to the EOS.

So why should they do so again when aiming at customers with EF lenses?
I was confused about Mikehit's point and what he meant. It's not only "the glass in the converter", it's the distance that light have to travel. Even if the teleconverter is glass-free, AF would still take a hit!

Think of extension tubes which are about the size of a DSLR-to-Mirrorless adapter. They cut the light that reach the sensor (among other things), which makes AF harder for the camera. I do realize that this is not only due to loss of light, but also due to the shallower DoF, but stack a few extension tubes or use a macro bellow & your frame will look darker in the viewfinder, making even manual focus harder (that, and the DoF gets ridiculously shallow as well). Basically, you will lose a few stops of light with these tubes. It could be the same problem with mirrorless cameras using AF adapters.

A full-frame mirrorless using EF mount lenses with the typical EOS focal flange distance is nothing to write home about. It's basically a permanently locked-up mirror Canon DSLR with EVF.

I don't think it is easy or even possible to do EF mount with shorter FFD. But who knows what magical tricks they might have? I believe that would require some glass element like the Speedbooster adapters, and I wouldn't be amazed if we gain a stop or two. The EF mount is larger in diameter than other 35mm format cameras, so it'd be interesting to see what they would do.

On side note, sure Canon ditched the FD and move with a new mount with their EOS AF cameras. But I doubt they would invest into an another Mirrorless-only FF mount that goes parallel with their DSLR's EF mount. We all know how Canon fears cannibalizing their sales ;)
I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens at the foreseen distance to the sensor.
 

AvTvM

EOS R6
Nov 4, 2011
3,165
0
romanr74 said:
I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens works at the foreseen distance to the sensor.
true. but hairsplitting. ;D

Technically such an adapter - like e.g. EF/EF-M adapter - is exactly an extension tube. Absolutely identical. :)
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
Canon at the time was not the leading camera company and was after Minolta did AF, sitting number 3. They needed something big.

Right now canon controls the market.

Any more from Ef would be a huge disruption in the market and not in a good way.
 

Dylan777

EOS-1D X Mark III
Nov 17, 2011
5,515
7
AvTvM said:
I (still) do not believe "native EF" mount for Canon FF mirrorless series. Canon clearly demonstrated in 1987 that they will not shortchange their future by clinging to backwards compatibility with previous lenses. I fully expect them to move to shorter flange focal distance with mirrorless FF. Plus adapter for all EF glass.

Those who absolutely don't like an adapter can glue it permamently into the lens mount of their cameras. ;D
+1, Some native f2 pancake style to keep small for certain jobs. An adapter for all EF glass still the main key for Canon.
 

romanr74

I see, thus I am
Aug 4, 2012
531
0
46
Switzerland
AvTvM said:
romanr74 said:
I don't think extension tubes are a meaningful comparison. They use the lens at a not foreseen distance to the sensor. An adapter would do the exact opposite; it would allow to use the lens works at the foreseen distance to the sensor.
true. but hairsplitting. ;D

Technically such an adapter - like e.g. EF/EF-M adapter - is exactly an extension tube. Absolutely identical. :)
Not hairsplitting at all. The effect on AF performance is completely different: Putting an extension tube between the lens and the camera moves the lens away from the foreseen working distance to the sensor, while the adaptor puts the lens on the foreseen working distance to the sensor. Hence the effects on AF performance are unlikely to be the same. This is what the discussion was about. Not whether they both consist of air...