Canon Full Frame Mirrorless to use Dedicated Sensor [CR2]

[bf]

It has been a long time since we are debating a full frame mirror-less on Canon's line up. When they first came up with EOS M we wanted it to be a full frame. When they left U.S. we wanted them to return with a FF! Still one more year for a rumor that sounds a long time. Looking at Sony's system I'm not that eager about FF mirror-less bodies anymore. Let's see how Nikon does it first!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think we're all in agreement that it will probably be called the M1, and Canon have been rebranding/positioning their EOS M line to match the 'European' EOS naming conventions... See below:

1D/M1 - Professional 'Halo' Product/Highest Performance
5D/M5 - Professional/High Performance
6D/M6 - Entry level Professional/Enthusiast High Performance

x0D/Mx0 - Enthusiast/Performance (This whole theory hinges on what the M20 will look like...)

x00D/Mx00 - Entry level (Ever wonder why the successor to the M10 was the M100? I think this is why...)

The potential M20 and the existence of the M100 cameras are really what bring this idea to life, but it would be nice to have some congruity between the two product lines. What do you all think?

Not all of us.

I believe the M series will stay as APS-C. According to your theory, the M6 would be FF, and the m3 would be a high end camera.


I think a new series is needed for a FF mirrorless, the M series consists of entry level or near entry level cameras that are APSC and never intended to be high end.

I could see a FF as a 6DM, I do not think that a 1 series or even a 5 series Mirrorless is yet in the works. It will be entry level FF.

 

[1kind]

I just hope they don't remove DPAF.

Considering DPAF is showing up in newer cameras, I'm guessing its here to stay.

 

[1kind]

1D/M1 - Professional 'Halo' Product/Highest Performance
5D/M5 - Professional/High Performance
6D/M6 - Entry level Professional/Enthusiast High Performance

1) I thought the M5 and M6 differed only in one getting an integral EVF. (Correct/incorrect?)

2) Equating the functionality / IQ / performance of the 5D and the M5 is off-target. The 5D is a professional rig with a professional build and feature set -- it just lack an integral grip and sexiest of the highest end stuff the 1DX platform gets. In contrast, I'd more liken the M5 to the 80D, not the 5D brand.

I get your good/better/best approach, but as mirrorless will straddle mount sizes in this approach, I see it more like:

M1 (if that's what it's called) = a 6D2 + EVF - mirror. I just don't see them offering a beastly 5D4 / 5DS / 1DX2 level mirrorless rig to start. Go for well-heeled enthusiasts and folks looking for a solid second body and scoop up all the cash from pent-up demand.

M5/M6 = 80D for those who do/don't want an integral EVF. I think it's perfectly positioned right there -- going upmarket to a 7D2-like 'crop 1DX lite' rig is a leap to me.

- A

M5 and M6 differed in body style mainly. Specs and internally its all the same. M6 does not have the touch-and-drag focus.

 

[ahsanford]

Let's see how Nikon does it first!

I'll be (not really) brave here. Nikon FF mirrorless will be:

• Skinny new mount (not a full FX mount)
• Integral EVF (...only, no OVF / Hybrid setup)
• A few lower profile, 'nicer but not best' quality lenses that make the small overall rig size pop the most (35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, etc.) -- native mount lenses might be focus-by-wire only
• Adaptor for FX glass
• 4K: Yes
• IBIS: No
• Higher fps than you might think for a first go at FF mirrorless (7-8 fps; N1 demonstrated their ability to run high fps, and the D850 shows they can move a ton of data)
• They might do something silly and chase a specific standalone mirrorless-only design/control aesthetic and ask for silly money for the privilege, but they ought to mimic their D500/D850 handling and controls if they know what's good for them. They are building a platform that should feel really intuitive to current Nikon users, not chasing some exotic/bougie premium dollar rig with a zany new control scheme.

Only difference from Canon's mirrorless plan? Canon might be practical enough / foolish enough* to release a full EF mount mirrorless setup. I see Nikon playing it safe w.r.t. Sony's established market of 'it's about being smaller, dummy' and going with a thin mount.

*Depending on where you stand on the FF mirrorless mount debate, which is neverending.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I just hope they don't remove DPAF.

Considering DPAF is showing up in newer cameras, I'm guessing its here to stay.

It's a core, ground floor 100% take-it-to-the-bank-going-to-be-there-on-day-one piece of tech that Canon will build it's FF mirrorless platform around.

The only way Canon's first FF mirrorless doesn't have DPAF is if some DPAF 2.0 with a different acronym is onboard instead (QPAF for quad-pixel, anyone?). DPAF or something like it is a hammerlock certainty based on the widespread push of that tech across almost the entire platform, especially in how it makes LiveView (aka EVF) focusing truly sing.

- A

 

[Proscribo]

I just hope they don't remove DPAF.

Considering DPAF is showing up in newer cameras, I'm guessing its here to stay.

It's a core, ground floor 100% take-it-to-the-bank-going-to-be-there-on-day-one piece of tech that Canon will build it's FF mirrorless platform around.

The only way Canon's first FF mirrorless doesn't have DPAF is if some DPAF 2.0 with a different acronym is onboard instead (QPAF for quad-pixel, anyone?). DPAF or something like it is a hammerlock certainty based on the widespread push of that tech across almost the entire platform, especially in how it makes LiveView (aka EVF) focusing truly sing.

- A

Would be sweet, at least in theory.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I just hope they don't remove DPAF.

Considering DPAF is showing up in newer cameras, I'm guessing its here to stay.

It's a core, ground floor 100% take-it-to-the-bank-going-to-be-there-on-day-one piece of tech that Canon will build it's FF mirrorless platform around.

The only way Canon's first FF mirrorless doesn't have DPAF is if some DPAF 2.0 with a different acronym is onboard instead (QPAF for quad-pixel, anyone?). DPAF or something like it is a hammerlock certainty based on the widespread push of that tech across almost the entire platform, especially in how it makes LiveView (aka EVF) focusing truly sing.

- A

Canon has already said that all new sensors will be DPAF, and will also have on sensor A-D conversion. Its a given until something better comes along.

Canon has a recent patent for the problem that affects mirrorless DPAF due to the shallow angle to the outer pixels. This would likely be necessary for a FF Mirrorless that used a short lens-sensor distance, since the angle gets shallower.

I agree that Manufacturers have a chance to get it right this time, Canon has been edging closer with DPAF, my 5D MK IV and SL2 could pass quite well for a mirrorless camera with a few tweaks, and Canon has now had 3 years to develop them.

If they get it right, it may indeed be true that all future new models will be mirrorless.

As far as FPS, its a combination of sensor readout speed as well as processor power. Sensor readout speed needs something like a multi layer back illuminated sensor to provide a good ground plane so the sensor wells can be emptied very fast. Processor power is linked to the technology used to fab the die and to the size of the battery, heat dissipation is also a issue, and small bodies do not do as well.

 

[Ryananthony]

If canon went with a new mount for the FF mirrorless (I hope the dont, and don't think they will) what are the chances AF perormance with EF lenses and an adapter would be better then Sony with a EF adapter? I read that Sony A-mount adapted lenses on E-Mount lose FPS, and don't focus as well as E-mount native. Would it be likely Canon would have better luck?

 

[bf]

Let's see how Nikon does it first!

I'll be (not really) brave here. Nikon FF mirrorless will be:

• Skinny new mount (not a full FX mount)
• Integral EVF (...only, no OVF / Hybrid setup)
• A few lower profile, 'nicer but not best' quality lenses that make the small overall rig size pop the most (35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, etc.) -- native mount lenses might be focus-by-wire only
• Adaptor for FX glass

...

I think adaptor defeats the purpose of a mirrorless. In your description Canon will offer a more attractive design. On the other hand, Nikon has been more loyal to its legacy glass.[/list]

 

[TAF]

I just hope they don't remove DPAF.

Considering DPAF is showing up in newer cameras, I'm guessing its here to stay.

It's a core, ground floor 100% take-it-to-the-bank-going-to-be-there-on-day-one piece of tech that Canon will build it's FF mirrorless platform around.

The only way Canon's first FF mirrorless doesn't have DPAF is if some DPAF 2.0 with a different acronym is onboard instead (QPAF for quad-pixel, anyone?). DPAF or something like it is a hammerlock certainty based on the widespread push of that tech across almost the entire platform, especially in how it makes LiveView (aka EVF) focusing truly sing.

- A

Canon has already said that all new sensors will be DPAF, and will also have on sensor A-D conversion. Its a given until something better comes along.

Canon has a recent patent for the problem that affects mirrorless DPAF due to the shallow angle to the outer pixels. This would likely be necessary for a FF Mirrorless that used a short lens-sensor distance, since the angle gets shallower.

I agree that Manufacturers have a chance to get it right this time, Canon has been edging closer with DPAF, my 5D MK IV and SL2 could pass quite well for a mirrorless camera with a few tweaks, and Canon has now had 3 years to develop them.

If they get it right, it may indeed be true that all future new models will be mirrorless.

As far as FPS, its a combination of sensor readout speed as well as processor power. Sensor readout speed needs something like a multi layer back illuminated sensor to provide a good ground plane so the sensor wells can be emptied very fast. Processor power is linked to the technology used to fab the die and to the size of the battery, heat dissipation is also a issue, and small bodies do not do as well.

Form factor...if they try to squeeze a FF mirrorless into a tiny body, they get the worst of all worlds.

But if they try a totally different form factor, they can overcome all the problems in one quick pass.

Think Hasselblad or Rollei. Something like an SL3003 shape would be ideal. EF mount, plenty of space for heat sinking, batteries, and memory cards, and with the EVF on the top, the ergonomics would be excellent, albeit totally different from what most people are used to.

I would pay good money for that body to use all my nice L glass.

 

[Isaacheus]

[quote author=Mt Spokane Photography

Canon has already said that all new sensors will be DPAF, and will also have on sensor A-D conversion. Its a given until something better comes along.

[/quote]

Was this said before or after the 6dmk2 release? As I believe that uses the old off sensor A-D conversion. the promo material also said the sensor was the same tech as the 5dmk4, so it'll be interesting to see what they go with

 

[tmroper]

Canon has decades of experience with mirrorless cameras, in the form of camcorders, ENG cameras, and their Cinema cameras. So they're certainly as capable as Sony, who have very similar technical experience with mirrorless, in creating something great. I'm hoping they do.

 

[dsut4392]

Form factor...if they try to squeeze a FF mirrorless into a tiny body, they get the worst of all worlds.

But if they try a totally different form factor, they can overcome all the problems in one quick pass.

Think Hasselblad or Rollei. Something like an SL3003 shape would be ideal. EF mount, plenty of space for heat sinking, batteries, and memory cards, and with the EVF on the top, the ergonomics would be excellent, albeit totally different from what most people are used to.

I would pay good money for that body to use all my nice L glass.

Because nothing says "ergonomics" like shooting hunched over looking towards the ground? While they are at it, they could charge more if it comes complete with firmware that sets the image to be flipped L-R like a proper waist level finder
Seriously, if they make this any bigger than it needs to be (determined mostly by flange distance and mount diameter) it's dead in the water. Those that like a bigger grip or more battery life can add an accessory grip, like we used to in the film days.
As for heat sinking, can we please all stop with the "bigger = better" fallacy? Cameras run into heat issues primarily through poor thermal transfer (i.e. they can't move heat away from the sensor fast enough), not a lack of thermal mass. IBIS would be a particular constraint in this regard, because the sensor module needs to be able to move relative to the rest of the body (which requires a low sensor module mass so the actuators can move it, and an air gap, seriously compromising the thermal path). Increasing the total camera mass will slightly extend the time you can run the camera before it overheats - but if the bottleneck is the thermal path from the sensor, the gain may not be that great. Making a camera more brick shaped is an extremely inefficient way to increase the thermal transfer capacity, because what you need (in the absence of active cooling) is radiant surface area.

 

[AvTvM]

Form factor...if they try to squeeze a FF mirrorless into a tiny body, they get the worst of all worlds.

But if they try a totally different form factor, they can overcome all the problems in one quick pass.

Think Hasselblad or Rollei. Something like an SL3003 shape would be ideal. EF mount, plenty of space for heat sinking, batteries, and memory cards, and with the EVF on the top, the ergonomics would be excellent, albeit totally different from what most people are used to.

I would pay good money for that body to use all my nice L glass.

Because nothing says "ergonomics" like shooting hunched over looking towards the ground? While they are at it, they could charge more if it comes complete with firmware that sets the image to be flipped L-R like a proper waist level finder
Seriously, if they make this any bigger than it needs to be (determined mostly by flange distance and mount diameter) it's dead in the water. Those that like a bigger grip or more battery life can add an accessory grip, like we used to in the film days.
As for heat sinking, can we please all stop with the "bigger = better" fallacy? Cameras run into heat issues primarily through poor thermal transfer (i.e. they can't move heat away from the sensor fast enough), not a lack of thermal mass. IBIS would be a particular constraint in this regard, because the sensor module needs to be able to move relative to the rest of the body (which requires a low sensor module mass so the actuators can move it, and an air gap, seriously compromising the thermal path). Increasing the total camera mass will slightly extend the time you can run the camera before it overheats - but if the bottleneck is the thermal path from the sensor, the gain may not be that great. Making a camera more brick shaped is an extremely inefficient way to increase the thermal transfer capacity, because what you need (in the absence of active cooling) is radiant surface area.

+100

Instead of boxy and cubic, cameras could also be made neatly ball-shaped : - so we could throw them up in the air and capture photos while doing so ... without any ergonomic hassles ... https://www.panono.com/en
;D :

 

[jolyonralph]

Seriously, if they make this any bigger than it needs to be (determined mostly by flange distance and mount diameter) it's dead in the water. Those that like a bigger grip or more battery life can add an accessory grip, like we used to in the film days.
As for heat sinking, can we please all stop with the "bigger = better" fallacy? Cameras run into heat issues primarily through poor thermal transfer (i.e. they can't move heat away from the sensor fast enough), not a lack of thermal mass. IBIS would be a particular constraint in this regard, because the sensor module needs to be able to move relative to the rest of the body (which requires a low sensor module mass so the actuators can move it, and an air gap, seriously compromising the thermal path). Increasing the total camera mass will slightly extend the time you can run the camera before it overheats - but if the bottleneck is the thermal path from the sensor, the gain may not be that great. Making a camera more brick shaped is an extremely inefficient way to increase the thermal transfer capacity, because what you need (in the absence of active cooling) is radiant surface area.

Well said!

 

[littleB]

As for heat sinking, can we please all stop with the "bigger = better" fallacy? Cameras run into heat issues primarily through poor thermal transfer (i.e. they can't move heat away from the sensor fast enough), not a lack of thermal mass. IBIS would be a particular constraint in this regard, because the sensor module needs to be able to move relative to the rest of the body (which requires a low sensor module mass so the actuators can move it, and an air gap, seriously compromising the thermal path). Increasing the total camera mass will slightly extend the time you can run the camera before it overheats - but if the bottleneck is the thermal path from the sensor, the gain may not be that great. Making a camera more brick shaped is an extremely inefficient way to increase the thermal transfer capacity, because what you need (in the absence of active cooling) is radiant surface area.

You must be a specialist in heat conduction science to use such kind of wording, like fallacy and such reasoning.
Please explain me, how smaller sized object of the same shape and same materials would have larger heat radiation.
Block shaped camers have more radiation surface than ball-shaped ones. Bigger cameras have more radiation surface and more heat transfer opportunities inside the body than smaller ones of similar shape. Bigger size, same shape =bigger surface = bigger heat radiation.
Take litlle heat-efficient camera as is, all technology except heat dissipation, increase its size and make heat dissilation system more efficient. Use liquids, use silver. The result will be less overheating.

You also arbitrarily mix mass and size. These are not the same.

 

[AvTvM]

You must be a specialist in heat conduction science to use such kind of wording, like fallacy and such reasoning.
Please explain me, how smaller sized object of the same shape and same materials would have larger heat radiation.
Block shaped camers have more radiation surface than ball-shaped ones. Bigger cameras have more radiation surface and more heat transfer opportunities inside the body than smaller ones of similar shape. Bigger size, same shape =bigger surface = bigger heat radiation.

No, I don't want a big fat camera brick as handwarmer. Big outer shell is meaningless for efficient thermal design of a camera. I want a small camera without any video capture [other than video-feed needed for LCD and EVF]. No 4k, no thermal issues even in a FF camera as small as a Sony RX-1R II.

 

[Mikehit]

Please explain me, how smaller sized object of the same shape and same materials would have larger heat radiation.

Ratio of surface area to volume. A principle of physics that a 12-year old would understand.

Bigger cameras have more radiation surface and more heat transfer opportunities inside the body than smaller ones of similar shape.
Bigger size, same shape =bigger surface = bigger heat radiation.

It is about ratios. Bigger bodies hold more volume to retain the heat compared to the amount of surface radiating heat. It is why big animals overheat more than little animals - it is why elephants need huge ears to lose heat and mice do not. It is why little mammals need to eat more so they can maintain body temperature because they are losing heat more rapidly.
Basic biology.

Take litlle heat-efficient camera as is, all technology except heat dissipation, increase its size and make heat dissilation system more efficient. Use liquids, use silver. The result will be less overheating.

But you said that big bodies have more radiating surface so on your theory you would not need a more efficient heat dissipation.
Do you want water slopping around in your camera? I don't.
Use silver? Why?

 

[jolyonralph]

I want a small camera without any video capture [other than video-feed needed for LCD and EVF].

Not going to happen. You may not want video, but a significant % of the market do. I use video less than 1% of the time I use my camera, but I wouldn't buy another serious camera that didn't include it.