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

[HarryWintergreen]

I’ve had a Fuji x100s for three years now. This little camera has changed my way of taking photographs in a way I never thought possible before I got it. It’s non-obtrusive, people react in a far more tolerant way compared to my 5DII. Picture quality is surprisingly similar, even architecture shots with the TS-E 24 II often aren’t superior.

If Canon made something similar encompassing assets only Canon can provide, I would instantly take a closer look. And, btw, as long as people label this sort of camera p&s they simply do not understand the benefits of a fixed focal lens and a camera you are familiar with and that is always with you.

 

[Sporgon]

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 :

Off topic I know but that bokeh on the skyline produced by that combination is quite hideous, and perhaps a good example of why putting a 35 mil on a crop isn't as pleasing as a planar design 50/55 mil on FF.

 

[JohanCruyff]

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

Maybe you underestimate the power of the new and already legendary 1DX2ish 15-Stops-DR Full Frame Sensor. ;D

 

[YuengLinger]

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.

Ever the cheerleader... :

And what, pray tell, is wrong with my interest in such a possible camera? Heck I even stated it would have to have a slew of specs to suit my personal needs to actually buy one, if it ever became available. But having a Canon version always makes the actual use much simpler for me, which is why I like my M as much as I do, things like flashes, remotes, etc are all much easier to deal with if they run the same ecosystem.

Sorry, I'll stop pointing out the various reasons such a camera would make sense for me and get back to the usual line here. What crap, Canon have really lost the plot on this one, Sony is eating their lunch and did the same thing years ago, why are Canon always playing catch up with their crippled specs and zero innovation? It better have at least 16 stops of DR or else I am jumping ship, I warn you Canon! It better have OVF. It better have EVF. It better have CFast and a tilt screen or else they are doomed. I need two card slots. I need true audio in and a headphone socket and if Canon cripple the video I am jumping ship. I need 4k. I need 5k. I need internal RAW 4k recording. I need high quality LOG and CODECs.

That make you feel better?

Now rant about Adobe CC, and I will feel better.

35mm f2 fixed? Oy vey.


A golf cart on the expressway.

 

[rrcphoto]

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

easily the power shot is looking for more higher tiered products to add to the G series powershot line. the P&S line has been dumping.

canon doesn't need the "experience" in creating a full frame MILC. Ludicrous proposition.

PS .. not everyone even wants a FF MILC. you may, I do not, nor do alot of people. the size difference between that kit and a DSLR kit is still around the same.

 

[rrcphoto]

I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND these extremely expensive fixed length cameras

so what?

then it's not for you.

some like them, some do not. there's not a camera in the world that pleases everyone.

PS .. CR is suggesting 3K .. the rumor is not.

dont' get your panties in a knot over it.

 

[eninja]

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 :

Off topic I know but that bokeh on the skyline produced by that combination is quite hideous, and perhaps a good example of why putting a 35 mil on a crop isn't as pleasing as a planar design 50/55 mil on FF.

note: assume apsc is 1 stop wider depth of field

I appreciate what pbd is saying. in my case, i have a 6D and I love bokeh, I can not justify having a crop sensor. fuji has 1.4 lens, but if i insist using 6D, canon has 2.8 lens which is cheaper, and better IQ. cost wise and iq wise, FF is better, regarding bokeh.

 

[Sporgon]

I remember the Canon AF35ML Super Sure Shot. The reason I remember it is because I was a Nikon shooter at the time (early '80s) and got to put a roll of film through one - can't remember why. However I do remember that the quality of the lens was stunning ! Much better than Nikon slr-s at the time.

Incidentally it had a rather sophisticated 40mm f/1.9 fixed lens, and I was incredulous as to why it was better than my gear at the time !

However given how times and lenses have moved on a fixed lens FF offering wouldn't excite me now.

 

[Luds34]

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

However, I do find it interesting how unhappy you were with the lens. Did you have a bad copy or do you believe the fixed lens is really that weak? The new XF lenses from Fuji are generally held in very high regard optically. My limited experience/exposure with them has left me quite impressed.

The lens is good wide open , but not amazing, and only at a decent distance. Anything closer in than a few feet, and the lens has a lot of hazy SA , so you get that dreamy low contrast look from it.

I don't think I had a good copy, but I tried to find comparable images online. I remember it was hard finding pictures of it wide open (every picture that was demonstrating sharpness didn't have corners in focus, or was shot at f/8) but those I found had similarities to my camera. I had to stop down to f/11 to get corner to corner sharpness.

A lot of negative things can be said about the EOS-M, but the lenses for it, and especially to 22 f/2 are great. Considering their price, I believe they are the best buys in the mirror less market.

Thanks for the feedback (both of you). Good to know, again I never took an X100 series too seriously as I would always come back to wanting an ILC. But when you got people like Zack Arias saying he wants to be buried with his X100T you're thinking this must be one awesome camera front to back, optics included. Of course I'm not too surprised, it is a small lens and of a simple design. I think the XF 18mm f/2 is similar (I've owned it for a short time now), might be a bit soft, corners don't ever really get super sharp even stopped down. However the rendering I find pleasing, and the bokeh is really solid.

I will say my experience with the XF series 23mm f/1.4, the 35mm (both f/1.4 and the new f/2), and the 56mm f/1.2 have left me quite impressed! Those lenses have the ability to take some incredible shots.

Love the EF-M 22mm pancake. I've taken tons of great shots with that little lens. Talk about a lens that really gets sharp just stopping down a bit. Canon hit a home run with that lens, especially given the price.

 

[Sporgon]

I appreciate what pbd is saying. in my case, i have a 6D and I love bokeh, I can not justify having a crop sensor. fuji has 1.4 lens, but if i insist using 6D, canon has 2.8 lens which is cheaper, and better IQ. cost wise and iq wise, FF is better, regarding bokeh.

It's true: if ultra shallow dof is your goal crop can actually work out more expensive than FF.

 

[erjlphoto]

Hope it has a viewfinder or else it will be useless, imo.

 

[Luds34]

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

+1

I agree. It's like I said earlier, I think it's a shot for them to feel the waters of a mirrorless like body without resolving all the internal politics/decisions on what mount to use, how to deal with zillions of EF lenses out there, etc.

 

[PureClassA]

Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?

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

+1

I agree. It's like I said earlier, I think it's a shot for them to feel the waters of a mirrorless like body without resolving all the internal politics/decisions on what mount to use, how to deal with zillions of EF lenses out there, etc.

 

[scyrene]

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...

Most of the time we hear people bemoaning the fact that Canon doesn't produce products that other companies do - an A7s equivalent, a D810 equivalent (until the 5Ds came out), even a 645z equivalent. They can't win!

 

[scyrene]

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.

You may not understand it, and tbh neither do I really, but clearly someone thinks they're good. I doubt companies would produce these things (for a prolonged period, with several iterations) without good cause.

 

[Luds34]

Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?

Because Canon is pretty darn conservative? Because something with more market penetration would be an ILC and I don't think they even know for sure yet which way they want to go or exactly or what that camera would look like.

Either way, just getting something like this out (whether low or high sales numbers) would allow them to get real world feedback on a "mirrorless type" camera body. They can then tweak it, use that experience to help them shape their real launch into the MILC market.

Anyway, that is just my working theory. But I do agree, at $3k? Heck even $1500? This is a niche product and would probably not sell in very high volumes.

 

[scyrene]

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.

This is getting rather philosophical. I think you both have valid positions. Can a camera without the ability to change lenses, without a mirror be an SLR? Does any definition of point-and-shoot exclude the possibility to manually set things like exposure etc? I don't think so... a high-end camera with lots of manual controls, but a fixed lens, especially with a fixed focal length (or small zoom range) is surely a point-and-shoot. On the other hand, if you glued a lens on your SLR, it would still be an SLR (just a partially broken one).

The question is, what do you want to call this category? It hardly matters, but if we have point-and-shoot (and accept your implication that they must be low-end products), superzooms, bridge cameras, rangefinders, SLRs and so on, where does this type of thing fit? "Effectively FF SLRs" doesn't really cut it, as they lack any of the diagnostic criteria (chief among which is a mirror allowing you to see through the lens you'll shoot through).

Edit: I see someone used the word 'compact'. So, 'high-end compact'? Is that less controversial?

 

[moreorless]

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.

Surely the same could be said for almost any camera purchase? if anything the RX1 seems to have held its value somewhat better than most cameras.

Size wise your never going to be as pocketablel as a very small compact but by going fixed lens you can get pretty small, the RX1 for example has roughly the same depth as an A7 camera + 35mm F/2.8 lens dispite being a stop faster and having better macro ability. No lens mount and the ability to include a very large rear element are I would say key issues.

Its limiting of course but sensor wise we actually seem to be moving to the point where the fixed lens is less of a disadvantage as sensors aren't advancing as quickly as previously and resolution is reaching the potential of lenses. Canon for example could include the new 50 MP sensor giving a lot of resolution for potential cropped images.

 

[PureClassA]

Obviously you can't put EF-M glass on a FF Mirrorless. Also seems obvious that Canon wants to keep the FF mirrorless as compact as possible, and therefore can't create a big enough flange distance to support the existing EF glass line. So they're in a pickle. Seems the only reasonable theory as to why this camera is rumored as it is. I personally would prefer a SL1 body type (or even a T6) as MILC. That's still a really small camera (SL1). Now it may not be quite as THIN as other MILCs, but it's still doable.

Yeah but $3000? (If that's accurate) Why not make something that could yield more market penetration if this is "batting practice"?

Because Canon is pretty darn conservative? Because something with more market penetration would be an ILC and I don't think they even know for sure yet which way they want to go or exactly or what that camera would look like.

Either way, just getting something like this out (whether low or high sales numbers) would allow them to get real world feedback on a "mirrorless type" camera body. They can then tweak it, use that experience to help them shape their real launch into the MILC market.

Anyway, that is just my working theory. But I do agree, at $3k? Heck even $1500? This is a niche product and would probably not sell in very high volumes.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I can't speak for used copies, but the original Sony RX1 is 3+ years old and still sells for roughly $2k (not including rando eBay sales offers or web storefronts without any reviews).

- A