Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1]

[olympus593]

I hope this is not true.

Canon seems lost. Not on the lead of mirrorless like Fuji and Sony, and losing ground everyday for Nikon. The D500 has impressive features, and makes the 7D2 look old and outdated.

A fixed lens mirrorless looks like another stupid move. Sony and Fuji clearly used this formula as they were new players on the market, a way to attract customers to its products without compromising their loyalty to any other brand, and as others already said, to mature the technology.

Canon has no need to attract customers. Canon needs to avoid losing even more customers!! They have the best and broadest lenses lineup, but the cameras are way too behind. People are thirsty for good Canon bodies, two friends, owners of 5D3, bought the 5Ds/R without any real need, as a last hope to avoid moving to Sony.

Canon must learn with the others' moves and revolutionize itself to avoid being left in the dust of mirrorless AND SLR.

 

[dolina]

If they want to stand out make it a medium format fixed lens compact camera.

On BH there are 2 full frame cameras and 20 APS-C cameras with fixed lenses being sold.

Sony would be the logical company to offer this sort of camera as they make the only CMOS medium format sensor sporting 50MP and 100MP.

 

[gsealy]

Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1

Ah....just a year too late Canon. I bought a Fuji X100S a little over a year ago. It was so good I bought a Fuji XT-1 and a bunch of fast primes. Sold all of my Canon stuff because Canons mirrorless offering were not compelling. Canon lost a 35 year customer because they were years behind. too late now

There has been some praises for the Fuji x100s/t in this thread. I had the x100s for 18 months. I loved the rangefinder style and shooting experience. It was incredibly fun to use, even though the focus should be faster for street shooting. The sensor was very good as well, and not to far behind the 6D in terms of noise performance.

The lens however, which I expected a lot from after praises in various reviews, was very disappointing to me. The EF-M 22 f/2 on my EOS-M was much, much!!! sharper and clearer than the X100S. After comparing them, I sold the X100S. That said, the pictures from the Fuji looks sharp enough on an iPad, untill zooming in.

I would consider a Fuji, such as the X100 again, if the optics could compete with those of the EOS-M system.

Heh.. I had a 5DIII and the prints from the Fuji XT-1 and a prime were indistinguishable from the Canon at 13x19.....The X100S is pretty close. great prints up to 13x19 on a Canon Pixima pro 1. must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).

As I mentioned in another post, I shoot my X100T at f4.0 aperture priority mode. It is plenty sharp there. No doubt it is less sharp at f2 or at the opposite extreme around f11. The other really nice feature is that it has auto ISO with a very good algorithm. If you want to pixel peep then bring out the 5DIII or 5DsR big boys with an L or Zeiss prime lens and shoot on tripod with mirror lockup, remote trigger, and no filter. Then you get as sharp as there is sharp to be had. But the X100T is not about that kind of shooting. It is about optimizing quality among being light, lens, small, and quick. It is a great street camera for that reason and a lot of pros use it.

 

[scyrene]

losing ground everyday for Nikon.

[Citation needed]

 

[Solar Eagle]

Canon seems lost

another stupid move

Canon needs to avoid

Canon must learn

It appears your leadership and market insight are what Canon really needs. I do hope they offer you a spot at the top so they can learn from you.

 

[ahsanford]

I really don't understand the backlash to a fixed lens rig like this. It's a stepping stone, nothing more. They still will offer an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system someday.

And even if you are waiting for that interchangeable FF mirrorless setup from Canon, you have to concede that Canon still has a ton to do that is not mount-related -- they need to improve AF speed, think about handling/ergonomics, battery life, and, most of all, develop a world class EVF with all sorts of functionality onboard (histo, peaking, customizations, etc.).

This rig would be a low-risk, one-off product that will serve as batting practice for Canon to develop the pieces of a winning new system. I won't buy it (certainly not at $3k), but even if it tanks commercially, Canon will benefit from having done it.

- A

 

[quod]

Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1

must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).

I just looked at a bunch of shots taken with mine at f/2 and they look pretty good in the extreme corners. There may be bad copies of the X100S, but mine is pretty good.

 

[TeT]

How small?

 

[cellomaster27]

Also, does anyone give a damn that this is made by Canon if you can't put your EF lenses on it?

I suppose the menu/controls/ergonomics will be more consistent, but other than that, do you care?

- A

Bingo. I see that this rivals some of the ML cameras on the market.. but it can't touch the sonys just based on the fixed lens. Meh, if this really turns up, not terribly disappointed (I want to see sensor tech!!), but definitely not on my list to get. I'm sure canon can work up an adapter for EF lenses like the metabones for the sonys.

so without knowing specs,etc .. you know that sony's 35mm lens would be better than canon's?

thing is sony can use a canon 35mm. Canon can only use whatever is stuck on that to be camera body. Sony's sensors are superior, without a doubt and I almost doubt canon at this point to come up with something equal or better.. Just look at nikon's results their latest cameras. Ergonomics, menu system, handling, and maybe AF can go to Canon. AF, only because we have yet to see on this upcoming ML option and I think Canon's AF seen in their dslrs are superior. The M system's AF is abysmal when compared. Anyways, over all, sony beats this thing hands down before it even comes out. At least that's my opinion.

I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.

 

[ahsanford]

I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.

So if I take an SLR and epoxy a wider prime lens on to it permanently it suddenly becomes a point and shoot?

These $3k+ rigs are effectively FF SLRs minus a mirror and the ability to change lenses. Admittedly, those are two really big things, but these are not point and shoots at all. There will be the ability to set aperture and/or shutter speed, shoot in manual mode, manually focus, bracket, exposure comp, etc.

I see these rigs as a budget digital Leicas with autofocus, so yes, there's a luxury niche to these, but they also have settings and features those versant with an FF SLR would put to use.

- A

(P.S. I agree with you and want an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system, but I see any Canon efforts in FF mirrorless -- even a fixed lens offering -- as progress towards the system we all want to see.)

 

[Pookie]

I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.

I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.

The difference is that one stop of ISO/DOF costs you another $2k...

In the SLR world, there is much less of a gap from APS-C to FF for price (if you FF lenses already). Sony and Leica may not sell many fixed lens FF rigs like the Q and RX1R II, but those that do sell remain at a high asking price due to very little competition.

- A

So what?

The stop between f4 and f2.8 cost me over $3,000 when I got my 300 f2.8 IS, and currently costs new buyers over $4,500.

At my camera club I am a 'mentoring coordinator', newer photographers regularly ask me why some pictures look 'better' than theirs when they were shot at the same event. Invariably they have a crop or m4/3 camera and the image they are comparing to was shot with a ff, the only difference is that stop or so, they don't know what the technical difference is but they can see it, and want it.

Not for one second suggesting that crop cameras can't take a good picture, of course they can, or that I can tell the difference between a crop camera image and a ff one most of the time, we should all know by now it is easy to make them literally identical. But sometimes (and often enough in my case) that difference is worth the money.

If you can't control the light then dof control is the next most powerful characteristic that enables you to make the image you see in your mind. Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control even with the 35 f1.4 at 1.4 on a crop camera.

Heaven help the people you mentor...

Canon 7D + 35L @ f1.6 ... but you're right I didn't have to go to 1.4 :

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.

I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.

The difference is that one stop of ISO/DOF costs you another $2k...

In the SLR world, there is much less of a gap from APS-C to FF for price (if you FF lenses already). Sony and Leica may not sell many fixed lens FF rigs like the Q and RX1R II, but those that do sell remain at a high asking price due to very little competition.

- A

So what?

The stop between f4 and f2.8 cost me over $3,000 when I got my 300 f2.8 IS, and currently costs new buyers over $4,500.

At my camera club I am a 'mentoring coordinator', newer photographers regularly ask me why some pictures look 'better' than theirs when they were shot at the same event. Invariably they have a crop or m4/3 camera and the image they are comparing to was shot with a ff, the only difference is that stop or so, they don't know what the technical difference is but they can see it, and want it.

Not for one second suggesting that crop cameras can't take a good picture, of course they can, or that I can tell the difference between a crop camera image and a ff one most of the time, we should all know by now it is easy to make them literally identical. But sometimes (and often enough in my case) that difference is worth the money.

If you can't control the light then dof control is the next most powerful characteristic that enables you to make the image you see in your mind. Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control even with the 35 f1.4 at 1.4 on a crop camera.

Heaven help the people you mentor...

Canon 7D + 35L @ f1.6 ... but you're right I didn't have to go to 1.4 :

Idiot, how is a 35mm @ f1.6 on a crop camera equivalent to a 35mm @ f2 on a ff camera? You'd need a 23mm @ f1.25 on a crop camera to take a shot with the same fov and dof as mine, your image has a much narrow fov and is a ff equivalent of a 56mm @ f2.24 which is easily achieved on a ff camera by using a 50mm lens at f2.5 and cropping very slightly.

I was not saying my shot was exceptional, what I was saying was that sometimes there is no crop equivalent. But if you can link me to an EF-s 23mm f1.25 then I'll happily concede that one image, I'd then just move to a 400mm f2.8 image, an 85 f1.2 image, a 35mm f1.4 image, a 50mm f1.2 image etc etc.

 

[Pookie]

I'd be very interested in this type of camera. I shoot a lot with the 35 IS prime on a 1 series and would happily make a fixed lens 35 ff camera a replacement for a second 1 series if the focus, mp, etc etc met my needs.

I keep looking at Fuji X100S/T's but just can't get myself to give up that APS stop of iso/dof.

The difference is that one stop of ISO/DOF costs you another $2k...

In the SLR world, there is much less of a gap from APS-C to FF for price (if you FF lenses already). Sony and Leica may not sell many fixed lens FF rigs like the Q and RX1R II, but those that do sell remain at a high asking price due to very little competition.

- A

So what?

The stop between f4 and f2.8 cost me over $3,000 when I got my 300 f2.8 IS, and currently costs new buyers over $4,500.

At my camera club I am a 'mentoring coordinator', newer photographers regularly ask me why some pictures look 'better' than theirs when they were shot at the same event. Invariably they have a crop or m4/3 camera and the image they are comparing to was shot with a ff, the only difference is that stop or so, they don't know what the technical difference is but they can see it, and want it.

Not for one second suggesting that crop cameras can't take a good picture, of course they can, or that I can tell the difference between a crop camera image and a ff one most of the time, we should all know by now it is easy to make them literally identical. But sometimes (and often enough in my case) that difference is worth the money.

If you can't control the light then dof control is the next most powerful characteristic that enables you to make the image you see in your mind. Below is an example of what I am talking about, 35 f2 IS @ f2 with a ff camera, you can't do that dof control even with the 35 f1.4 at 1.4 on a crop camera.

Heaven help the people you mentor...

Canon 7D + 35L @ f1.6 ... but you're right I didn't have to go to 1.4 :

Idiot, how is a 35mm @ f1.6 on a crop camera equivalent to a 35mm @ f2 on a ff camera? You'd need a 23mm @ f1.25 on a crop camera to take a shot with the same fov and dof as mine, your image has a much narrow fov and is a ff equivalent of a 56mm @ f2.24 which is easily achieved on a ff camera by using a 50mm lens at f2.5 and cropping very slightly.

I was not saying my shot was exceptional, what I was saying was that sometimes there is no crop equivalent. But if you can link me to an EF-s 23mm f1.25 then I'll happily concede that one image, I'd then just move to a 400mm f2.8 image, an 85 f1.2 image, a 35mm f1.4 image, a 50mm f1.2 image etc etc.

Wow Polly... you did say this couldn't be done. Or was that an error with the forum posting here. You're the only one here with the idiotic statements that this can't be done. I do love your back tracking and er, erh, erh, um... pixel pitch, no compression, sensor error, sensor error... technical excuses. I'm choking back the tears

If you put your ear to the monitor you'll hear me laughing at you. At you... not with you. Oh, BTW, I never said your image was exceptional. I'm actually waiting to see your exceptional portraiture that you say anyone can do let alone you. So far your examples prove my point regarding your "expertise". I'm so waiting to see more of your excuses...

 

[ahsanford]

I really don't understand the backlash to a fixed lens rig like this. It's a stepping stone, nothing more. They still will offer an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system someday.
...

Canon haven't done a camera like this for a long time - I don't remember any film cameras like this available from Canon (which isn't to say that they didn't have one) in the last 20 years..

But mostly there are other companies (Leica especially) that specialize in this type of camera, so why should Canon diversify? People want ILC cameras from Canon, let others do fixed lens...

That's the thing.

This isn't diversification. This isn't a land grab for luxe/pricey premium dollars. This isn't a move to steal Nikonians over to Canon's side of the ledger. This isn't caving to market pressures.

This is just batting practice for Canon to develop the supporting tech / features needed to offer an ILC FF mirrorless offering. Why else would Canon do this?

- A

 

[Local Hero]

I bet Sony loses money on RX1 cameras.
I think they make them as halo cameras to add prestige to the Sony camera brand and to get publicity.

I've lost track of the number of internet reviews where I've read that the RX1 is the best point and shoot camera money can buy.

Kind of like the Bugatti Veyron of the camera world.
Money lost on each unit sold, but sure does generate a lot of publicity.
Publicity that money alone can't buy.

Canon doesn't really need a camera like this.
They have 1 Series cameras for this.
Although they have lost quite a lot of ground to Nikon in this respect, because they kept releasing cameras with crappy sensors.
Now on TV at sports and the like, you see a heap of Nikons, where once upon a time you would only see Canon.

I'd seriously consider a Canon like this, but it would have to be really good.
I'm not sure Canon has it in them to produce a really good camera in this style.
Would love to be proved wrong though.

 

[cellomaster27]

I want to see a FF ML with interchangeable lenses and maybe a EF converter if it doesn't work with EF mount lenses natively. Otherwise, isn't it just a fancy FF P&S? I know most people with canon lenses won't be interested in such a camera.

So if I take an SLR and epoxy a wider prime lens on to it permanently it suddenly becomes a point and shoot?

These $3k+ rigs are effectively FF SLRs minus a mirror and the ability to change lenses. Admittedly, those are two really big things, but these are not point and shoots at all. There will be the ability to set aperture and/or shutter speed, shoot in manual mode, manually focus, bracket, exposure comp, etc.

I see these rigs as a budget digital Leicas with autofocus, so yes, there's a luxury niche to these, but they also have settings and features those versant with an FF SLR would put to use.

- A

(P.S. I agree with you and want an interchangeable lens FF mirrorless system, but I see any Canon efforts in FF mirrorless -- even a fixed lens offering -- as progress towards the system we all want to see.)

Yes, thank you for pointing that out on the manual settings. But yeah, you get what I mean. Honestly, I hope this rumor isn't true. There are so many lenses that can't be used! :-\

 

[Larsskv]

Re: Canon Working on Full Frame Fixed Lens Camera? [CR1

must have a had a bad copy or something (although I have never heard of a bad X100S).

I just looked at a bunch of shots taken with mine at f/2 and they look pretty good in the extreme corners. There may be bad copies of the X100S, but mine is pretty good.

I guess my copy of the X100S wasn't the best, but I believe that part of my experience is explained by my Canon lenses, which have spoiled me in terms of quality expectations, even the non L lenses. I realize that I sound by a fanboy, but keep om mind, I really did like that Fuji for the shooting experience and the sensor. I would have kept it if it could compare with the M and 22f2.

I might give the Fuji X-Pro2 a try some day.

 

[moreorless]

I would not be supprized if Sony makes more money on RX1 cameras than they do on A7 cameras besides maybe the A7r mk2, all of those cheaper A7 bodies were I'd guess either sold with limited margins or at a loss to try and build a market.

My guess is that Sony's original intension with the RX1 was to go after the high end ultra compact market but that the degree of hype led to their deciding to take the same tech and put it into a mirrorless systems camera ASAP. That first generation of A7 bodies for me looked VERY cobbled together relative to the RX1 and the lens lineup with very limited for quite awhile plus reusing the NEX APSC mount seems like its creating significant problems.

Size wise I think theres a clear advantage to going fixed lens, the RX1 is significantly smaller than any A7 body/lens combination and is both a stop faster and includes greater macro ability than the FE 35mm lens.

 

[Light_Pilgrim]

I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras. I understand Leica with their rangefinder approach, I do understand DSLRs and I do understand Mirrorless even though I know it is a technology at it's infancy still. But a 35 mm F/2 mirrorless thing for 3K? 1-2 years from now it will not we worth more than 500 USD used. You are limited to 35 mm. It is not dramatically smaller than a DSLR too. Just do not get it - who is the target audience and what kind of images people produce with this thing? Say if I have plenty of money, I can get it as my secondary camera and take it with me when I go for my morning walk in the park. But it is not the camera that I will rely on when I do something seriously.

 

[Hector1970]

Interesting move by Canon.
I think they are a big late into this market.
It's probably quite limited in terms of who would purchase.
It's a luxury purchase.
They are smart usually in their marketing so maybe they have seen it's a high-margin sector.
My own experience is with a Fuji X100s.
35mm is a nice focal length but I find it limited. Even with its adapters (which are a bit of a gimmick (28mm is not wide enough - 24mm would be better) it's a pretty inflexible camera.
It forces you to use your feet which is good but a zoom is far more adaptable and flexible.
The Fuji X100s looks beautiful and I'm sure Canon would make a nice looking lens too.