Canon's FF Mirrorless Camera Will Have Same Internals as EOS 6D Mark II

[AvTvM]

Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.

When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
* seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
* absolutely no vibrations
* absolutely no noise - without performance hit [as opposed to mirrorslapper silent Live view move
* smaller kit possible [compared to mirrorslappers]: slim body + compact lenses; big lenses can also be used when needed or preferred, no worries

Why you *self-proclaimed economy experts* were 27% of ILC cameras sold in 2016 mirrorless, if it was no upgrade? All those buyers could have bought themselves *absolutely wonderful, big and chunky-gripped DSLRs* along with *wonderful lenses* from *reputable, established industry leaders* like our beloved purveyor of marginally improved iterated mirrorslappers based on early 20th century tech ... Canon. Or Nikon, if they were not so smart.

But ... they did not. They consciously and deliberately bought cameras and lenses from second-tier palyers like Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony or if Canon, then from the limited Canon EOS M lineup ... OMG ... they bought mirrorless cameras!

Mostly for size, *what else*? Plus some or all of the other advantages listed. Some Fuji hipster buyers may have gone for retro looks above all ... but then, even those misguided souls could have gotten themselves an equally retro-looking Nikon Df. With a big, chunky grip. And lots and lots of knulred knobs, dials, levers, wheels all over the camera. A machine operators wet dream!

Be strong. Be brave. Just face it. Repeat after me: the *solid state imaging* upgrade is upon us. Grab it or leave it.

Even the 81-year old Canon CEO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujio_Mitarai might eventually realize it. Or not. But that would spell ... doom.

 

[ahsanford]

Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.

When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
* seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
* absolutely no vibrations
* absolutely no noise - without performance hit [as opposed to mirrorslapper silent Live view move
* smaller kit possible [compared to mirrorslappers]: slim body + compact lenses; big lenses can also be used when needed or preferred, no worries

Those are reasons to use a mirrorless camera, not reasons for long-time photographers to walk away from thousands of dollars worth of EF glass.

The argument is not whether or not mirrorless offers value -- it does. This isn't about the value of the 'solid state future', this is about LENSES.

The argument is whether Canon should migrate all EF lenses to something new -- and it clearly shouldn't. The only clear upside of a full migration is a handful of small mirrorless-mount-only lenses to make a small rig. Fine. Canon could make those. Now explain why the other 90% of Canon's lenses should be either retired or remade for the new mount and why we as customers should have to eat that expense.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.

When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
* seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
* absolutely no vibrations
* absolutely no noise - without performance hit [as opposed to mirrorslapper silent Live view move
* smaller kit possible [compared to mirrorslappers]: slim body + compact lenses; big lenses can also be used when needed or preferred, no worries

Those are reasons to use a mirrorless camera, not reasons for long-time photographers to walk away from thousands of dollars worth of EF glass.

The argument is not whether or not mirrorless offers value -- it does. This isn't about the value of the 'solid state future', this is about LENSES.

The argument is whether Canon should migrate all EF lenses to something new -- and it clearly shouldn't. The only clear upside of a full migration is a handful of small mirrorless-mount-only lenses to make a small rig. Fine. Canon could make those. Now explain why the other 90% of Canon's lenses should be either retired or remade for the new mount and why we as customers should have to eat that expense.

- A

Exactly!

So now we step back and ask ourselves..... If Canon made the 6D2 mirrorless, would they keep it the same physical size, with similar ergonomics, and with the EF mount, or would they choose to make the body thinner, require all new lenses, and give us more vignetting...

And also ask ourselves, if being smaller is so all-fired important, why not get am M?

 

[Loswr]

Be strong. Be brave. Just face it. Repeat after me: the *solid state imaging* upgrade is upon us. Grab it or leave it.

Tell you what...why don't you come back when that upgrade is actually here. Because today, there are still lots of moving bits inside MILCs and lenses. Shutters, image stabilizers, aperture diaphragms, focus motors, etc.

Now explain why the other 90% of Canon's lenses should be either retired or remade for the new mount and why we as customers should have to eat that expense.

Because AvTvM wants it, my Precious. And when does he think it will happen?

 

[ahsanford]

Exactly!

So now we step back and ask ourselves..... If Canon made the 6D2 mirrorless, would they keep it the same physical size, with similar ergonomics, and with the EF mount, or would they choose to make the body thinner, require all new lenses, and give us more vignetting...

And also ask ourselves, if being smaller is so all-fired important, why not get am M?

I think I've posted this elsewhere, but I break this into three categories of 'being smaller':

Length/width of the back of the camera --> This (and lens size) affects the bag you put these things in. Camera bags fall into three buckets -- super tiny for P&S and possibly m43, standard sized for APS-C / FF without a grip, and specialized for gripped or 1D cameras. The amount of material they'd have to shed to fit in an M43 kind of bag would be like how EOS M (mk 1) was butchered down from a Rebel. And doing that wouldn't make the lenses any smaller. I say: go full 5D and enjoy perfect ergonomics and controls.

Thin mount or EF mount: well catalogued here, Canon could go either way. No point debating that here.

Grip: See my prior graphic on P. 12 of this thread. Unless you only want to shoot with the 1-2 pancakes Canon gives you, there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.

- A

 

[Loswr]

...there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.

Unless you have really tiny hands. Let's see...a belief that his opinion is fact...refusal to acknowledge documented facts...frequently explains his viewpoints and actions by citing 'alternate facts'...wants a really tiny camera grip. AvTvM, do you happen to orange skin, too?

 

[AvTvM]

nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter.

Canon will use this chance to sell the next 150 million lenses. it will work much faster with a new mount and new lenses rather than trying to sell only slightly improved versions of previous EF lenses.

And customers are getting their share as well. Better cameras. Smaller kits [if and when desired]. Got big hands? Want a chunky camera? Just put a [battery] grip on your camera and you're set.

As far as solid state: as soon as we have [good, FF-size] sensors with global shutter, camera body will be 100% mechanics free. Except for the actuator wheels and function buttons.

Lenses ... aperture iris/diaphragm will stay for a while. But eventually it will give way to some electro-transmissive screen with a perfectly circular, variable size aperture hole. Sun stars may be added in software then. Bye, bye 20th century.

 

[ahsanford]

...there is zero space savings to pursue a tiny grip and doing so would reduce battery real estate. There is no reason not to go big and chunky here.

Unless you have really tiny hands. Let's see...a belief that his opinion is fact...refusal to acknowledge documented facts...frequently explains his viewpoints and actions by citing 'alternate facts'...wants a really tiny camera grip. AvTvM, do you happen to orange skin, too?

 

[ahsanford]

nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter.

Adaptors are not migration. You wanted to 'do another FD-EF migration' which implies building a ton of new lenses for mirrorless. That is a bad idea for Canon, for photographers already invested in EF, etc.

Canon will use this chance to sell the next 150 million lenses. it will work much faster with a new mount and new lenses rather than trying to sell only slightly improved versions of previous EF lenses.

So making new mounts makes lenses faster. Do go on. So is it more power to the AF that will crush the battery even faster, or will the mount actually change the laws of physics and make the max aperture even faster?

And customers are getting their share as well. Better cameras. Smaller kits [if and when desired]. Got big hands? Want a chunky camera? Just put a [battery] grip on your camera and you're set.

1) Smaller is lovely for those that want it. You don't need to migrate the entire EF --> new mount to enjoy a smaller rig. You just need a handful of smaller mount lenses.

2) Handgrip and a vertical grip are two very different things. A beefier handgrip is great, but for many, a vertical grip is not -- that forces us into larger/different bags. And yes, there are low-profile tripod-mount-threaded beefier grips for mirrorless rigs, but you're stuck with a much smaller battery than if the bigger grip was simply integral. Enjoy your smaller footprint rig for the time you are using the 1-2 pancakes that are offered, but your grip and battery life will suffer for everything else.

- A

 

[Loswr]

nobody will have to "walk away" from Canon EF lenses. They will all remain functional. Just as today on EOS M / EF-M mount with help a little adapter.

If Canon stops making EF lenses but continues making EF-mount dSLRs, that's "walking away". It means new bodies, no new lenses for dSLRs. I'm sure that dumber ideas have been suggested on the internet...but not many.

Regardless, it's clear from the dramatic rate of increase in the global MILC market that Canon will be jumping whole hog into MILC bodies and lenses and abandoning the dSLR market very soon. Why, just look at those dramatic increases in the MILC market over the last several years... : : :

 

[Sporgon]

Moving to mirrorless *is* a major upgrade compared to mirrorslappers.

When done right, only mirrorless offers all of the following. DSLRs do not.
* seeing image as it will be recorded by camera [EVFs will soon be so stunningly good, most of us will never want to use an OVF again]
* absolutely no vibrations
* absolutely no noise - without performance hit [as opposed to mirrorslapper silent Live view move
* smaller kit possible [compared to mirrorslappers]: slim body + compact lenses; big lenses can also be used when needed or preferred, no worries

You could equally state:

Moving to dslr *is* a major upgrade compared with mirrorless.

You could then list the reasons. I'm not going to because you know perfectly well what they are, and I don't have a degree in the Bleeding Obvious.

I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but mainly because it is so small and light. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.

One is not overwhelmingly better than the other in every way. it really is personal preference at present, and from my experience so far Canon is on the money in following the "mirrorless is about small" philosophy.

 

[AvTvM]

I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but mainly because it is so small and light. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.

Same here! I also have a mirrorless camera and a DSLR ... both Canon of course, EOS M (1st gen) and 5D3.
BUT ... if I could only have one, I would take the mirrorless system, because it is so small and light.

27% of camera buyers in 2016 took the same choice, even if it meant, they had to buy a skinny EOS M, Oly, Fuji, Panasonic or worst of all, a Sony mirrorless camera ... instead of a lovely, wonderful, well-rounded Canon mirrorslapper with a chunky body and a chunky grip. ;D

 

[Sporgon]

I have both mirrorless and dslr. I do like the former but mainly because it is so small and light. If I could only have one, at the present time, I would choose the dslr.

Same here! I also have a mirrorless camera and a DSLR ... both Canon of course, EOS M (1st gen) and 5D3.
BUT ... if I could only have one, I would take the mirrorless system, because it is so small and light.

27% of camera buyers in 2016 took the same choice, even if it meant, they had to buy a skinny EOS M, Oly, Fuji, Panasonic or worst of all, a Sony mirrorless camera ... instead of a lovely, wonderful, well-rounded Canon mirrorslapper with a chunky body and a chunky grip. ;D

You can buy a Pentax KP dslr now without a chunky grip !

 

[AvTvM]

You can buy a Pentax KP dslr now without a chunky grip !

If I want it chunky, I take a Fuji GFX 50S. without da mirror, of course. ;D

 

[Mikehit]

AvTvM tactics: make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Canon will introduce a new camera mount to go with FF mirrorless. And when people explain how uneconomic that is, don't bother defending the original statement but claim instead that they are saying mirrorless will not happen at all and argue why mirrorless as a genre is a good idea.

Problem is, no-one is arguing the latter point.

 

[ahsanford]

AvTvM tactics: make a totally unsubstantiated claim that Canon will introduce a new camera mount to go with FF mirrorless. And when people explain how uneconomic that is, don't bother defending the original statement but claim instead that they are saying mirrorless will not happen at all and argue why mirrorless as a genre is a good idea.

Problem is, no-one is arguing the latter point.

Mike, in fairness to AvTvM, a new mount for FF mirrorless could conceivably happen. I think it's a 50-50 call despite what a forum full of FF SLR owners with a boatload of EF glass has to say about it.

And I agree with AvTvM that mirrorless (eventually) will take over the majority the SLR market. It's inevitable for a host of reasons, though I think the highest-end SLRs will always remain.

I just disagree that EF will go bye-bye in the near, mid, long-term. That is not happening.

- A

 

[GaabNZ]

I brought the Sony A7mkii last year and kept my Canon 6D for a couple of months to make sure I liked it.

I sold the 6D and am shooting the Sony all the time now. I'm only a hobbyist photographer, but I love the Sony and some of the features it has over the 6D.

I'm still shooting with my Canon glass and have brought a couple of very cheap Minolta lenses and a couple of native Sony lenses.

I recently upgraded my EF adapter to the Sigma MC11 and am now getting much better AF with my Canon glass.

I will be very interested to see what the 6D mkii is like with or without a mirror. I had a lot of fun and took some great shots with my 6D and learnt a lot about photography.

For me, I don't regret moving to the Sony, but I would never say I wouldn't go back if the camera suited what I wanted it for.

 

[moreorless]

Mike, in fairness to AvTvM, a new mount for FF mirrorless could conceivably happen. I think it's a 50-50 call despite what a forum full of FF SLR owners with a boatload of EF glass has to say about it.

And I agree with AvTvM that mirrorless (eventually) will take over the majority the SLR market. It's inevitable for a host of reasons, though I think the highest-end SLRs will always remain.

I just disagree that EF will go bye-bye in the near, mid, long-term. That is not happening.

- A

It does also come down to exactly what you mean by mirrorless and AvTvM and many others on the net seem of the view that this MUST mean a new lens mount where as personally I think this is much more questionable. When you talk of mirrorless as a shift forward in tech similar to the shift to digital and then you reduce it to "the lens must be close to the sensor" it really doesn't sound so revolutionary does it?

The Pentax K-01 will probably be mentioned by someone but again I think APSC is a very different kettle of fish to FF. The K-01 was targeting the ultra compact APSC mirrorless market that's made possible by the smaller lenses and indeed by users being happier with fewer controls.

FF mirrorless with a DSLR mount is I think a very different proposition, lens size and demand for more controls/grip mean that FF mirrorless is simply not aiming at the ultra small size APSC mirrorless does and the larger flange distance seems to very often result in shorter lenses as well.

Where I think FF mirrorless scores most with size saving isn't actually the flange distance reduction but rather the removal of the mirror, prism and AF sensor as the larger the format becomes the larger they become. You compare the Sony A7 system to a 6D with similar lenses and the size saving is mostly not in depth but rather in the weight/bulk/height of the body.

So you could have an EF mount mirrorless and still enjoy these advantages whilst not having to develop a new lens lineup.

 

[dak723]

It seems that a large number of Sony A7 users are using an adapter and their Canon and other brand lenses. So, the saving in size with a shorter flange distance is negated - and not an issue or consideration. As other have mentioned, it is the width and height (and perhaps most importantly, the weight savings) that are more important for those wanting a smaller FF camera. And wanting a smaller FF camera does not mean it has to be as small as an MFT or crop mirrorless. Just smaller than the current 6D. That is what I would be looking for.

Since users of the Sony models seem happy with using an adapter, Canon should pay attention. The camera can still be smaller where it counts, but without the problems the smaller flange distance creates. Therefore it seems a no-brainer for Canon to stay with the EF mount if they decide to go FF mirrorless.

 

[Mikehit]

It seems that a large number of Sony A7 users are using an adapter and their Canon and other brand lenses. So, the saving in size with a shorter flange distance is negated - and not an issue or consideration. As other have mentioned, it is the width and height (and perhaps most importantly, the weight savings) that are more important for those wanting a smaller FF camera. And wanting a smaller FF camera does not mean it has to be as small as an MFT or crop mirrorless. Just smaller than the current 6D. That is what I would be looking for.

Since users of the Sony models seem happy with using an adapter, Canon should pay attention. The camera can still be smaller where it counts, but without the problems the smaller flange distance creates. Therefore it seems a no-brainer for Canon to stay with the EF mount if they decide to go mirrorless.

Which begs the question, if they are happy putting their 70-200 on the Sony body, how much size/weight are they actually saving percentage wise? For example, the difference in the bag you need will be minimal to negligible.